intended that recovery was permissible only when the vehicle was actually in motion, the legislature would not have used a word that implies a process, such as the term “operation.” Moreover, the term “operation” of a motor vehicle occurs in other statutory provisions and in those cases, we have not required that the term “operation” means that the automobile actually be in motion. For example, in the context of the offense of driving under the influence (DUI) 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3731, to find that a motor vehicle is in operation requires evidence that the driver was in actual physical control of the vehicle, but not that the vehicle was actually “in motion”. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 442 Pa.Super. 521, 660 A.2d 105, 107 (1995). See also Commonwealth v. Wolen, 546 Pa. 448, 685 A.2d 1384 (1996)(<HOLDING>). Indeed, what if a bus driver, while
holding ada does not require parity between mental and physical disabilities holding that ownership or possession or actual control is needed holding that the prerequisite of possession under ussg  2d11b1 does not require that one actually use or carry the weapon holding authority to control limits duty to control recognizing that a finding of actual physical control does not require that car actually is moving