The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by benj111 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:33 AM UTC

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.

It's still breaking the rule though. Legally I suspect it varies between jurisdictions whether the sign doesn't apply to them, it does apply but conflicts with another rule, or whether it's argued as an extenuating circumstance.

Then there's the edge cases like bikes and horses.

Are they vehicles? It's completely reasonable that they could be deemed to be.

We've got the same kind of argument going on with e scooters at the moment.

Ultimately I answered a lot of these based on what I would expect to see in a park, and what I think is reasonable. But they aren't objective measures.

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

#522

Post by Hermitian909 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:35 AM UTC

Qwertious wrote: post #400

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 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. I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules, because they are. The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal ri…

> The obvious explanation is that the cops/ambulances have a set of rules that take priority over the park's rules

I prefer the following quote as an explanation: "There are no rules, only consequences." There are no consequences for an ambulance entering the park because everyone agrees it is right that it should do so.

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

#523

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:35 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #489

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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.

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

#524

Post by zuminator » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:37 AM UTC

aerio wrote: post #510

natch wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More split than what? Only 11% agreed with my correct answers. Seems pretty split to me and I can only see the results for one person.

Ah, a fellow member of the elite 11%! Now, I wonder which specific items we agreed on, if any.

I also was 11%. For me I only counted car, police, ambulance, bike, wagon and horse as vehicles.

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

#525

Post by spuz » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:39 AM UTC

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

Obviously some people think bicycles are vehicles and some don't. For this reason, I applied the logic that if the park wanted to ban vehicles including bikes, they would write "No vehicles, no cycles" and so while I think a bike is a vehicle, I don't think it violates the intent behind the "no vehicles" rule.

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

#526

Post by chii » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:39 AM UTC

az226 wrote: post #479

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…

Ehm. I answered that the cop and ambulance were in violation of the rule, but it’s sometimes okay to break the rules. That doesn’t mean they didn’t break the rules — it means they were justified in breaking the rules.

in other words, there's two pieces here, 1) the rule, 2) the consequences of breaking the rule.

It is agreed that the rule (1) is broken by emergency vehicles. It is unknown that (2) is in effect (it is not described in the scenario), but people would assume that there's no consequences for emergency vehicles breaking the rule.

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

#527

Post by throwaway6835-8 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:40 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #495

jstanley wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, small children annoy people with bikes, because some people try to take small children where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.

Parks should not be inappropriate places for children.

Like having lakes?

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

#528

Post by raphman » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:40 AM UTC

torton wrote: post #323

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…

I agree with this take. Most questions were very obvious when thought about from the angle of "what is the intent of the rule", which is likely to be "let people enjoy the park by not allowing large, noisy, smelly conveyances". Bikes, kites, monuments, Radio Flyers, etc. do not violate the intent. A tank is clearly a vehicle but doesn't violate the intent because it does not interfere with people enjoying the park. A…

I think we are all proving the author's point here.

For my decisions, the assumed intent of the rule was slightly different than yours: no potentially fast-moving objects that might cause severe accidents.

So: no cars, no bikes, no skateboards. RC toy cars with low mass are okay. Rowing boats are not okay because they might harm swimming people. The surfboard on the beach is okay because it is not moving fast within the park. Etc.

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

#529

Post by raphman » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:43 AM UTC

zuminator wrote: post #524

aerio wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, a fellow member of the elite 11%! Now, I wonder which specific items we agreed on, if any.

I also was 11%. For me I only counted car, police, ambulance, bike, wagon and horse as vehicles.

Also got 11% - what does this number actually express?

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

#530

Post by jtrn » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:43 AM UTC

There is two levels of moderation in my mind. The first is to logical/ mathematically determine if the rule is broken, with goal of amoraly just answer if the rule is broken (binary). The second step is to determine the degree of rigidity/flexibility.

So by my logic the rule is broken when the ambulance drives into the park, but the leeway of the moderator to allow this should be apparent.

The way this thought experiment is framed, it seemed that you where supposed to only determine if the rule was broken. I think a more realistic way of framing the problem for a moderator would be something like: As security guard in a park, given this rule, would you allow ...

If the game was framed in this way I'm guessing the agreement would go way up.