4 ms·

To me, if I see a rule trying to ban "vehicles" without defining "vehicles", I take my concept of "vehicles" by deduction: I think about all the ways that thing

by derefr 3y ago

To me, if I see a rule trying to ban "vehicles" without defining "vehicles", I take my concept of "vehicles" by deduction: I think about all the ways that things that I know of as being "vehicle-esque" could be problematic in various different ways such that you'd want to ban them — being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); property damage (skateboards, dirt bikes) — and then I guess that the "spirit of the law" is to put whatever requirements in place would be required to reduce the instances of those problems. The banning of certain explicit classes of vehicles is only a byproduct, not the end-goal, of such a rule; and so it doesn't actually matter what is or isn't a vehicle — the word "vehicle" in such a rule is acting as a conceptual stand-in for whatever things cause uniquely vehicle-in-the-park-ish problems; and anything that doesn't cause such problems, isn't "a vehicle." I find that this lens on rule enforcement is a useful guide, because whatever the text of the law ends up saying, the enforcement of the law will hew to the spirit that the text of the rule is being interpreted to have, by those charged with its enforcement. (I.e., the non-working tank is almost certainly a "vehicle" by any definition a bylaw would pose, but if they deliver it to the park on a non-damaging sled, let it sit there for a while, then haul it away on the same sled, then it's not causing any of the problems that "vehicles" cause, and so it's very unlikely that any bylaw-enforcement officer would actually ticket the owner of the tank for having it in the park.)

rlpb 3y ago
I think you might have arrived at the Mischief rule of statutory interpretation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule).
- thunderbong 3y ago
  This is seriously an amazing rule! Down the Wikipedia rabbit hole for now!
hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
But this depends on "in what context am I being asked whether a rule is violated"? I didn't start out knowing I was doing content moderation for a website or I might've answered those differently.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); Well, there are many possible options, so this does not help unless you know which issue was bothering the rule-makers. I know a park that allows horses but not bicycles.
bentcorner 3y ago
It's interesting to think about the same sign and "vehicle" in different contexts could have different answers. For example, the same sign in a school hallway leading to an enclosed play area for kindergartners would most certainly result in more violations.
yieldcrv 3y ago
[flagged]
chrismorgan 3y ago
The problem is that it won’t always be enforced that way. For example: in the city of Melbourne, there are sometimes signs instructing cyclists to dismount (e.g. at railway level crossings), or that you aren’t permitted to cycle in such-and-such a place (e.g. railway platform). Their illustrations always depict an upright bicycle. I ride a recumbent tricycle, which the Road Safety Road Rules considers to be a bicycle. The reasons for dismounting simply don’t apply: my wheels won’t get caught in rails and I won’t fall over, and in fact dismounting will make matters worse. And the reasons for not cycling in most of the so-marked places are seriously diminished and heavily counterbalanced: I can easily and safely travel at pedestrian speed, and I will be far more of an obstruction on your thoroughfare if you require that I stand up and awkwardly push my vehicle along, steering only with difficulty (normally mostly by nudging one of the front wheels with one foot as I walk), taking up a lot more space and not going straight or at the same speed as others. Common sense says I should ignore such signs and assess each situation individually. But I tried applying common sense like this on a railway platform once and was severely threatened with a fine. Meanwhile, mobility scooters are really pretty similar to me in contextual characteristics (my vehicle interacts in such situations much more like one of them than like an upright bicycle), but they’re fine. (Aside: in the state of Victoria, the road rules classify my vehicle as a bicycle; but in New Zealand, the road rules classify it and bicycles as cycles, and only mention bicycles in one section, about wearing helmets. No attention is drawn to the use of a different word, but it’s clear that tricyclists are genuinely not legally required to wear helmets—which does actually make some sense, as the majority of scenarios where a helmet is beneficial to a bicyclist either don’t apply, or apply vastly less often, to recumbent tricyclists.)
- Helmut10001 3y ago
  We recently had this problem in Sweden: There are parking spaces where "Caravans" or "Campers" are forbidden (because they either tend to stay there all day or sleep) - we have a VW T4, it is considered of class "car" in Germany. We still sleep in it. Are we allowed to stay on these parking spaces? We decided: No. Our interpretation was that overnight-stays are unwanted by the local population or government. But the sign wasn't clear. The pictures on these signs also showed no vans, just big campers.
kevincox 3y ago
But rules are a "contract" between two parties. The people who put up a sign are trying to fix a problem and they care about the intention behind the sign. But the visitors need to try to follow the rules, so they need to decide of the activity they were considering is allowed. This ambiguity can cause issues. In a perfect world it doesn't exist. But in reality it usually does because you don't want to hire a lawyer to help you understand if the 30-page sign prevents you from bringing a toy boat into the park.
anon84873628 3y ago
To put it more succinctly: the sign itself isn't the statute or bylaw! it's just a quick reminder. Everyone is trying to interpret one line of text. But that line ks just a stand in for a much longer text that should answer all of the questions. E.g. for emergency vehicles, there is certainly a statute somewhere that grants them exemption, if that is appropriate. We don't need to torture ourself wondering. The sibling who mentioned his recombinant bicycle not fitting the intent of the bylaws should petition the relevant authority to update the text to clarify this detail. But that doesn't mean they're going to change the signs or graphics.

by derefr 3y ago

rlpb 3y ago

I think you might have arrived at the Mischief rule of statutory interpretation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule).

thunderbong 3y ago
This is seriously an amazing rule! Down the Wikipedia rabbit hole for now!

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago

But this depends on "in what context am I being asked whether a rule is violated"? I didn't start out knowing I was doing content moderation for a website or I might've answered those differently.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); Well, there are many possible options, so this does not help unless you know which issue was bothering the rule-makers. I know a park that allows horses but not bicycles.

bentcorner 3y ago

It's interesting to think about the same sign and "vehicle" in different contexts could have different answers. For example, the same sign in a school hallway leading to an enclosed play area for kindergartners would most certainly result in more violations.

yieldcrv 3y ago

[flagged]

chrismorgan 3y ago

The problem is that it won’t always be enforced that way. For example: in the city of Melbourne, there are sometimes signs instructing cyclists to dismount (e.g. at railway level crossings), or that you aren’t permitted to cycle in such-and-such a place (e.g. railway platform). Their illustrations always depict an upright bicycle. I ride a recumbent tricycle, which the Road Safety Road Rules considers to be a bicycle. The reasons for dismounting simply don’t apply: my wheels won’t get caught in rails and I won’t fall over, and in fact dismounting will make matters worse. And the reasons for not cycling in most of the so-marked places are seriously diminished and heavily counterbalanced: I can easily and safely travel at pedestrian speed, and I will be far more of an obstruction on your thoroughfare if you require that I stand up and awkwardly push my vehicle along, steering only with difficulty (normally mostly by nudging one of the front wheels with one foot as I walk), taking up a lot more space and not going straight or at the same speed as others. Common sense says I should ignore such signs and assess each situation individually. But I tried applying common sense like this on a railway platform once and was severely threatened with a fine. Meanwhile, mobility scooters are really pretty similar to me in contextual characteristics (my vehicle interacts in such situations much more like one of them than like an upright bicycle), but they’re fine. (Aside: in the state of Victoria, the road rules classify my vehicle as a bicycle; but in New Zealand, the road rules classify it and bicycles as cycles, and only mention bicycles in one section, about wearing helmets. No attention is drawn to the use of a different word, but it’s clear that tricyclists are genuinely not legally required to wear helmets—which does actually make some sense, as the majority of scenarios where a helmet is beneficial to a bicyclist either don’t apply, or apply vastly less often, to recumbent tricyclists.)

Helmut10001 3y ago
We recently had this problem in Sweden: There are parking spaces where "Caravans" or "Campers" are forbidden (because they either tend to stay there all day or sleep) - we have a VW T4, it is considered of class "car" in Germany. We still sleep in it. Are we allowed to stay on these parking spaces? We decided: No. Our interpretation was that overnight-stays are unwanted by the local population or government. But the sign wasn't clear. The pictures on these signs also showed no vans, just big campers.

kevincox 3y ago

But rules are a "contract" between two parties. The people who put up a sign are trying to fix a problem and they care about the intention behind the sign. But the visitors need to try to follow the rules, so they need to decide of the activity they were considering is allowed. This ambiguity can cause issues. In a perfect world it doesn't exist. But in reality it usually does because you don't want to hire a lawyer to help you understand if the 30-page sign prevents you from bringing a toy boat into the park.

anon84873628 3y ago

To put it more succinctly: the sign itself isn't the statute or bylaw! it's just a quick reminder. Everyone is trying to interpret one line of text. But that line ks just a stand in for a much longer text that should answer all of the questions. E.g. for emergency vehicles, there is certainly a statute somewhere that grants them exemption, if that is appropriate. We don't need to torture ourself wondering. The sibling who mentioned his recombinant bicycle not fitting the intent of the bylaws should petition the relevant authority to update the text to clarify this detail. But that doesn't mean they're going to change the signs or graphics.