When 'who is weak makes sense', does the weak transform into the strong? In a traffic accident, truth is no longer about presenting facts and reasoning, but about crying bitterly.

　　The Shanghai police have recently announced four accident cases in which non motorized vehicles have taken full responsibility for running red lights. From this incident, I feel that the direction of the wind may change, and in the future, traffic accidents may no longer be weak, who is reasonable!

　　You can also share your experience of being kidnapped by 'who is weak and who is reasonable' in the comment section.

　　Briefly share one of the penalty cases.

　　At around 17:00 on January 3, 2023, a small car was driving along the Xinxin Road in Songjiang District from north to south to the intersection. It happened that an electric bicycle ran a red light along the Xinxin Road and entered the intersection from west to east. The two cars collided, causing the electric bicycle driver Huang to fall to the ground with minor injuries.

　　In this accident, the electric bicycle was "ghostly detected" and ran a red light through the lanes, causing the car driver not to have enough time and space to react, resulting in the accident. It is reasonable for traffic police to impose full responsibility on non motor vehicle drivers.

　　But if in the past, and even in many cases now, cars have taken on at least one secondary responsibility, that's why many drivers complain that 'driving is already the starting point of secondary responsibility'.

　　The punishment of 'whoever is weak is reasonable' has its own reasons in the past, mostly based on humanitarian and compensatory considerations.

　　Firstly, compared to "meat wrapped" motor vehicles (excluding motorcycles), "meat wrapped" non motor vehicles are naturally more prone to injury in accidents. If the paint on a motor vehicle falls off, it may be peeling off on the non motor vehicle driver.

　　Secondly, most motor vehicles have insurance, and in the event of an accident, the insurance can compensate the owner. But non motor vehicle drivers generally do not purchase relevant insurance and often need to compensate themselves. Compared to the insurance premiums that rise every other year for motor vehicles (usually one or two thousand yuan), non motor vehicle drivers bear much more compensation.

　　But is such a punishment really reasonable? I don't think so.

　　Firstly, the 'whoever is weak has a reason' style of punishment may exacerbate non motorized vehicle drivers' disregard for danger and regulations, and encourage their fluke mentality of 'it will hurt me anyway'. Life is above all else, but what if the owner doesn't care?

　　Secondly, the life of motor vehicle drivers is also life, and it is not uncommon for them to die in order to avoid non motor vehicles running red lights. In terms of compensation, the increase in insurance premiums is also an economic loss for motor vehicle drivers, especially when they are not actually responsible, which appears even more unfair.

　　Of course, the increase in the proportion of full responsibility for non motor vehicle penalties does not mean that as long as it has made mistakes first, motor vehicles will not be held responsible under any circumstances.

　　In some cases, motor vehicle drivers also need to take responsibility, and we often overlook it in our daily lives!

　　Although pedestrians or non motorized vehicles run red lights, if the accident occurs on a pedestrian crossing, the motorized vehicle still bears the responsibility!

　　According to the provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, "motor vehicles shall slow down when passing the crosswalk; when pedestrians are passing the crosswalk, they shall stop sign".

　　It should be noted that the regulations do not mention signal light conditions, so you can understand that adult crosswalks are "invincible areas", where pedestrians, usually including non motorized vehicles, enjoy absolute priority of passage. In this case, the motor vehicle must slow down and give way in front of the pedestrian crossing, otherwise after the accident, it still needs to be held accountable. However, if the other party runs the red light, they will take less responsibility.

　　When a motor vehicle running a yellow light collides with a non motor vehicle running a red light, the former still bears responsibility!

　　Previously, there was no clear legal recognition or punishment for running yellow lights, but after the new regulations, the Implementation Regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China clearly defined this behavior. Article 38 stipulates that when the yellow light is on, vehicles that have already crossed the parking line can continue to pass. Vehicles that have not crossed the parking line can wait in place. If the driver does not stop but quickly passes, the traffic management department will consider it as "running the yellow light".

　　Based on the author's practical experience, currently, it is difficult to take photos when running a yellow light. However, in the event of a traffic accident, even if the other party runs a red light, the motor vehicle will still be held responsible for it when determining responsibility. Moreover, many people step on the accelerator to quickly pass through the yellow light, which is actually an accident prone behavior.

　　When a speeding motor vehicle collides with a non motorized vehicle running a red light, the former still bears the responsibility!

　　Many old drivers have actually become confused about the concept of speeding detection on urban roads, mostly listening to navigation alerts. According to the relevant provisions of the Traffic Law, motor vehicles should follow speed limit signs when passing through a fork in the road. If there is no speed limit sign, the general speed should be controlled at 30-60km/h.

　　If you are aware of any situations where motor vehicles need to be held accountable, please let us know in the comments section.

　　In addition to the previous mention of 'whoever is weak has reason', there is also a situation in reality where 'barefoot is not afraid of wearing shoes'.

　　I believe some car enthusiasts have also encountered this situation. Although it is clearly the sole responsibility of pedestrians or non motor vehicles, the responsible party for the accident does not have insurance and cannot claim compensation from the insurance party. The other party also refuses to compensate for various reasons.

　　If you want to sue and go through legal channels, it is also a time-consuming, labor-intensive, and costly matter for many car owners.

　　At this point, one can try to protect their rights through the "subrogation recovery" of insurance.

　　Simply put, when the liability for an accident lies with a third party, we can transfer the right of recovery to the insurance company and obtain compensation ourselves first.

　　If you want to apply for subrogation compensation, the car owner needs to keep accident photos, a traffic accident liability certificate issued by the traffic police, and the identity information of the person responsible for the accident. Do not express a willingness not to pursue compensation during negotiations. In this case, the insurance company will not be able to pursue compensation.

　　I don't know if you have noticed that there are more and more views in society about resisting "moral kidnapping". Isn't 'who is weak and who is reasonable' actually a kind of 'moral kidnapping'? This is not conducive to social fairness, as the weak are constantly changing.

　　The man sitting paralyzed on the subway seat may have been working overtime and busy all day, finally finding a seat to enjoy a bit of leisure; The woman who was hungry and waiting for late delivery didn't make easy money either, she just wanted to have a warm dinner; And the driver of the non motorized vehicle who ran a red light may have been carrying a loan to buy a car.

　　It's not easy for anyone, everyone will become weak. Only by adhering to legal constraints can the most people receive fairness, do you think?