# Police puzzlement

At the crossroads, there was a traffic light.

A big truck, a horse-drawn wagon and a motorcycle rider are all standing and waiting for the green light.

As soon as the trucker saw that the light is about to turn green, he hit the gas. The horse was frightened by the sound and bit motorcycle rider's ear.

A policeman was called, and figured out that he ought to give somebody a ticket, since some rule was definitely broken to contribute to the resulting trauma.

The cop is honest, so won't lie on a ticket. Who got the blame and the ticket for breaking the rules?

The ticket was given to

the motorcyclist

for

not wearing a helmet or head protection. If they had been, the horse could not have bitten their ear!

Then of course, the policeman might just ticket

the wagon-driver

because

it's against the law to drive a horse-drawn vehicle on that road!

• Motorcyclists are not required to wear helmets in at least some areas. – Engineer Toast Jul 23 '16 at 0:19
• @EngineerToast not required, or the requirement is not enforced? Bit of a difference between the two. If the cop is looking for reason to ticket, even a technicality offence will do. – Nij Jul 23 '16 at 0:20
• @user26771 That little tidbit is critical to the answer, then. I would suggest that, in a puzzle that requires us to pick out the one critical piece of information, you make it more of a story. That lets you slide in little details like that are critical to ensuring that only one, good answer is plausible instead of being too broad: There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow down the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs. – Engineer Toast Jul 23 '16 at 0:30
• @Nij I agree that they should be required but they still aren't everywhere. Motorcyclists without helmets are called "organ donors" by doctors around here. – Engineer Toast Jul 23 '16 at 0:32
• @Joshua generally, no. But there are huge numbers of roadways that restrict or outright ban the usage of certain vehicle types upon them. Motorways and bicycles, for example. Note also: "... on that road!" – Nij Jul 23 '16 at 1:28

Here are two more plausible answers.

The truck driver gets the ticket because his muffler was busted. Otherwise, the noise wouldn't have been loud enough to frighten the horse.

The wagon driver gets the ticket because he was too close to the motorcyclist in front of him. Otherwise, the horse wouldn't have been close enough to bit his ear.

• More plausible than what? An exhaust can be extremely loud, enough so to startle a person let alone a horse, and still be within regulatory limits. A horse can reach pretty far and still have been at sufficient distance to not be "too close" - the phrase bumper-to-bumper is barely not a literal description. – Nij Jul 23 '16 at 0:32
• That's not to say those are bad answers to the puzzle, though, they're definitely creative. +1 – Nij Jul 23 '16 at 0:35
• @Nij Plausible answers, two more of them. – f'' Jul 23 '16 at 0:48
• We don't know how many lanes there were. The horse might have been beside the motorcyclist. – Loren Pechtel Jul 23 '16 at 1:53
• The truck was louder than the motorcycle? – BobRodes Jul 23 '16 at 3:34

I'm going with

the truck driver

because

he hit the gas when the light was only about to turn green, i.e., it wasn't green yet.

• Vehicles are allowed to move forward even when the light remains red, so long as they do not enter the intersection. Truck (and bus) drivers here often leave a decent gap ahead of themselves, because of their lower acceleration from a dead stop, to help prevent a delay when the light does turn green. It's a good thought nonetheless :) – Nij Jul 23 '16 at 0:00