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.
It's honestly blowing my mind right now that anyone could interpret as a bike as anything but a vehicle. What else would it be? What is a railroad handcar? What is a paddleboat? What is a cycle saloon?
A "gotcha" comment, but that only adds to the author's point. Which luckily this wasn't one of the examples. Though see back to my comment about the items I said no for (that aren't confused for being outside the part like the ISS)
I know this is a "gotcha" comment, but it actually only adds to the author's point: language is fuzzy and imprecise. Moreso, that we assume it has far higher precision than it actually does.
We can think of communication as having 3 main components. 1) the intended concept being intended to convey. This is in the person's head. 2) The fuzzy compression mode (language) that is used to convey said thought. Be that words, writing, or interpretive dance. 3) The fuzzy decoder that turns the language into a thought in another being's head. This is filled with priors and assumptions that fill in many of the gaps.
The thing about this is that we usually learn to speak in pretty localized groups, meaning that our priors align and we have a lot of good faith (attempting to interpret intent rather than interpreting the words). But with a larger audience we have higher variance that makes what is obvious a priori a disastrous outcome. "Everybody knows" is not something everyone knows. https://xkcd.com/1053/
But in many many jurisdiction bicycles is explicitly a vehicle. One that people over certain age cannot drive on sidewalks and must use road. Or designated ways. Ofc, it is also banned in some places.
Also it sometimes acts unlike pedestrian like having to yield to cars when crossing safety crossings.
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.
I can't fanthom how a "no vehicles" sign would NOT apply to bicycles. What else would you call a bicycle if not a vehicle? It would be clear to me that park is catering to pedestrians and not cyclists (or car drivers).
I similarly can't fathom how a bicycle is anything other than a vehicle. It has wheels and gears, it's a machine, it speeds you up significantly, you get one an off it, you have to learn to ride it, it can carry additional items. And you have to follow traffic rules (which is like circular reasoning but shows that governments say it is a vehicle).
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
“No rhetorical vehicles in the park” is … quite the interpretation
It's honestly blowing my mind right now that anyone could interpret as a bike as anything but a vehicle. What else would it be? What is a railroad handcar? What is a paddleboat? What is a cycle saloon?
9 replies →
By this rule I can't bring a newspaper into the park
> 3. a medium through which something is expressed, achieved, or displayed
A "gotcha" comment, but that only adds to the author's point. Which luckily this wasn't one of the examples. Though see back to my comment about the items I said no for (that aren't confused for being outside the part like the ISS)
So no one can bring their legs into the park, as they are a means of transporting things?
"Carrier" is also a very broad term, no human carrying anything is allowed in the park then.
I know this is a "gotcha" comment, but it actually only adds to the author's point: language is fuzzy and imprecise. Moreso, that we assume it has far higher precision than it actually does.
We can think of communication as having 3 main components. 1) the intended concept being intended to convey. This is in the person's head. 2) The fuzzy compression mode (language) that is used to convey said thought. Be that words, writing, or interpretive dance. 3) The fuzzy decoder that turns the language into a thought in another being's head. This is filled with priors and assumptions that fill in many of the gaps.
The thing about this is that we usually learn to speak in pretty localized groups, meaning that our priors align and we have a lot of good faith (attempting to interpret intent rather than interpreting the words). But with a larger audience we have higher variance that makes what is obvious a priori a disastrous outcome. "Everybody knows" is not something everyone knows. https://xkcd.com/1053/
Are shoes a vehicle ?
are the shoes carrying you? Or are you carrying the shoe?
Skateboard is harder.
But in many many jurisdiction bicycles is explicitly a vehicle. One that people over certain age cannot drive on sidewalks and must use road. Or designated ways. Ofc, it is also banned in some places.
Also it sometimes acts unlike pedestrian like having to yield to cars when crossing safety crossings.
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.
The two traffic signs recognised under international convention are "No vehicles" and "No motor vehicles".
The first excludes pedal cycles.
I can't fanthom how a "no vehicles" sign would NOT apply to bicycles. What else would you call a bicycle if not a vehicle? It would be clear to me that park is catering to pedestrians and not cyclists (or car drivers).
I'd call it a bicycle.
I similarly can't fathom how a bicycle is anything other than a vehicle. It has wheels and gears, it's a machine, it speeds you up significantly, you get one an off it, you have to learn to ride it, it can carry additional items. And you have to follow traffic rules (which is like circular reasoning but shows that governments say it is a vehicle).