事故法律还有很多需要改进_其他_趣味英语-查字典英语网

事故法律还有很多需要改进

Ever since its enactment in May 2004, the Road Traffic Safety Law has been mired in controversy. Before being revised in December 2007, the original version of the 76th article of the law appeared even more "unreasonable". It ruled: "If an accident occurs between a motor vehicle and a non-motorized vehicle or a pedestrian, the motor vehicle party shall bear the responsibility; but the party's responsibility shall decrease if there is evidence to prove that the non-motorized vehicle or pedestrian has violated the Road Traffic Safety Law and the driver of the motor vehicle has taken necessary measures during the accident."

Many people questioned the rationality of the law. They argued that the 76th article of the law amounted to a statement that a car owner is destined to be the offender from the moment he/she buys the car.

The aforementioned judge explained that the law was based on the General Rules of Civil Law, which states that a motor vehicle is a high-speed moving object and its operation is highly hazardous, and therefore its driver should bear a non-fault liability when the vehicle causes damage to other people.

Here comes a question. In the woman's case, her car was parked on the roadside. It was not a "high-speed moving object" and therefore not "hazardous" at all. Isn't it ridiculous to blame the car owner when the accident was caused by the tricycle rider? The problem lies with the 76th article of the law, both in its original version and revision, which does not specify the difference between a moving vehicle and one that is parked when an accident involving it occurs.