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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by raldi »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #358
raldi wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you didn't think a bicycle violated the rule, what about an e-bike? Or a fully battery-powered bike that doesn't require pedaling?

I love my fully battery powered ebike but I am well aware they are prohibited pretty much everywhere. When filling out the form I figured a bike is not a vehicle because they tend to be explicitly spelled out, but ebikes are more often prohibited (though in my area, not enforced), and my overpowered ebike is illegal everywhere, but I am respectful of others and there is no enforcement.

What about a bike that can provide thrust without pedaling, but you're not making use of that feature in the park?

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

#402

Post by manmal »

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…

> obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

That’s not so clear IMO. It depends on the severity and urgency of the accident, and whether there is a really prohibitive issue that entirely prevents heavy vehicles from entering, like quicksand or muddy ground that will get an EMT stuck.

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

#403

Post by bscphil »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #302
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…

Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

> even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule.

This is exactly right, I think, and in fact those who are focusing on the "intent" of the rule or on whether a violation of the rule is justified seem to have missed the clear wording of the instructions:

> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).

So the only questions that ever enter into it are (a) is this object a vehicle?, and (b) is the object in the park?

> a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

Interesting, my dividing line was that a bike is a vehicle but a wagon, rowboat, or skateboard are not. The majority seems to think both a bicycle and a memorial tank (??!) are not vehicles under the rule.

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

#404

Post by godelski »

willsmith72 wrote: post #378
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

What??? Please explain. I can't fathom how a no vehicles sign would apply to bicycles or skateboards

Allow me to introduce you to the dictionary[0]

Vehicle (noun)

1. a means of carrying or transporting something

...such as

... a: motor vehicle

... b: a piece of mechanized equipment

2 : an agent of transmission : carrier

3: a medium through which something is expressed, achieved, or displayed

----------------

You're thinking of specifically a __motorized__ vehicle. Which is a different thing than "vehicle". I think you'll agree that a bicycle and skateboard carry people and transport them. This is the same reason a wagon violates the rule. Almost everything on there was a vehicle. I think the only ambiguous ones are paper airplane, matchbox car, toy boat, and kite and I said those weren't because they can't transport things and are not motorized. But hey, technically they can be a medium through which someone expresses their joy.

No painting or dancing in the park.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vehicle

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

#405

Post by default-kramer »

godelski wrote: post #389
default-kramer wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read the instructions and I also assumed that I should use my judgment to determine whether the intent of the sign was violated. If the author had wanted otherwise, they should have said something like "Forget everything you about how laws are written and interpreted in the real world and simply take the most literal interpretation you can, with no regard for how ridiculous the outcome might be."

> If the author had wanted otherwise, they should have said something like "Forget everything you about how laws are written and interpreted in the real world and simply take the most literal interpretation you can, with no regard for how ridiculous the outcome might be." >> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rul…

>> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction.

But the park is somewhere on Earth, right? And the sign is written in English for humans to read and understand. Ignoring my personal locality/jurisdiction doesn't change this.

>> Or perhaps your religion allows certain rules to be overridden.

This one felt irrelevant to me.

>> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (__not whether the violation should be allowed__).

This tells me that my job is to determine whether the rule allows skateboards and not whether the rule should allow skateboards. This does not instruct me to be ridiculously literal while making that determination.

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

#406

Post by praptak »

logifail wrote: post #396
stickfigure wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, the question asks "does it violate the rule" not "should the vehicle be allowed in the park". Of course driving an ambulance into the park violates the rule - but it's ok the break the rule for emergencies! Which of course illustrates that in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply. Especially in content moderation.

> in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply I think it might be worse than that, there are sometimes rules which aren't actually rules which can still (sometimes!) override rules which are.

Dunno about other jurisdictions but the written Polish law actually has some quite prominent references to unwritten, socially defined rules, both in the civil and the criminal law.

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

#407

Post by manmal »

THENATHE wrote: post #399

I think this analogy kinda falls apart because in reality the rule “no vehicles” is for a reason. If “people could get hurt” is the reason for no vehicles, an RC car, a stroller, a quadcopter, and maybe even a hand pulled wagon is perfectly fine because the risk is very low. If “the noise will be an issue” is the reason, bikes are fine but a quadcopter is not. If “protecting the environment” is the problem, horses an…

Where I live, such signs are more specific. They prohibit either use of any motorized vehicle (which by law doesn’t include electrified bicycles that can go up to 25kph), or the use of bicycles, or both, or only prohibit cars, or only motorcycles, or only trucks above a certain weight.

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

#408

Post by rcme »

This “thought experiment” is painting a narrative using a false dichotomy. “I don’t know” is always a valid answer. The nice thing about rule based systems is that they can be augmented with additional rules. You don’t know wether or not a skateboard is a vehicle? That’s ok. We can add a new rule that defines that.

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

#409

Post by paulclinger »

andrewflnr wrote: post #254
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…

If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion. The point of rules is common understanding of what is acceptable. Notably, you pulled a bunch of special cases and refinements from thin air. The way I read the setup, it was "crystal clear" that the rule was violated by emergency services, even if we could agree afterwards not to enforce it there. And, yes, of course, moderation questions are muc…

I'm with the parent comment, as I think the context is important here.

If you think the emergency service vehicles violate the rule, how about a park maintenance vehicle or a park ranger vehicle? Would you say "no vehicles in the park" rule applies to them too, so they would be violating it?

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

#410

Post by tshaddox »

andrewflnr wrote: post #254
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…

If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion. The point of rules is common understanding of what is acceptable. Notably, you pulled a bunch of special cases and refinements from thin air. The way I read the setup, it was "crystal clear" that the rule was violated by emergency services, even if we could agree afterwards not to enforce it there. And, yes, of course, moderation questions are muc…

> If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion.

Well, no, people can just be wrong.

Post reply on HN