English 中文網(wǎng) 漫畫網(wǎng) 愛新聞iNews 翻譯論壇
中國網(wǎng)站品牌欄目(頻道)
當(dāng)前位置: Language Tips> 譯通四海> Columnist 專欄作家> Liu Shinan

Accident law leaves a lot to be desired

[ 2009-07-01 15:57]     字號 [] [] []  
免費(fèi)訂閱30天China Daily雙語新聞手機(jī)報(bào):移動(dòng)用戶編輯短信CD至106580009009

Accident law leaves a lot to be desiredIf a man riding a tricycle bumps into your car parked legally on the roadside and dies of the injury sustained, and police tell you that you should pay part compensation to the man's family, what would you think?

Don't be quick to scream "unfair!" Read Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law and you will know you are legally liable to pay the compensation.

According to the law, "when an accident occurs involving a motor vehicle and a non-motor vehicle or a pedestrian and there is evidence proving that the non-motor vehicle or the pedestrian is fully responsible for the accident, the motor vehicle party shall bear a no more than 10 percent responsibility for the compensation".

But even that amount of penalty can be painful for a motorist questioning the fairness of the law.

The Beijing Evening News reported on Monday that a woman who had parked her car in a legal roadside parking lot was ordered to pay compensation for the death of a man who bumped his tricycle into the car. He died of his injuries in a hospital later. The woman posted her doubts over the law on an Internet forum to seek help from netizens. "I was not in the car and I didn't do anything wrong. Why should I pay for somebody else's fault?" she said.

I would have asked the same question if I were the owner of the car. But a judge interviewed by the Beijing Evening News reporter said the woman should pay the compensation, "because the Road Traffic Safety Law does not exempt the motor vehicle party from liability in (the event of) an accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian unless the pedestrian causes the accident deliberately".

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.

It was believed that the new Road Traffic Safety Law was the result of China's progress toward "human-oriented governance by law" introduced by "legal experts" from Western countries. Of course, we should salute these experts for their contribution to our country's progress.

But I also hope they are more meticulous in drafting laws, and do not leave loopholes. They should be more careful while learning from Western statutes. For example, they could learn from their American colleagues who would explain the Colorado state law on traffic accidents: "A traffic accident is defined as unintentional damage or injury caused by the movement of a vehicle or its load."

Note the word "movement".

E-mail: liushinan@chinadaily.com.cn

About the author:

劉式南 高級編輯。1968年畢業(yè)于武漢華中師范學(xué)院(現(xiàn)華中師范大學(xué))英文系。1982年畢業(yè)于北京體育學(xué)院(現(xiàn)北京體育大學(xué))研究生院體育情報(bào)專業(yè)。1982年進(jìn)入中國日報(bào)社,先后擔(dān)任體育記者、時(shí)政記者、國際新聞編輯、要聞版責(zé)任編輯、發(fā)稿部主任、《上海英文星報(bào)》總編輯、《中國商業(yè)周刊》總編輯等職。現(xiàn)任《中國日報(bào)》總編輯助理及專欄作家。1997年獲國務(wù)院“特殊貢獻(xiàn)專家政府津貼”。2000年被中華全國新聞工作者協(xié)會(huì)授予“全國百佳新聞工作者”稱號。2006年獲中國新聞獎(jiǎng)二等獎(jiǎng)(編輯)。

?相關(guān)閱讀:

Blocking Net info all about saving youth

Hard to help the elderly now

Kids should study less, play more

Where do officials do their jobs?

 

 

 
中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)英語點(diǎn)津版權(quán)說明:凡注明來源為“中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)英語點(diǎn)津:XXX(署名)”的原創(chuàng)作品,除與中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)簽署英語點(diǎn)津內(nèi)容授權(quán)協(xié)議的網(wǎng)站外,其他任何網(wǎng)站或單位未經(jīng)允許不得非法盜鏈、轉(zhuǎn)載和使用,違者必究。如需使用,請與010-84883631聯(lián)系;凡本網(wǎng)注明“來源:XXX(非英語點(diǎn)津)”的作品,均轉(zhuǎn)載自其它媒體,目的在于傳播更多信息,其他媒體如需轉(zhuǎn)載,請與稿件來源方聯(lián)系,如產(chǎn)生任何問題與本網(wǎng)無關(guān);本網(wǎng)所發(fā)布的歌曲、電影片段,版權(quán)歸原作者所有,僅供學(xué)習(xí)與研究,如果侵權(quán),請?zhí)峁┌鏅?quán)證明,以便盡快刪除。
 

關(guān)注和訂閱

人氣排行

翻譯服務(wù)

中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)翻譯工作室

我們提供:媒體、文化、財(cái)經(jīng)法律等專業(yè)領(lǐng)域的中英互譯服務(wù)
電話:010-84883468
郵件:translate@chinadaily.com.cn
 
 
主站蜘蛛池模板: 2021在线观看视频精品免费| 手机看片福利日韩国产| 最近免费最新高清中文字幕韩国| 波多野结衣潜入搜查官| 用手指搅乱吧~打烊后的...| 热99这里有精品综合久久| 樱桃视频影院在线播放| 无码精品一区二区三区在线| 天天躁日日躁狠狠躁| 在线观看麻豆精品国产不卡| 完全免费在线视频| 夜色资源站www国产在线观看| 国产欧美综合精品一区二区| 国产免费无码一区二区| 免费无码成人av在线播放不卡| 亚洲国产精品嫩草影院| 久久久久国产精品免费免费不卡| ts人妖另类在线| 欧美色图第三页| 精品人妻无码区二区三区| 欧美成人午夜视频| 成人欧美一区二区三区黑人| 国产精品无码专区| 另类ts人妖专区| 亚洲中文字幕无码久久2020| 亚洲日本国产乱码va在线观看| 久久精品天天中文字幕人妻| www.天天操.com| 高清不卡毛片免费观看| 男人天堂资源站| 美女私密无遮挡网站视频| 欧美成人免费在线视频| 少妇中文字幕乱码亚洲影视 | 日本漫画全彩口工漫画绅士| 好男人资源免费手机在线观看| 夜夜精品无码一区二区三区| 国产亚洲成在线播放va| 亚洲欧美日韩中文无线码| 久re这里只有精品最新地址| 天堂www网最新版资源官网| 精品亚洲欧美无人区乱码|