• gian
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Because also the small rural village is classified as “urban” so it need to follow the same general law.

      Rural and urban are not mutually exclusive

        • gian
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Here urban is loosely defined as everything inside the city/town/village perimeter, with no reference to where the city/town/village is located.

            • gian
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              So everything inside the perimeter of a city/town/village is urban and therefor under the urban law traffic code, even if the village is in the middle of nowhere.
              We are discussing traffic laws. I doubt that where you live the traffic laws that are valid inside the biggest city are different from the ones valid in a small village in the middle of nowhere (with the due exceptions)

            • Kornblumenratte@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Yes,but there are two different definitions ar work here: Traffic laws vs sociology/geography/common speech. According to traffic law, it’s almost impossible to live in a rural area, because all areas settled by humans are considered urban for the sake of traffic regulations. Otherwise, “urban” references cities and “rural” everything not a city. A “rural town” makes perfect sense in common speech, but is an oxymoron in traffic legalese.