6 ms·
I did the quiz, got 93%. The common sense factor should prevail in all circumstances. First, An implicit assumption. No vehicle implies no motor vehicle. Seco
by glitchc 3y ago
I did the quiz, got 93%. The common sense factor should prevail in all circumstances.
First, An implicit assumption. No vehicle implies no motor vehicle.
Second: The purpose of the park, namely to allow people to enjoy nature.
Third, the rationale for the rule: A motor vehicle is much faster and heavier than every other entity using the park. Ergo, it has the capacity to cause great harm (ex. running over a soccer team).
One can deep-dive all manner of philosophical arguments, but the principle of least harm while allowing maximum freedom is the true, unspoken rule. Ergo, any vehicle that can co-exist without hampering or endangering others enjoying the park is okay.
- dan-robertson 3y agoI don’t think the problem is that people disagree on obvious non-edge-cases
- hilbert42 3y agoClearly the rule is too broad and thus it's ambiguous. Simply restating the rules in precise terms will solve the problem. I've been in parks where a dozens or more bylaws are listed at the entry to the park. Thus little is left to the imagination. If a dozen rules isn't enough then just add more [detail] until the right level of compliance is achieved.
- whatshisface 3y agoAdding detail to rules doesn't increase compliance. In fact, as fewer people become willing to engage with their length and complexity, it probably decreases it.
- squigz 3y agoDo you really think most people read and comply with a dozen or more rules listed at a park?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bobbylarrybobby 3y ago> Ergo, any vehicle that can co-exist without hampering or endangering others enjoying the park is okay. “I'm a good driver, so my lifted F-150 is such a vehicle”
- spencerflem 3y agohampers them, they have to be worried about being run over
- Arainach 3y agoWho defines hampering? I'm absolutely hampered by the plague of groups of parents filling the entire width of trails with strollers 3 across but have no illusions a majority would agree to ban them.
- airstrike 3y ago> but the principle of least harm while allowing maximum freedom is the true, unspoken rule Exactly. Life and liberty, in that order
- raverbashing 3y agoPretty much this Also, the articles tries to pull the "there's no majority opinion" which is a sneaky trick and it's false. Because no, you can't consider the set as indivisible and one set of opinions different from the other, when they only differ by something like "if a tank should be considered". This is a similar problem to the air force finding out there's no standard human And I'd say that, as much as lawyers like to play gotcha with the laws, I think you'd find the average lawyer is more realistic and practical than the "actually" takes here on this park problem
- ronald_raygun 3y agoWhat are you talking about? If you have the set {A, B, C} and {A, B, not C}, those are two different sets. And the difference is going to matter precisely when C or not C comes into effect. Like imagine two parks - you have Central Park in nyc that is full of statues, sculptures, etc. And you have a National Park that is essentially a pristine nature reserve with some back roads in it. The majority opinion of "if a tank should be considered" is going to change drastically between those two parks
- whakim 3y agoBut if you look at the graph of response sets it clearly isn’t “common sense.” Most people don’t agree and don’t come close to agreeing and, as Dan says, this is a fairly trivial example which doesn’t delve into corner cases.
- lukan 3y agoMy takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined. If you define crystal clear rules, things are different. And they usually are much clearer defined: - no cars - no drones - no noise (emergency cars allways gets an exception) The tank example was not clear whether they just put it there because they wanted to, or because they had permission. So yes, when you have unclear rules, you get Drama. So of course there remain corner cases. But they can be the exception and not the norm. I do remember some fallout for example when at corona times a police car with high speed chased a teenager through a park for not wearing a mask - nope, this was not an emergency, justifying annoying and endangering normal people in the park. But usually this does not happen.
- sangnoir 3y ago> My takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined To reflect real life: there is a reason why rules aren't specific and allow for judgement calls. Your clearer rules for instance, allows for manned flying vehicles like helicopters.
- lukan 3y ago- no noise Also you don't have to specify rules that are covered by general law. In most states it is illegal anyway, to fly low altitude with helicopters over populated areas for fun.
- Arainach 3y agoTalk about a poorly defined rule. Cell phone goes off? Straight to jail. Your child asks a question and you answer? Straight to jail. Shoes squeak on the pavement? Believe it or not, also straight to jail. Rattling wheel on your stroller? Still jail.
- Eridrus 3y agoI got 100% agreement with the simple rule of "no driving car-like things into/through the park".
- ronald_raygun 3y agoSo no RC-cars? It is a car-like thing (in fact it is just a very-small-car thing)
- Eridrus 3y agoYou can be obtuse if you like, but the point is that if you try and think of what the most likely interpretation is, you can nail it on the head with no issue.
- ronald_raygun 3y ago> least harm while allowing maximum freedom is the true According to who? Is your quadcopter allowed to videotape and infringe on my right to privacy? Is the added noise of someone having a BBQ party in the park a harm or not? What about people drinking? > Ergo, any vehicle that can co-exist without hampering or endangering others enjoying the park is okay. So are cop cars allowed? Cops routinely drive into parks to harass homeless people or arrest drug dealers. Are you ruining their enjoyment of the parks?
- hattar 3y ago> right to privacy In a public park? > So are cop cars allowed No, but a thing about rules is that they generally only work if there’s someone who is able and willing to enforce them.
- ronald_raygun 3y ago> In a public park? There is a reasonable expectation of privacy. So if you went around with a big TV camera and just started sticking it in people's face, that would get the cops called on you real quick.
- master-lincoln 3y agoSome Karens call cops for all kinds of reasons and cops often believe their interventions are backed by law when they aren't. What counts to answer "is it allowed" is what a court would rule I think
- brewdad 3y agoSomewhere your right to film someone in public crosses over into harassment, which is illegal. That line will vary in 100 small ways if you ask 100 people to define it.
- lolinder 3y agoThe question of what hamper is or endangers others is far from objective, though. I would interpret the rule to ban skateboards and drones from the park if it were up to me because I find that they get in the way of my personal enjoyment of spaces like that, but I know plenty of other people who would disagree with that interpretation.
- l33t7332273 3y agoCan an ambulance enter the park to save someone in a life threatening emergency? If many trees fall in a natural disaster, can a tree removing vehicle enter the park?
- krisoft 3y ago> Can an ambulance enter the park to save someone in a life threatening emergency? But that is not what the question asks. Of course we should let an ambulance enter. Especially if they are there to save someone’s life. They violate the rule, but we ignore the rule for this specific case. The text of the quiz explicitly asks for this: “ You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules;” And “Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).” Simply many people are realy bad at this type of thinking. They know what they think the answer should be, and they answer accordingly, instead of answering as requested a much more contrived and technical question.
- Arainach 3y agoFewer and fewer rules have discretion. Automated cameras, LLMs, plea deals, minimum mandatory sentences, zero tolerance in schools. Relying on people to do the right thing fails. American government got two good centuries out of "assuming good intent" before the lack of written rules was weaponized. In a perfect world we wouldn't need an explicit code of conduct for supreme court justices, but we are not in a perfect world.
- lostemptations5 3y agoIt's not that we are bad at this type of thinking-- but who cares? There will always be weird scenarios and odd things-- when I played the game I was like "Is anyone dying here?' Aside from the Ambulance thing-- no. It's just a park. So let's relax. Content moderation is also totally imprecise with edge cases. Most likely no one dies from it well or badly applied.
- bagels 3y agoUsually these things are applied with discretion, even if not literally allowed by a sign.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoI often wonder about electric bicycles. There are certain trails around here that are very strenuous to bike on. As a hiker, I don't mind dodging the occasional cyclist on them. Instead I just respect that cyclist. This works because they are few. Lately, there have been many more cyclists on this trail. Many of which are less experienced. When I witness an accident I often make bets with my dog: I bet it was an ebike in violation of the "no motor vehicles" rule. I'm usually right. Do you think it's appropriate to consider this controversial notion when deciding what rules to enforce? > Cyclists on ebikes tend to be less skilled than other cyclists, in potentially dangerous ways. Because it's really not about the vehicle at all.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Rapzid 3y agoYou shouldn't really need to wonder about this. Trail systems are starting to specify if motorized bicycles are allowed, and most of them only allow motor assist bikes.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoI'm not uncertain about the rules. They're not allowed here. I'm uncertain about whether I'd like to see those rules enforced. Mostly, I don't want to see rules enforced except when the consequences are significant: Be good, or be good at it, either works. I feel a bit weird compromising on this stance because I think ebike riders are generally not skilled enough to safely navigate these trails.
- MacsHeadroom 3y agoIn most jurisdictions e-bikes are motor vehicles. Frequently if they are under 1000 watts they are in a special class of motor vehicle, same as mopeds/scooters. Technically they are typically not legal to have on bike paths, as motor vehicles. But this varies by jurisdiction. Over the 1000 watt limit (1200w or 1500w some places) they tend to be considered motorcycles and require a license and break lights at a minimum to be legal. Basically everyone ignores this and treats them like regular manual bicycles though.
- jml7c5 3y agoYou are clearly in the majority. But let's pick another person at random — what is the probability that you agree on all questions? (Hint: it's not 93%!) You are aligned with majority opinion, but you still disagree with most people. --- There is some similarity to the problem the USAF faced when they wanted to make a cockpit that fit the average pilot: >Using the size data he had gathered from 4,063 pilots, Daniels calculated the average of the 10 physical dimensions believed to be most relevant for design, including height, chest circumference and sleeve length. These formed the dimensions of the “average pilot,” which Daniels generously defined as someone whose measurements were within the middle 30 per cent of the range of values for each dimension. >[...] >Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions. https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/when-u-s-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages/article_e3231734-e5da-5bf5-9496-a34e52d60bd9.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/when-u-s-air-force-disc...