No Vehicles in the ParkSection 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 one’s “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