Answer Traffic Insurance - who introduced no responsibility for compensation

 Strong narrow second question is ; interest groups I think it is an obvious ; the source, I have to say not from the beginning to pay compulsory insurance. If insurance is now pegged to the strong hold of the cross-media and the legal profession are not forgetful, so hot in 2003, surely we should all remember:
Road Traffic Safety Law, The focus of the media. This one is:
. exceed the liability limit of the part of the liability in accordance with the following methods:
(a) traffic accidents between motor vehicles, and by the responsible party at fault; the two sides are at fault, shall each bear their share of the liabilities .
(b) motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle driver or pedestrian traffic accident occurs between the motor vehicle shall bear the responsibility; However, there is evidence that non-motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians violating traffic safety laws and regulations , motor vehicle driver has taken necessary measures to reduce the responsibility of the motor vehicle.
the loss of traffic by non-motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians intentionally caused the motor vehicle shall not be liable. > this confusion was mainly concentrated in two:
one, is not this a traffic accident to establish so-called range loss the headline, which flooded the details), and was born on the practice cases handled mm If we do not forgetful, including pedestrian traffic between the so-called the fact that I am afraid to drive have to be careful), this is embodied in the automotive and non-motorized and pedestrian traffic accidents, the answered this question.
fact, from the ; no responsibility for compensation milestone in development of the law, it establishes a liability. The provision does not seem logical, but it is another aspect from the establishment of a new The.
three
no responsibility for compensation with the birth of and on the bike (property) losses have occurred (people were slightly injured, damage to the bicycle), to be responsible for damages by the car driver, so that explains not only for the people, and property are to be implemented fault ; no responsibility for compensation ; no responsibility for compensation been established, In the compulsory third party liability insurance liability for compensation within the limit. by the responsible party at fault; the two sides are at fault, shall each bear their share of the liabilities. fault responsible party no-fault ; this matter, I do not want to conclude a everyone was a little bit of information for reference. I have to admit, the information has its limitations, because it is only my personal understanding and experience of the Bale. but I think that strong narrow as I answered the first gave us some data, like are for your reference.
I have to admit, I did a lot of the time frequently very concerned about the legal profession of speech on the We do not have to guess what here.
Postscript: For But the reason I'm afraid I have to play one another, say that again next time.
answer one of strong narrow m how the projected profits?
Traffic Insurance Solutions who introduced the two m no responsibility for compensation?  answers to the three-strong narrow gap
m compensation premiums to answer why the four-strong narrow floating rate executed m
answers Traffic Insurance Design of the opposition and five m hot