Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

novehiclesinthepark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#711

Post by tetha »

ilyt wrote: post #655
tetha wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just made me look up the rules in germany. The wording is somewhat particular. "An emergency vehicle following a higher cause can invoke special rights ("Sonderrechte") indicated by blue flashing lights. These special rights authorize the driver of the vehicle to divert from the regular traffic laws as long as done safely." Interestingly, this is separate from the "Right of the way", which can be ordered on top u…

> which can be ordered on top using a siren. This is why they need to run the siren for 2ish seconds before running a red light for example. Pretty sure that's because people need time to notice the siren and take appropriate action, not because of some rule

It's both of that. It has been determined that 2 seconds of siren should be enough for everyone on an in intersection to realize what's going on.

And that's why there is a rule for drivers of emergency vehicles to sound the siren for at least 2 to 3 seconds when approaching an intersection with an intent to disregard other peoples right of way. The rule for normal traffic partakers is very much "If it flashes blue and has music, get the hell out of the way as fast as you can without endangering yourself"

This rule in turn is in contrast with the overall suggestion to keep siren usage low, because it's loud, disturbing for bystanders and not great for the hearing of the people inside the car.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#712

Post by Dah00n »

mrtksn wrote: post #566
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why there is a difference between rules and guidelines. Guidelines are suggestions. They're all about intent. "Don't have live music after midnight" isn't a ridiculous guideline for COVID, because it usually implies a gathering. It is a ridiculous rule because rules have to be rigid and well defined, because rules are enforced . Squishy rules aren't rules, they're covert dictatorial powers.

Well, the consensus is that the no music after midnight rule was an attempt to squash the western lifestyle(it had serious impact on the livelihood of the musicians and the venues). At places where the rule was enforced people simply continue their night somewhere without live music. It made no sense in the context of Covid, it made sense in the context of islamist trying to destroy the non-islamists. Anyway, what's…

>At places where the rule was enforced people simply continue their night somewhere without live music.

Live music doesn't / didn't attract more people in closer proximity than areas with no live music? Did everyone still go to the same place and sat there in silence? That sounds very unlikely, but I have never been to Turkey.

>It made no sense in the context of Covid, it made sense in the context of islamist trying to destroy the non-islamists.

This is tied to the above, but who made the consensus that this was the point of the rule? Without a source of the consensus and to someone who have never been there it flies in the face of logic. Surely fewer people would go to, say, a British park Saturday evening if there's no music event there than if there is a band playing. Without some context, it reads to me like this post is anti-islamist and bashing Turkey for a rule that seem to have been enforced in one way or another in most of the west under COVID. As far as I know, every festival was shut down and events with music or other entertainment had to jump through lots of hoops or be shutdown too. How is this rule different?

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#713

Post by laurentlb »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #367
jrm4 wrote: post #243

Lawyer here. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. I teach legal research and I do some open discussions in the beginning and (no judgment of course) someone ALWAYS brings up "if they wrote the laws clearer..." nope. nope nope nope. This is not how it works.

You seriously don't think some clarity could have helped? Like, if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay, you think the quiz wouldn't have more consistent answers? Or maybe the rule was only supposed to be for things with motors/engines and after clarifying instantly 2/3 of the questions are an easy objective "allowed". You can't fix subjectivity, but you can reduce it, and this…

> if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay

The quizz would have asked questions about the new edge-cases (created by the additional examples).

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#714

Post by tomp »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #523
mrtksn wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now you're assuming the intent. That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too smal…

This is why there is a difference between rules and guidelines. Guidelines are suggestions. They're all about intent. "Don't have live music after midnight" isn't a ridiculous guideline for COVID, because it usually implies a gathering. It is a ridiculous rule because rules have to be rigid and well defined, because rules are enforced . Squishy rules aren't rules, they're covert dictatorial powers.

It’s 100% ridiculous.

The virus doesn’t care when the gathering is happening.

So why would you forbid live music, or gatherings, but only after midnight?!

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#715

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435
crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

> Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…

> Now you're assuming the intent.

Maybe you’re not aware, but rules are all about intent. In a conflict over rules, the judge will be all about the intent.

Rules work very well towards revealing the intent of all parties involved.

It’s always about intent.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#716

Post by randallsquared »

The whole problem hinges on everyone who wants to use the park having to share the park as is. But that doesn't have to be the case with content moderation -- everyone could choose what rules and rule intent they want to subscribe to, if the content delivery was built that way. Hacker news has a very simple version of that: "show dead".

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#717

Post by graftak »

denysvitali wrote: post #684
graftak wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that scenario the duty to help citizens in need simply supersedes the rule that vehicles are not allowed in the park. So pedantically the EMT and police officer are breaking the rule, but breaking the rule of idly standing by in an emergency is worse. The reason to allow emergency vehicles to go through the park must then outweigh the benefit of the ‘no vehicles allowed rule’. Something trivial like a pedestrian i…

Yes, I'm not questioning whether in real life this sign would cause issues or not. The question is "Does this violate the rule?", To which the answer is "yes" for an ambulance. Whether it's fine in certain scenarios to break some rules it's a different topic though.

Whether it violates the rules depends on whether you live by the letter of the law, or the intent of the law. When it’s by the letter an ambulance is obviously violating that rule but that’s perhaps not the most sensible way of going about things.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#718

Post by spinach »

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

But what is the exact definition of "vehicle"?

In the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario "vehicle" is defined as: “vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car; (“véhicule”)

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08/v116#BK1

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#719

Post by ketzu »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #62

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that they broke the rule, but they still broke the rule. Yet some (45% of respondents) clearly think the rule wouldn't apply to them in the first place?

I think a questionaire telling you to ignore all preconceived notions about a topic in a note and then ask fairly unspecific questions about that, will have a lot of people answer without ignoring their preconceived notions about that.

I'd assume the answers would be different if the questions was phrased differently, restating the assumptions and some of the consequences, e.g., that there might be exceptions, we just don't look at them yet.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#720

Post by atchoo »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #685
jstummbillig wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The instructions read: > Every question is about a hypothetical park. The park has a rule: "No vehicles in the park." Your job is to determine if this rule has been violated. Violation of a rule is a logical operation. It's the answer that comes before the ", but ..." part. Things you explicitly don't have to do in the context of this game: - You don't have to like the rule - You don't have to consider exemptions (be…

I think it's a fascinating practical example of how "baked in" cognitive bias is. The sort of people that use HN tend to be highly analytical. Yet nonetheless we see a massive public display of people rationalizing their failure to directly answer the question that was very clearly and unambiguously asked while pretending that they did. The logical exercise is extremely close (by design) to one that commonly occurs i…

> pretending that they did

In psychology, different comprehension of what rules mean is a fundamental difference between personality types. It might better to accept that different people understand the world differently instead of sorting them into right and wrong by your own biases.

> They don't want to say "well a rule was violated but I'm exercising discretion"

From the other perspective, hyper-rationality is a dysfunction where excess analytical/logic/precision prevents an individual from understanding what language means or how to act in the real world. To believe a rule is violated "because of logic" instead of trying to understand intent would be an example of that.

Post reply on HN