Hacker News Reader

Comment by torton | Hacker News Reader

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. And rules do not apply to on-duty emergency vehicles.

Clearly not everybody thinks about the intent, and many people focus on discussing the nitpicking corner cases of the rules, or thinking about the definition of a vehicle or "being in the park" (see also "what is a sandwich"). That's okay, and that proves the author's point that moderation is not a mathematical problem with a single formally provable solution.

View on HN

Bikes do annoy people with small children because some people try to ride bikes fast where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.

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?

There are all kinds of parks. I would argue you should probably not be letting a 5 year old loose on a biking path which would seem to me to mean it is an inappropriate place for (some) children.

What kind of park has a biking path, I wonder to myself. I personally have never seen it; generally, paths are either mixed use or pedestrian only. Mixed use is fine, for people who go at an appropriate pace when in proximity to pedestrians, but some people treat mixed paths as an entitlement. It's more common for paths that are on commutes.

> What kind of park has a biking path

Chicago Lakefront.

So if child A starts hitting other children is it still appropriate for child A to be there?

You're creating a hard and fast rule that X group should always be allowed, the parent was saying all groups should behave reasonably towards each other.

I think the parents view is more reasonable. You could still take the view that bikes will always be dangerous to children, at that point you can then decide whether to prioritise children or bikes.

nor bikes

In other words, absent any actual formal specified intent, people interpret the rules to best suit their own self-interest.

if you got kids at the park, you'd imagine bikes as being a nuisance. If you're the one riding the bike, you'd imagine the park is meant for you to enjoy and thus the boke isnt a nuisance.

This is exactly the point being made by the questionaire!

Those people get annoyed by everything and try to impose on people and prevent joy in the world.

Bikes riding fast in parks and murdering children does not happen anywhere at any significant scale. It's a made up fear, just like the "stranger danger" of the past.

Anger at cyclists for driving fast and breaking laws is an emotional response to feeling jealous that bikes are zipping past them while they're sitting there waiting in traffic for 10 minutes at a red light.

How often do you see motorists get pissed off and honk at other motorists running a red or yellow on a left hand turn? They want people to break the law in that instance but will honk at cyclists for the most minor of transgressions. That's all they proof I need to conclude motorists don't give a shit about the law or safety (the classic I just want cyclists to follow the law because if they don't I can hurt them and I'll have to live with a guilty conscience! defense) and care more about reducing their travel times.

This is only true until an old grumpy lady is sitting on a bench in the park and don't want to hear any more skateboard noise. From that point on there is someone who considers skateboarding a violation of this rule.

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.

Absolutely.

And we're showing why the author is correct: because a lot of people jump to conclusions, hold fast to their assumptions, and assume everyone else thinks like them; even after having had it all clearly explained with a tailor-made interactive game, and even in the face of abundant direct evidence to the contrary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com