5 ms·
In the absence of a definition of vehicle I chose to define it as any device that is a conveyance. Thus a wagon, rowboat, and skateboard are all vehicles in the
by cgriswald 3y ago
In the absence of a definition of vehicle I chose to define it as any device that is a conveyance. Thus a wagon, rowboat, and skateboard are all vehicles in the park (even if not in use).
However, the tank was not functional. Since it cannot convey it is therefore not a conveyance and therefore not a vehicle. It’s only shaped like a familiar one.
I matched the majority only 11% of the time.
- Tao3300 3y agoI can't find any definition of tank that doesn't describe it as an armored fighting vehicle. If it's a tank, it's a vehicle. If it's not a vehicle, don't call it a tank. The scenario said tank. A tank is a vehicle. No vehicles in the park. Edit: I matched 11% as well!
- HelloMcFly 3y agoDoes the tank ever become not a vehicle? Rusted to the frame? In my view no matter what the tank originally was, it ceases to be a vehicle when it can no longer act as a conveyance. A tank (and any vehicle) is not just a form, but a function. Is a car with no motor, no tires, no transmission a vehicle? I do not believe so, because it cannot and lacks the possibility of moving without a substantial transformation.
- Tao3300 3y agoIs a bicycle only a vehicle if equipped with a human?
- HelloMcFly 3y agoThe bicycle is quite capable of acting as conveyance for a human (or perhaps bicycle peddling robot, or trained animal) in its current form, so that's an easy "no" from me. As I said, if the thing can (i.e., without significant, non-trivial alterations to its current form) act as conveyance then it is a vehicle. It need not be in the act of conveyance, nor must it have an independent means of propulsion. Edit: my simple rule breaks down when thinking about a flat piece of wood attached to rope. My mind says that's only a vehicle if someone chooses to use it as such for pulling objects or people. I'll leave the search for a universal maxim to others, it seems.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- feikname 3y agoInterestingly, in Brazil's transit code a person carrying their bycicle unmounted is considered a pedestrian. Otherwise, they're a non motorized light vehicle.
- roelschroeven 3y agoBelgian traffic code says "Het niet bereden rijwiel wordt niet als voertuig beschouwd.", i.e. "The bicycle that is not ridden is not regarded as a vehicle." When you walk next to your bicycle, you're effectively a pedestrian here. No idea how things are defined in other countries.
- tsukikage 3y agoPretty sure that bit’s broken. Anyone seen it give any other value than 11%?
- chipsa 3y agoA memorial tank is not a vehicle, it’s a metal sculpture. The intended use is no longer to move, but rather to sit there.
- HelloMcFly 3y agoI applied the same mental model and also ended with 11%. It's a vehicle if it is transporting people, things, or itself (e.g., the R/C car).
- elishah 3y ago> It's a vehicle if it is transporting people, things, or itself (e.g., the R/C car). If transporting oneself counts, are all the people in the park vehicles? And all other animals, down to the microorganisms, that are capable of self-transport? Or I suppose even in the case of transporting other things, people would count as vehicles if they are carrying anything or wearing clothes?
- HelloMcFly 3y agoI realize this is the point this article was making, but I must say this is exactly the level of pedantic-as-the-point conversation that I no long put up with in my adult life.
- zerocrates 3y agoThe 11% seemed odd to me... I selected only 3 violators: the car, the ambulance, and the police car, and those seem to be the only majority-chosen violators according to the graph so I would think I matched 100%?