A statement circulating online claims that in traffic accidents between non-motor vehicles (such as e-bikes and bicycles) and motor vehicles, even if the non-motor vehicle party is found liable for the accident, they do not need to compensate the motor vehicle party for losses. Is this claim true? A typical case recently published by the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court provides an answer: in this case, although the non-motor vehicle party was determined to bear primary responsibility for the accident, they were not required to pay for the motor vehicle's repair costs.
The case details show that in October 2025, Cui was driving a motor vehicle from east to west when he collided with Wang, who was riding a bicycle from north to south and ran a red light. The collision caused damage to the contact area of the motor vehicle and injured Wang.
According to the determination by the traffic authorities, Wang was at fault for running a red light and bore primary responsibility, while Cui was at fault for obstructing safe driving and bore secondary responsibility.
The collision caused damage to Cui's vehicle, resulting in repair costs of 1,280 yuan. Cui subsequently sued Wang, claiming "whoever is liable bears the cost," and demanded compensation proportional to the accident responsibility.
After hearing the case, the court did not support the logic of "liability implies compensation," citing three reasons:
First, Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law only stipulates the liability of motor vehicle parties to compensate non-motor vehicle parties; it does not establish a channel for non-motor vehicle parties to compensate motor vehicle parties for property damage.
Second, the accident responsibility certificate issued by the traffic management department is important evidence for determining the facts of the accident, but it is not the same legal concept as civil compensation liability. Whether compensation is required and who should pay remains subject to the court's judgment based on substantive law.
Third, according to the principle of "greater risk burden," motor vehicles are high-speed, high-risk transportation tools, while non-motor vehicles and pedestrians have weaker protective capabilities. Drivers bear a higher duty of care for safety, and the law prioritizes the protection of life and health rights over property rights. Motor vehicles can cover losses through compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance claims, whereas non-motor vehicles lack mandatory insurance coverage. Mechanically applying equal compensation would lead to an imbalance of responsibility between the stronger and weaker parties.
The court ultimately rejected Cui's claims, ruling that Wang was not required to compensate for the motor vehicle's repair losses.
This similar precedent is not an isolated case. In August this year, the Luxi County Court in Hunan Province handled a case involving equal responsibility where an insurance company, after compensating for the motor vehicle's damage, sought subrogation against the non-motor vehicle party, which was also rejected by the court.
However, judicial practice standards are not yet fully unified across China. In 2025, the Hengyang Intermediate People's Court ruled that a cyclist who ran a red light and bore full responsibility must fully compensate the car owner 4,800 yuan for repair costs, citing the direct application of the principle of fault liability.