Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by hunter2_ on Saturday June 24, 2023 @02:08AM
(#36456029)
The instructions explain that, so it shouldn't interfere with the decision making, but the thing that the instructions don't talk about is whether the park extends indefinitely into the sky. One need not even consider the legal aspect of this (airspace rights: historical versus modern) but merely consider what it means to be in the park! Personally, I think that if the vehicle is making contact with the ground then it's "in" the park, but if it's not making contact with the ground then it's "above" the park.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by sethammons on Saturday June 24, 2023 @05:15AM
(#36456994)
When you jump, do you leave the park? If you jump really high? Or are flung via trebuchet?
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by hunter2_ on Saturday June 24, 2023 @11:38AM
(#36459594)
That's absurd generally, but for purposes of this rule specifically, I think it works out totally fine, yes. Because if you replace the human jumping with a vehicle jumping (being that the rule is regarding vehicles, not humans) then the answer to the question of whether a violation has occurred is "yes" -- repeated violations does not matter when answering. For flying vehicles, only taking off or landing in the park is a violation.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by fragmede on Saturday June 24, 2023 @05:28PM
(#36462798)
How about hovering? at what height does it become not the park? 10 centimeters above the park is one thing and space is at 100 kilometers, but there's a lot of room in between those for disagreement.
At what point is a helicopter hovering above the park in violation?
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by zeroimpl on Saturday June 24, 2023 @09:46PM
(#36464439)
This is why you need a lawyer familiar with the local regulations, which clarify these things. Thus this test is invalid because there should be an “there is not enough information to answer” answer.