5 ms·
> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed). Thus IMO emergency vehicles violate the rule
by bentcorner 3y ago
> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).
Thus IMO emergency vehicles violate the rule, although they should be allowed. Same thing IMO with the tank. Sure it's inoperable but it's a vehicle, in the park.
- fukawi2 3y agoAgree. Emergency vehicles don't automatically get a "free pass", there are separate rules that apply an exemption. So the question and rule, as written, says that the emergency vehicles do violate the rule IMO. In the real world, there would just be other rules that would apply an exemption. (IANAL, but have been driving emergency vehicles for 15 years).
- emmelaich 3y agoI would say the tank is no longer a vehicle. More like a statue than a vehicle.
- Rebelgecko 3y agohow is it getting into the park? If it's rolling, IMO it's still a vehicle. If a truck is dropping it off, still a no-no
- jamdamu 3y agoWhat if the rule was created after the tank was already in the park? There was no information given on how the tank was transported to the park, and you're creating a violation based off a hypothetical.
- raphman 3y agoMaybe a huge crane lifted it into the park from outside the park. Would the crane be in the park then?
- aerio 3y agoWhat if it's fired from a cannon and lands in the park?
- graftak 3y agoAre you being serious? Obviously the rule is not meant to outlaw that specific scenario and local authorities or the company that provides the transport will put measures in place to make sure it goes safe and sound; they will close the park, drive at walking speed, etc...
- cypress66 3y agoNot really an opinion if you follow the instructions, unless somehow you argue an ambulance is not a vehicle.