5 ms·
> It is clearly a vehicle, so not allowed by the rule. But it is non-functioning If it's non-functioning it can't be a vehicle. Even without thinking deeply ab
by anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> It is clearly a vehicle, so not allowed by the rule. But it is non-functioning
If it's non-functioning it can't be a vehicle. Even without thinking deeply about it this seemed obvious to me.
Reducing to the absurd, at what point can you strip down a vehicle until it is no longer a vehicle? Down to the powertrain? Down to the axles and wheels? Is a single uninflated tire without a wheel a vehicle?
- vunderba 3y agoTo me, you're not qualifying your definition well enough. For how long does it have to be non-functioning in order to cease being classified as a vehicle? For example, a car that is temporarily in an auto shop for repairs? If your intent is to say that it's no longer classified as a vehicle until it is once again functional, then I think you'll find that your definition deviates pretty significantly from a conventional dictionary definition (a device intended for transport). That's a relatively large desync which will only hinder consistent communications with the vast majority of English speakers.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rini17 3y agoThat's irrelevant. Someone leaving broken cars in the park or even only a few parts will certainly be considered a violation by a majority. To your objections they might say - it's littering anyway and we don't want that do we?
- wisty 3y agoThat's littering.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- whats_a_quasar 3y agoWell, this sort of illustrates the point, because to me an object that would be a vehicle if it was functioning is clearly still a vehicle. A broken-down vehicle vehicle is still a vehicle, even if it's non-functioning. A car doesn't stop being a vehicle while it's in the shop. Perhaps there is another category for vehicles which are irreparably damaged and will never function again. But even then, I want to define it as a broken vehicle, a sub-type of a vehicle.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> A car doesn't stop being a vehicle while it's in the shop. To me a car doesn't stop being a car, but it stops being a vehicle when it is not capable of a vehicular function. > But even then, I want to define it as a broken vehicle, a sub-type of a vehicle. We disagree. Would you consider the exterior armor frame of a tank resting on treads to be a vehicle, even if lacking all of the internal parts? Would you consider the internal parts to be a vehicle even if lacking all of the external framing? If it can't move (or carry people/objects) without mechanical repairs is where I draw the line. If adding fuel, oil, or any other consumable allows it to move then I'm fine calling a non-functional vehicle a vehicle. The real question is how many people did it take to carry that non-functional tank into the park? If they moved it in with another vehicle then it's obviously a violation of the vehicle ordinance. But carrying it in (as long as they didn't use something like logs to roll it on) is fine.
- pdonis 3y ago> as long as they didn't use something like logs to roll it on Why would that be an issue? Logs aren't vehicles.
- sundvor 3y agoB.C.'s Quest For Tires would beg to differ.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoWhen they're specifically selected and arranged for a vehicular purpose I see them as such. Just as I saw both the sled and wagon as vehicles
- MenhirMike 3y agoSomewhat related, that's how guns are classified in the US: The Gun is "just" the lower receiver. Even though that one is useless by itself, it is the foundational piece of it to which one attaches all the accessories. (And even then there's loopholes, like how a 80% lower receiver is just a piece of metal and not a gun yet) With a car, I guess one answer would be "The part that has the VIN on it is the car", but apparently there's no universally agreed on location. I would probably go for the drive shaft.
- LgWoodenBadger 3y ago“Lower” and “upper” receivers don’t apply to all guns, just certain types that were designed that way, e.g. the AR-15. I’d estimate more guns don’t have separate/distinct receivers (if the term even applies to them in the first place)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bee_rider 3y agoWell, ok. I think a non-functioning vehicle is still a vehicle but I should have known that calling something obvious in this context is the most sure fire way of kicking off some pedantry. In any case, I think it is just a matter of definition and not very interesting as a result.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI think it sparked off some interesting discussions. So thanks.