Eric, Your suggestion that, in the case of a collision in a public street, regardless of fault, the larger, faster party bear the responsibility for redress. This is close to my proposal that the party in the larger vehicle (who usually doesn't get injured) lose their privilege to drive for as long as the smaller (usually also slower) party takes to recover and to resume the mode of travel they were using at the time of the collision. Your proposal could be a little even-handed if the fault principle (based on the Highway Traffic Act) would apply to that portion of the outcome that _would_ have entailed had the two parties been the same size and moving at the same speed as the more benign party, while the rest of the outcome fall at the feet (as it were) of the larger, faster party, regardless of fault. BTW, the other posting on the new SeeFlickFix.com site is very important. I used it for a missing set of stairs in a small park near my home a few minutes ago, and it took my material, including a photo, quite well. However, I had to reply to my own post, to correct the software that would not let me reposition the icon to a more accurate location. I also posted a second photo, getting it properly turned upwards (mea culpa). I see this as the way to create stewardship over public places, and to remove from cities the right of controling the records of complaints ("Oh, you're the first person to complain.") Chris Bradshaw Ottawa -- Posted By Chris Bradshaw to <a href="http://newmobilityagenda.blogspot.com/2009/03/collisions-between-assymetrical-parties.html">World Streets Daily</a> at 3/26/2009 06:09:00 PM