I feel the same way as the above comment. If you were an actual administrator in charge of fining people for violating the rule, almost none of these examples should give you pause. You wouldn't be trying to give a ticket to planes flying overhead, for example. With these examples, there really isn't much disagreement on whether action should be taken, so any discussion of whether a rule is technically violated is moot.
> You wouldn't be trying to give a ticket to planes flying overhead
except you have just applied an assumption (which is often true) that may not be true depending on circumstances - that the planes were excluded because it couldn't have caused any negative effect.
But this isn't a part of the rule, and it is an interpretation of the rule by the administrator. A different administrator might interpret planes that fly higher than audible altitude would be OK, while another one might consider a visual detection altitude to be a violation. And another might consider no altitude to be permissible (because if they crashed right there, they'd be falling into the park).
Planes are usually required to fly above the height defined by property laws, and so it makes sense that "park" is deines by the areas that planes don't fly in.
That phrasing sure makes it sound like they're not in the park until they fall. Does it occur the moment they hit the ground, or sooner? If ground, then that tells us that the quadcopter isn't in the park while off the ground either; it's above the park.
Those are exactly the questions the quiz should have asked, not clearly absurd examples that are unambiguously not vehicles in the park, like the ISS passing over the park.
This is a mix of ad hominem and no true Scotsman. And the iss had a clear purpose, if space is excluded, and civics are included, how high counts as "in the park"?
I love my fully battery powered ebike but I am well aware they are prohibited pretty much everywhere. When filling out the form I figured a bike is not a vehicle because they tend to be explicitly spelled out, but ebikes are more often prohibited (though in my area, not enforced), and my overpowered ebike is illegal everywhere, but I am respectful of others and there is no enforcement.
Generally it is too difficult to enforce whether someone was or was not using a feature so in my area (SF Bay Area) they would just outlaw anything with a capability to do something undesired, regardless of whether it was being used. The thinking would go that if they catch someone they can point to the feature and say "you're breaking the law". No need to prove the feature was in use. Plus if you let people in with a bike with some undesired feature, people are going to end up using it and that would be what such a law would be trying to avoid.
I don't see it as applying my local laws. Everywhere I have ever seen that I can recall will explicitly spell out bicycles if they are prohibited. I have never seen a prohibition on "vehicles" that included bicycles. So I applied my understanding of the word vehicle. Of course I have not seen everywhere in the world, and the whole point of the survey is that people have to apply their own perspectives in order to even make a judgement, and this is the problem of content moderation.
