Comment by fefe23
3 years ago
Fascinating exercise. During my first attempt I found that I had to look up the actual definition of vehicle.
I initially thought that a vehicle means someone is being transported by the vehicle, using an engine.
According to wikipedia vehicle also includes things being moved by muscle, and it is not limited to transporting persons, also wares.
I also changed my mind on whether a police or EMT falls under the rule. It obviously does. There has to be a second rule overriding this rule for those cases.
Also I changed my mind on the paraglider and the ISS. The ISS is a vehicle but it's over the park not in the park. The paraglider is a vehicle under my new understanding of the definition, and it does not matter whether the initial thrust came from when the paraglider was outside the park.
It also explains why the rules in the park near me prohibit _driving_ a bike in the park, not having one.
The legal definition of a vehicle can become relevant in some surprising ways under drunk driving laws. Most people assume that drunk driving laws are limited to driving an automobile, but in most states it simply refers to vehicles. Consequently, every now and again you get a story of someone being convicted of drunk driving when they have been bicycling while drunk. You can also be convicted of drunk driving for riding a horse while drunk (and people have been).
Does the legal definition include a sled going down a hill? If sleds, then skis aren't much of a stretch. And if skis, then shoes aren't much of a stretch.
When I was reading the dictionary definition, I got the sense that gravity isn't eligible as the motive force, and instead it would need to be someone exerting themselves (like pulling a wagon) or using stored energy (like an automobile). But sliding down a hill by gravity is indeed using stored energy, so I'd think that counts!
My reasoning was: Yes, an EMT violates the rule, but in an emergency rules don't necessarily apply anymore.