The new regulations have caused controversy. Does it really mean that the money is returned free of charge?

 The new regulations have caused controversy. Does it really mean that the money is returned free of charge?

Peoples Daily Central Kitchen-Talking Studio

Talk for a while before going to bed. Theres a world in your dreams. Hello, everyone. Im the commentator of the Party Newspaper. When traveling by car, you will inevitably experience such unfortunate things as losing everything. In the era of online car appointment, information archiving is convenient for us to retrieve lost things, but it is not uncommon for passengers and drivers to blame each other, and the cost of return is not the same. Recently, the drip net about a car to think of a trick, the driver returned the lost items passengers should pay. Whether to pay or not, and how to establish more equitable rules for the return of lost property, have aroused extensive discussion in the whole society.

According to a draft of Measures for the Management of Loss of Articles in Online Appointment Cars published by drip trips, If a passenger loses his or her articles due to negligence, if he or she is unable to collect them by himself, the passenger shall pay a reasonable fee when the driver returns the articles, which arouses controversy. In the opinion of supporters, negligence is the fault of passengers and should pay for their own fault behavior; it is not excessive to pay for the lost property by online taxi. There are also many objections. Some people think that we should carry forward the spirit of collecting money and not ask for repayment. Others believe that the return of lost property is the obligation of online car appointment, and this cost should not be paid by passengers. From different standpoints, there seems to be some truth. Behind the controversy, peoples perceptions of morality and rules in modern society are different.

It should be said that paying the reasonable fee for the return of lost property by the driver of the net appointment car is in line with the publics simple feelings of good for good and good for good, and there are also legal provisions that can be followed. According to Article 112 of the Property Law, it is not ambiguous to collect money. When the obligee receives the lost property, he shall pay the necessary expenses for keeping the lost property to the picker or the relevant departments. In reality, when the net-booking driver keeps and returns the lost goods, he needs to pay the corresponding time cost, delay the normal operation, and return the fuel, toll and communication expenses belong to the category of necessary expenses. The establishment of such a mechanism is not only the compensation and incentive for the driver who voluntarily returns the lost property, but also the avoidance of unnecessary disputes between the driver and the driver. For this reason, supporters account for the vast majority of online surveys.

Before analyzing the rationality of this scheme, it is necessary to clarify the fact at the cognitive level that paying reasonable fees does not mean denying the acquisition of money, and there is no conflict between rules and ethics. On the one hand, rules are the bottom line requirement of morality. By establishing the rule of paid return, some people can be relieved of the burden of doing good, and the purpose is to better promote the collection of money. On the other hand, fairness itself is a kind of morality. Modern society is built on the basis of equal contract. People think about other peoples standpoint and understand other peoples life with the same heart and the same reason, and pursue a fair moral life mode with the same heart and soul. It is unfair to ask one party to sacrifice, even to put forward excessive moral kidnapping to a certain group, and it can not bring about the improvement of the moral standard of the whole society.

From this point of view, the establishment of the bottom line rule of paid return can be said to be a more equitable basis for the networked car driver to collect money. In the traditional acquaintance society, people have limited space for action and low cost of return, so they can take a few steps to pick up something from others and send it back. With the rapid development of modern transportation, the complexity of social life and the expanding radius of peoples life, the cost of return is also rising. Admittedly, we advocate collecting money without ignorance, but we cannot impose the moral requirement of selfless dedication on everyone. We emphasize that the return of lost property is the obligation of the net-booking car, but this kind of return can not require the net-booking driver to ignore the cost, let alone exempt passengers from the obligation to pay attention to their own goods.

However, how should the cost of return be shared? Where is the standard of reasonable cost? Is there a better way to establish a compensation mechanism for the return behavior of contract car drivers? Im afraid the details of these rules still need to be explored. It is worth affirming that drip trips have taken an important step towards standardization and institutionalization of lost property management, which meets the expectations of the public. In this discussion, there may be no standard answer, but it will certainly prompt us to think more mature and rational.

This is precisely the following: nine out of ten disputes arise when you lose your car; the rule relieves the pain point and the governance is the best.

Peoples Daily Central Kitchen and Talking Studio (Wen | Gui Conglu)

Source of this article: Wang Fengzhi_NT2541, responsible editor of Peoples Network-Peoples Daily