Originally Posted by Trab
The writer seems to be confused about what constitutes a vehicle. I doubt that lights, horns, and licenses are included in any definition of a vehicle. I think Karldar defined it most succinctly and correctly:
The trouble is, the government creates its own definitions. In my state of California, the vehicle code provides this one:
So, by this definition, a bicycle is not a vehicle (nor is a train for that matter). So, what is it then? According to the vehicle code, it is this:
Yes, context is everything. I am constantly disappointed that our government(s) cannot simply rely upon established definitions of words(English or otherwise) rather than creating their own. It's no wonder that legal codes are almost incomprehensible.
[edit] Forgot to mention that your reply looks pretty good, clevernamehere. I think that should get the point across without ruffling too many feathers.