> but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer There is no sign. Nowhere in the question does it mention a sign. What the question does say, however

> but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer There is no sign. Nowhere in the question does it mention a sign. What the question does say, however, is this: "please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)." Which is pretty much the opposite of what you conclude. Interesting.