The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
To me, if I see a rule trying to ban &quot;vehicles&quot; without defining &quot;vehicles&quot;, I take my concept of &quot;vehicles&quot; by deduction: I think about all the ways that things that I know of as being &quot;vehicle-esque&quot; <i>could be problematic in various different ways such that you&#x27;d want to ban them</i> — being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); property damage (skateboards, dirt bikes) — and then I guess that the &quot;spirit of the law&quot; is to put whatever requirements in place would be required to reduce the instances of those problems.<p>The banning of certain explicit <i>classes</i> of vehicles is only a byproduct, not the end-goal, of such a rule; and so it doesn&#x27;t actually <i>matter</i> what is or isn&#x27;t a vehicle — the word &quot;vehicle&quot; in such a rule is acting as a conceptual stand-in for whatever things cause uniquely vehicle-in-the-park-ish problems; and anything that doesn&#x27;t cause such problems, isn&#x27;t &quot;a vehicle.&quot;<p>I find that this lens on rule enforcement is a useful guide, because whatever the <i>text</i> of the law ends up saying, the <i>enforcement</i> of the law will hew to the spirit that the text of the rule is being interpreted to have, by those charged with its enforcement. (I.e., the non-working tank is almost certainly a &quot;vehicle&quot; by any definition a bylaw would pose, but if they deliver it to the park on a non-damaging sled, let it sit there for a while, then haul it away on the same sled, then it&#x27;s not causing any of the problems that &quot;vehicles&quot; cause, and so it&#x27;s very unlikely that any bylaw-enforcement officer would actually ticket the owner of the tank for having it in the park.)