Originally Posted by
indycustombikes
You have to be licensed to drive, yet you have to register the car separately, in the event of a circumstance, they must prove by witness WHO was the operator to proceed. And So again I ask, are people being registered or aircraft? and no one can definitively answer this question based on the wording, making the ruling jibberish!
In the example you give above, the owner of the car is primarily responsible for any property damage or injuries caused by the operation of it (with rare exception). The driver issue is secondary, for possible criminal issues, as well as maybe having insurance of their own. License and reg are done for different reasons (ie Taxes! )
I know from personal experience involving my vehicle, a house, and a friend that borrowed said vehicle. that you are incorrect. you are not responsible financially or otherwise for something another person did with your vehicle without your knowledge. it must first be proven you were negligent. in my case homeowners ins paid for repairs to the persons property, and my auto paid for my car...... no legal charges stuck because the operator could not be proven to be the operator.
. There has only been one suit filed after the announcement, and it doesn't really address the wording of the registration process or the ambiguity of it. The complaint alleged the FAA is overstepping it's boundaries as defined by congress and is promulgating rules that they are not allowed to. It's almost a mirror action as that filed by the AMA previously. There is no law per se that the language in the registration be perfectly clear to all, just to the standard that an average person would read and understand (usually a standard set by courts). I've got to imagine every word, even commas etc were cross checked 10 ways from Sunday by the room fulls of attorneys they have on staff. They had to so something to justify their salaries, and they don't get to bill by the hour, minute etc. 
I disagree in that the actual wording IS the reason FAA is being sued for overstepping its boundaries, and I also believe its not written so as to be easily understood by anyone to any standard, it is very confusing.
I suppose we can argue semantics all day, we will see in the end I guess.
When people in these agencies have to get together in a room and hash out the meaning of simple words like "and" versus "in addition" and "additionally", ya...its easy to why a document that could be 2 or 3 pages turns into 200.
Ya, we'll eventually see. A judge is going to have to wade through some boring reading to get to what is hopefully a good decision for us.