Recently, Drops of Drunk Driving Rules have been put on the hot search list again. Rules stipulate that if passengers are drunk, drip drivers have the right to judge whether drunk passengers will affect driving safety and decide whether to pick up and deliver passengers. The rules also stipulate how drunken passengers destroy driving safety and vomit in the car.
According to the official Wechat Drop Travel released by the news, Drop had invited all sectors of society to participate in November 2018 to discuss the topic of whether drivers can refuse to take drunk passengers by themselves. Within a week, 269,000 netizens participated in the discussion, 86% of them thought it could be rejected and 14% thought it could not be rejected.
Faced with the drop-by-drop adjustment rules, some netizens pointed out that the terms of service should be matched with the law.
According to the provisions of Article 40, paragraph 8, and Article 42 of the Current Regulations on the Administration of Taxi DriversQualifications, if a taxi driver fails to make an appointment at the appointed place without justified reasons, he or she will be ordered to make corrections by the taxi administrative department at or above the county level, and fined not less than 200 yuan but not more than 2000 yuan. Some netizens believe that if passengers are drunk and threaten the safety of driving, then dripping drivers refuse to take the car for good reason. Some netizens worry that refusing to load will damage the rights and interests of drunk passengers.
Sometimes, the rights and interests protected by law will conflict with each other. Wang Baomin, a professor and doctoral supervisor at the Law School of Xian Jiaotong University, said in an interview with China Youth Daily Zhongqing Online that this involves a trade-off between the rights protected by the two laws. The value of law is pluralistic. When the conflict of rights and interests breaks out, we should choose a more important right to protect. Clearly, safe driving is life-threatening. Therefore, refusing to carry drunken passengers will not damage the rights and interests of drunken passengers.
There is a rule in this trial. If a drunk passenger vomits in the car or on the car, he must pay the drivers car wash fee. The fee rule can be found on the confirmation page of the car wash fee. This has won the approval of the vast number of netizens and dripping drivers.
Drunken passengers vomit in the car, and their subsequent disposal does bring a series of troubles to both passengers. According to media reports, drunk passengers vomited and dirty the back seats and windows in Chongqing. Drippers ask drunken passengers for 800 yuan for car washing fee. Passengers think that the price is too high. They also claim that the driver is suspected of fraud and ask the police for assistance. After mediation by the police station, the car wash fee is based on the price of the car wash shop, paid by passengers, and then paid 150 yuan to the driver for delayed work.
Beijing drip driver Liu Shifu told China Youth Daily Zhongqing Online that a passenger had vomited in his car before and only found vomiting when he washed the car two days later. Mr. Liu said that the drivers interests were really taken into account in paying the car wash fee.
Peng Ling, deputy director of the research department of the Chinese Law Society, said that the official setting of the drunk vomit washing fee was reasonable and avoided making passengers face overwhelming charges. If a passenger is drunk and vomits in the car, it is equivalent to the driver providing additional services for passengers, he should charge additional service fees.
Peng Ling also pointed out that when drip drivers ask passengers for car wash fees, how much and how to charge for car wash fees, and how to safeguard the rights of both parties when passengers refuse to provide car wash fees, were not detailed in the rules issued by drip. It also needs to be groped and set up a set of rules.
The trial drunk driving rules stipulate that if the driver judges that passengers may endanger the safety of the journey, he may apply for cancellation of the order. Some netizens fear that driversright to refuse to load will be abused, and lack of corresponding punishment measures. Wang Baomin said that there are loopholes in this rule, and some feasible mechanisms should be gradually explored to reduce the occurrence of malicious cancellation.
Peng Ling stressed that no rule is entirely reasonable. Any form of law or regulation will have limitations or conflicts of rights and interests. Therefore, more time should be given to improve the rules.
Source: Responsible Editor of China Youth Daily: Gan Wenbin_NBJS7621