Interpretation:

         The provision that, to identify "workers commute" of the industrial injury, from the original "byMotor vehicle accidents"To" byTraffic accidents or the city rail transit, passenger ferry, train accidentHurt". There are two important changes:

     A, scope, subject to accidents is increasing

      According to "the people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law"119th the provisions of,"Traffic accident",Refers to the vehicle caused by faults or accidents on road casualties or property loss events. Car is a "motor vehicles and non motor vehicles", that is to say, by bicycle, battery cars and other non motor vehicleAccident, also included in the scope of the provisions of work-related injury, comparing to the former, embodies the rationality. For employees to work in, hurt is objective existence, whether it is "mobile or non mobile", "Regulations" amendment to protect the interests of workers.

       The workers by the rail transit, passenger ferry, train commute is hurt, are included in the scope of work-related injury, to achieve full coverage of workers commuting traffic tools of choice, avoid by the rail transit, passenger ferry commuters not work-related embarrassment and injustice.

   Two, the degree of responsibility restriction, whether recognized inductrial injury depends on I bear

       Before the change, workers on their way to work, as long as the injury by motor vehicle accidents, can be identified as work-related injuries, has nothing to do with the person's responsibility in the accident. But after the modification of the "Regulations", requirement worker cannot bear the main responsibility in the accident. In other words, if the main responsibility I bear in the accident, even the motor vehicle accident, can not be identified as work-related injuries. Therefore, not simply that the expanded scope of industrial injury. The staff in the accident of the corresponding factors and industrial injury liability cognizance result hook, to a certain extent injuries that result of the limit.

       In the legislative technique, expression of errors are the most new "Regulations", according to "road traffic accident treatment measures" provisions of article eighteenth, traffic accident responsibility is divided into full responsibility, main responsibility, equal responsibility, a secondary responsibility. The new "Regulations" fourteenth sixth project regulations,"On the way to and from work, is not my main responsibility of traffic accident or the city rail transit, passenger ferry, train accident;" According to this understanding,"On the way to and from work, by my full responsibility, equal responsibility, or secondary responsibility of traffic accident or the city rail transit, passenger ferry, train accidents, should be identified as work-related injuries".Obviously, this does not accord with the original intention of legislation. Since my main responsibility cannot be identified as work-related injuries, so all my responsibility cannot be identified as work-related injuries. This error should not. Should be amended as"On the way to and from work, I was not all or major responsibility of traffic accident or the city rail transit, passenger ferry, train accident"Or"On the way to and from work, my main responsibility is not above the traffic accident or the city rail transit, passenger ferry, train accident".

 Li lawyers think: in the future for the article content is able to maintain for inductrial injury disputes, from the "motor vehicle and non motor vehicles" controversial subject "traffic accident" results to whether the dispute. The current judicial practice, make to the traffic police accident treatment identified conclusion disagrees, can only apply for review, not to bring an administrative lawsuit. The people's court in the trial of the traffic accident compensation cases, make a determination of traffic police accident treatment conclusion is wrong, can not take the conclusion as the basis. This will inevitably exist such problems, which relates to the injury and personal injury cases of concurrence, may lead to a conclusion disagrees. Can foreknow, similar disputes will exist in large quantities, the need for the problems in the judicial practice clearly further.