Hacker News Reader

Comment by bscphil | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

In the absence of a definition of vehicle I chose to define it as any device that is a conveyance. Thus a wagon, rowboat, and skateboard are all vehicles in the park (even if not in use).

However, the tank was not functional. Since it cannot convey it is therefore not a conveyance and therefore not a vehicle. It’s only shaped like a familiar one.

I matched the majority only 11% of the time.

I can't find any definition of tank that doesn't describe it as an armored fighting vehicle. If it's a tank, it's a vehicle. If it's not a vehicle, don't call it a tank.

The scenario said tank. A tank is a vehicle. No vehicles in the park.

Edit: I matched 11% as well!

Does the tank ever become not a vehicle? Rusted to the frame?

In my view no matter what the tank originally was, it ceases to be a vehicle when it can no longer act as a conveyance. A tank (and any vehicle) is not just a form, but a function. Is a car with no motor, no tires, no transmission a vehicle? I do not believe so, because it cannot and lacks the possibility of moving without a substantial transformation.

Is a bicycle only a vehicle if equipped with a human?

The bicycle is quite capable of acting as conveyance for a human (or perhaps bicycle peddling robot, or trained animal) in its current form, so that's an easy "no" from me.

As I said, if the thing can (i.e., without significant, non-trivial alterations to its current form) act as conveyance then it is a vehicle. It need not be in the act of conveyance, nor must it have an independent means of propulsion.

Edit: my simple rule breaks down when thinking about a flat piece of wood attached to rope. My mind says that's only a vehicle if someone chooses to use it as such for pulling objects or people. I'll leave the search for a universal maxim to others, it seems.

Interestingly, in Brazil's transit code a person carrying their bycicle unmounted is considered a pedestrian. Otherwise, they're a non motorized light vehicle.

Belgian traffic code says "Het niet bereden rijwiel wordt niet als voertuig beschouwd.", i.e. "The bicycle that is not ridden is not regarded as a vehicle." When you walk next to your bicycle, you're effectively a pedestrian here. No idea how things are defined in other countries.

Pretty sure that bit’s broken. Anyone seen it give any other value than 11%?

A memorial tank is not a vehicle, it’s a metal sculpture. The intended use is no longer to move, but rather to sit there.

I applied the same mental model and also ended with 11%. It's a vehicle if it is transporting people, things, or itself (e.g., the R/C car).

> It's a vehicle if it is transporting people, things, or itself (e.g., the R/C car).

If transporting oneself counts, are all the people in the park vehicles? And all other animals, down to the microorganisms, that are capable of self-transport?

Or I suppose even in the case of transporting other things, people would count as vehicles if they are carrying anything or wearing clothes?

I realize this is the point this article was making, but I must say this is exactly the level of pedantic-as-the-point conversation that I no long put up with in my adult life.

The 11% seemed odd to me... I selected only 3 violators: the car, the ambulance, and the police car, and those seem to be the only majority-chosen violators according to the graph so I would think I matched 100%?

A non functional tank. It is the same as a painting of a tank or a statue.

A broken car is still a car! If I pushed a broken down Honda Civic into the park with the gear shift set to neutral and left it there, surely that would break the rule?

Is a sculpture of a car a vehicle? The broken car is still a car because the intent of the thing is stop to be a car. A memorial tank is not intended to be a vehicle, but rather be a sculpture. A sculpture is usually not a vehicle, even if it may look like one.

I was similar, a bicycle is a vehicle and I even called the toycar a vehicle because I think they were talking about those cars kids build and race down hills. I was considering more about "how is this typically powered?" and "what is the F=ma if it hit someone?"

If it's typically not human powered, a human typically rides it, it's typically heavy, and typically accelerates enough to seriously injure another person with minimal damage to yourself it's a vehicle. That's why skateboards and horses aren't vehicles but the bike and toy car was. Even the bike is dicey but it's fairly unanimous throughout the world that a bike is a vehicle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com