No Vehicles in the Park

Section 1: Seems to explain that safety is the main concern for this legislative action in that they are
attempting to safeguard those who use the park. They use the generalized language of any and all vehicles from all
municipal parks
Section 2: Literally states, No vehicles of any kind shall be allowed in any municipal park and continues
to state the sanctions for doing so (fine/jail/both)
Section 3: Defines vehicle to mean any mechanism for conveying a person from one place to another
(automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and motor scooters)
-Also sets out a provision for bikes, so long as they are not being ridden
A) In the case of the 13-year-old girl, it seems that the law was correctly enforced in her case. She was
clearly riding her skateboard, which can be considered analogous to a bicycle in the sense that
they are means of conveying oneself that can involve decent speed and cause harm. Had she been
walking with her skateboard, it seems this would not be an appropriate application of the legislation.
The main goal of these rules seem to decrease risk a park goer assumes while enjoying the park itself
and in my mind, clearly a skateboarder could cause harm (the intended purpose of the rules
themselves)
STATUTE SHOULD APPLY
B) A father pushing a baby carriage should not be ruled as a violation of these sections. Yes, the a baby
carriage is a vehicle in the literal definition in Section 3, but a baby-carriage poses little to no harm
to the park goer (again the main cause of the enactment of these rules) In addition, this baby carriage
could be argued as analogous to the bike exception in that it is being pushed. The fact that pushing
of ones vehicle is allowed seems to point again to the main purpose of these rules, to increase safety
of the park goer and prevent harm.
STATUTE SHOULD NOT APPLY
C) A 6-year-old boy riding his tricycle clearly fits the bicycle category in which his vehicle must be
pushed or carried and not ridden. In explicit terms, this statute should apply to him, however there is
more to this statute than explicit meaning, that is, intended meaning. Clearly, the intent was to prevent
harm as I said earlier, however it is up for debate whether a 6-year-old child could cause significant
harm riding his tricycle. Being a 6-year-old myself at one point, I would have to concede that he could
indeed cause harm. This meets the elements of him riding a vehicle within the park and the concept
of the possible risk associated with such an activity.
STATUTE SHOULD APPLY
D) A garbage truck driver is clearly in violation of these rules. Unless some provision for commercial
activity of a vehicle is provided, he should be held accountable. He was driving a vehicle in the
park, that could indeed cause harm to a park goer and further, was not a necessity for his defense that
garbage needed to be picked up. If the statues are clear, he should have recognized that he either
needed permission to enter the park with his truck, or he should have sought out an alternative to
reduce the risk of the park goer such as picking up trash by hand and then putting it into the truck
outside of the park.
STATUTE SHOULD APPLY