Personally I wouldn't call a wheelchair a vehicle for purposes of this question, but I think some people would call a wheelchair a vehicle, yes.
After all, bicycles are clearly vehicles, and bicycles and wheelchairs are both things with metal frames, wheels and seats designed to convey humans around under their own power.
Other than the placement of the wheels, the main difference is the character of its use.
> I think some people would call a wheelchair a vehicle
I think, just being overly annoying and literal, that the game shouldn't be answered by asking whether anyone would call a wheelchair a vehicle, but whether a wheelchair is a vehicle in the sense meant in the rule statement. I don't think it is, personally, though it's probably the closest non-vehicle in the list.
Strictly speaking, by the definition of "would anyone call this object a vehicle", every single thing on the list is a vehicle, because apparently at least ~2% of the quiz respondents said they were vehicles - including kites!
Speed and impact on the user are meaningful differences. I don't like bikes in parks (except those designed for them) because the bikes are moving much faster than anything else. For that reason I might feel that a small child on a bike is more permissible than an adult. Also that the carried skateboard is not a violation - I understand the rule to be about vehicle use more than presence
> I understand the rule to be about vehicle use more than presence
Which I guess is part of the point - the rule specifically does not say anything about use, only presence - but people (including me) are still interpreting the rule with a "usage" axis. Perfect demonstration that the "simple rules for Internet content that are easy to apply" assertion has fallen over at the first hurdle.
I said, no. A wheelchair is not a vehicle. In my opinion, the wheelchair is an extension of the person, and not a separate object as long as it is being used by someone who needs it.
This seems a fun direction of thought. So does it cease to become a vehicle as soon as someone sits in it, and resume its functionality as a vehicle as soon as it is abandoned?
Since the preamble mentioned this was a test of language literalness, before I answered the question, I looked up the definition of “vehicle”: “A means of carrying or transporting something” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vehicle
While it might be uncommon to call a wheelchair a vehicle, it fits the literal definition. I don’t understand the ‘extension of the person’ rationale, you’re still using the word ‘wheelchair’, and it’s obviously a separate object from a person. How would that rationale differ if you were talking about cars? Can I argue a car is an extension of me as long as I’m using it while I need it?
Does a wheelchair become a vehicle if somebody who _can_ walk without it sits in it? Does that mean everyone in wheelchairs must be harassed (to find out if they need it)?
What is your definition of need? If I need to meet friends in the park in five minutes I clearly need a car to get there in time. So the car would not be a vehicle in that case?
It isn't so clear to me. If it conveys a human in any way that humans don't naturally move unassisted then in my mind it qualifies as a conveyance and hence a vehicle, especially in the sense of the the French véhicule, from Latin vehiculum (“a carriage, conveyance”), from vehere (“to carry”)
Kites, toy cars and toy boats are toys (to me). Slippers, skis and skates are footwear. A toboggan isn't normally attached to a person's body, so a vehicle.
Drones and balloons I would say are in the park, whereas aircraft (at normal altitudes) I would say are not. Unfortunately: I'd like more parks to have a protected square inch of silence.
Personally I wouldn't call a wheelchair a vehicle for purposes of this question, but I think some people would call a wheelchair a vehicle, yes.
After all, bicycles are clearly vehicles, and bicycles and wheelchairs are both things with metal frames, wheels and seats designed to convey humans around under their own power.
Other than the placement of the wheels, the main difference is the character of its use.
> I think some people would call a wheelchair a vehicle
I think, just being overly annoying and literal, that the game shouldn't be answered by asking whether anyone would call a wheelchair a vehicle, but whether a wheelchair is a vehicle in the sense meant in the rule statement. I don't think it is, personally, though it's probably the closest non-vehicle in the list.
Strictly speaking, by the definition of "would anyone call this object a vehicle", every single thing on the list is a vehicle, because apparently at least ~2% of the quiz respondents said they were vehicles - including kites!
Speed and impact on the user are meaningful differences. I don't like bikes in parks (except those designed for them) because the bikes are moving much faster than anything else. For that reason I might feel that a small child on a bike is more permissible than an adult. Also that the carried skateboard is not a violation - I understand the rule to be about vehicle use more than presence
> I understand the rule to be about vehicle use more than presence
Which I guess is part of the point - the rule specifically does not say anything about use, only presence - but people (including me) are still interpreting the rule with a "usage" axis. Perfect demonstration that the "simple rules for Internet content that are easy to apply" assertion has fallen over at the first hurdle.
Yes, I think it's reasonable to consider a wheelchair to be a vehicle. Especially the motorized ones.
I said, no. A wheelchair is not a vehicle. In my opinion, the wheelchair is an extension of the person, and not a separate object as long as it is being used by someone who needs it.
This seems a fun direction of thought. So does it cease to become a vehicle as soon as someone sits in it, and resume its functionality as a vehicle as soon as it is abandoned?
Since the preamble mentioned this was a test of language literalness, before I answered the question, I looked up the definition of “vehicle”: “A means of carrying or transporting something” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vehicle
While it might be uncommon to call a wheelchair a vehicle, it fits the literal definition. I don’t understand the ‘extension of the person’ rationale, you’re still using the word ‘wheelchair’, and it’s obviously a separate object from a person. How would that rationale differ if you were talking about cars? Can I argue a car is an extension of me as long as I’m using it while I need it?
2 replies →
Does a wheelchair become a vehicle if somebody who _can_ walk without it sits in it? Does that mean everyone in wheelchairs must be harassed (to find out if they need it)?
So whether it's a vehicle depends on how well the person in it can walk? I don't know about that. I'd rather just give exceptions.
1 reply →
What is your definition of need? If I need to meet friends in the park in five minutes I clearly need a car to get there in time. So the car would not be a vehicle in that case?
Roller skates are clearly not a vehicle. Similarly, neither is a wheelchair. They are not reasonably separable form the person using them.
A bicycle actually goes on roads, follow rules and get a ticket for jumping a red light.
The person riding the bicycle does those things, the bicycle is a tool. A tool can't follow rules.
You can take roller skates off, get out of a wheelchair, and get off a bicycle.
Imagine you were wearing roller skates being pulled by a dog.
Imagine you were sitting in a chair, with a roller skate bound to each leg of the chair, rolling down a hill.
Imagine you were a flea in a roller skate rolling down a hill.
Imagine you were a dog in a wheelchair rolling down a hill.
Imagine you were a flea on a dog in a chair with roller skates on its legs rolling down a hill.
> Roller skates are clearly not a vehicle
I don't think that's particularly clear and I think a non-negligible number of people would disagree
It isn't so clear to me. If it conveys a human in any way that humans don't naturally move unassisted then in my mind it qualifies as a conveyance and hence a vehicle, especially in the sense of the the French véhicule, from Latin vehiculum (“a carriage, conveyance”), from vehere (“to carry”)
1 reply →
I wouldn't ordinarily define a wheelchair as a vehicle. But I looked up a definition:
a thing used for transporting people or goods
On this basis, I conclude that wheelchairs, roller skates and carried skatebords are vehicles, and horses are not (as thing implies non-sentience).
And what about after we get AGI on a computer in a car? Is Nightrider's KITT not a vehicle?
An excellent question!
A wheelchair is used for transporting a person.
What if the user wasn’t disabled?
Or if it was motorised?
Would anyone not call it a vehicle?
Because the vernacular definition of 'vehicle' in this context does not include crutches, wheelchairs, kites, or slippers.
It might include a powered mobility scooter.
Kites, toy cars and toy boats are toys (to me). Slippers, skis and skates are footwear. A toboggan isn't normally attached to a person's body, so a vehicle.
Drones and balloons I would say are in the park, whereas aircraft (at normal altitudes) I would say are not. Unfortunately: I'd like more parks to have a protected square inch of silence.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Square_Inch_of_Silence
1. https://onesquareinch.org/
What’s the difference between a powered mobility scooter and a modern wheelchair?
3 replies →