Death by laser radar on A28 NL

[Nanolaser]

Death by laser radar on A28 NL

'Flitsdode niet schuld politie' - Binnenland | Het laatste nieuws uit Nederland leest u op Telegraaf.nl [binnenland]

 

[Ash]

Took me forever to figure out what language the article is written in... Dutch?

Even reading it, I don't understand what's happened.. Two guys on a motorcycle died? What does this have to do with a laser?
Translation:

Flitsdode not debt politie'
of onzer report donors
ASSEN - the flitscontrole on A28 of the police force the Drenthe are not the cause of death of of the Jan summer (33). The motorvriend and zwager of the first flitsdode of the Netherlands becomes, however, suspected of dead by debt and intentional endanger of the movement.
Motormaatjes Jan summer (at the back) and Gerald Schuurman photograph: OWN PHOTOGRAPH

that says Drenthe to the police force on the basis of own research.
The two men clash two weeks suffered on A28 at Pesse on each other after zwager Gerald Schuurman in had released an automation the gas at seeing the flitser. Summer could avoid its friend no longer, bluntest at the back, fell and touched with its head the crash barrier. He was on battle. According to the police force Drenthe from research has become clear that the motorrijders themselves are responsible. The radar control no role, thus police force spokesman has played Ernest Zinsmeyer.
The men reason supposedly too hard, too dense on each other and a suddenly speed reduced of them, as become clear from research of the department traffic accident analysis. Warrant has been made up for broken of Article 6 and 5 of the way movement law. Dead endanger debt and of the movement. The Public Prosecution Service decides concerning possible prosecution.
The two engine friends have not flashed some seconden for the accident moreover for too rapidly drive. But that is according to Zinsmeyer no proof that they did not speed too. The engines reason on the linkerbaan. In theory it is possible that for example a car obstructed the control, thus the police force.
Nightmare
barn man reacts violently been scared to the news. This comes for me as a complete surprise. We have cremated Friday Jan. It is a large nightmare, thus barn man.
The Public Prosecution Service in Assen could not yet say if barn man is also effectively continued. We must get down all pieces still. Afterwards the public prosecutor decides, thus a zegsvrouw.
Lawyer Tjalling of of the poured anchor of lawyer's office & anchor puts question signs at the research. It astonishes me. To avoid each appearance of importance tangle it the police force had decorated Drenthe if a another korps had examined the ongeluk, thus of of the poured.

 

[qumefox]

My take on it. They were speeding on a bike that apparently had a laser/radar detector. The got lased by the police, hit the brakes, lost control of the bike and went splat.

 

[Benm]

No laser was invovled here, it was a mobile radar speed trap as they are commonly used here in holland. This one was placed on a guardrail besides the highway, and only visible at the very last moment.

The theory is that the first biker hit the brakes, while his buddy was about to overtake him. His buddy ran into the back of the first bike, and fell. Also, police say they were doing 130-140 km/h where 120 is permitted.

Such accidents are not uncommon, but there was a bit of outrage over this one, because the speed trap had just been set up, and immediately disappeared after the accident. The police first denied that there was a speed trap at all, and later came up with the theory above. You wonder how they determined the speed of the bikes though, as there were no braking marks on the road (they didnt slide to a halt with locked brakes).

Afaik they even want to blame the first biker for the accident. Usually the last driver is guilty in any kind of head-tail collisions, as you are supposed to keep enough distance to avoid collision, even if the vehicle in front of you suddenly hits the brakes.

 

[Mohrenberg]

That's the whole point of the speed trap. Stop breaking the law and you won't have to worry about it.
It is the first motorcycles fault. First off if he had not been breaking the law this never would of happened. Second, even though he was in front, He still braked hard for apparent reason (Avoiding a speeding ticket is not a valid excuse to slam on your brakes) I'm sure there is some law against this....

By your way of thinking, every time i need a new car i'm just going to go for a ride and randomly slam on my brakes until someone hits me.
(people do this, but they lie about why they braked....)

No laser was invovled here, it was a mobile radar speed trap as they are commonly used here in holland. This one was placed on a guardrail besides the highway, and only visible at the very last moment.

The theory is that the first biker hit the brakes, while his buddy was about to overtake him. His buddy ran into the back of the first bike, and fell. Also, police say they were doing 130-140 km/h where 120 is permitted.

Such accidents are not uncommon, but there was a bit of outrage over this one, because the speed trap had just been set up, and immediately disappeared after the accident. The police first denied that there was a speed trap at all, and later came up with the theory above. You wonder how they determined the speed of the bikes though, as there were no braking marks on the road (they didnt slide to a halt with locked brakes).

Afaik they even want to blame the first biker for the accident. Usually the last driver is guilty in any kind of head-tail collisions, as you are supposed to keep enough distance to avoid collision, even if the vehicle in front of you suddenly hits the brakes.

 

[Benm]

There is no specific law against it, unless you brake to a full stop on a highway - standing still on one is explicitly forbidden unless in a traffic jam etc. There is however general legislation that makes endagering traffic illegal, so pulling stunts like hitting the brakes in order to get hit and insurance money is a no-go.

However, it would be legal to hit the brakes when you look at your speedometer and suddenly realize you are driving faster than the speed limit, regardless of a speed trap being present. Any vehicle that hits you in such a scenario must have been speeding too, as long as you dont reduce your speed far below the allowed maximum.

The problem is that many people brake way too hard, reducing from 140 to 100 (or even less) in a 120 zone. If you drive behind one on cruise control set at a legal 120, you would be quite likely to hit it if you don't brake too.

And there is good use for lasers: there are systems that keep you at a safe distance from the car in front of you, accounting for speed etc. While they are not common yet, perhaps they may become popular some day and prevent many head-tail collisions.

Those laser systems can accurately determine how hard the vehicle in front of you is braking, and react faster than a human driver. Since all cars can decellerate at pretty much the same rate (using ABS, and comparable tires) such systems can be very effective.

 

[oic0]

You can say "don't break the law" all you want but think about it. The whole reason to not speed is to reduce injuries and deaths. No other reason at all! If your attempts to force people to not speed cause death and injuries, then you have failed. Just like how red light cameras cause an increased number of accidents.
Profiteering at the expense of human life is generally looked down upon. I'm very thankful there are none of these cameras anywhere near me.

 

[pullbangdead]

Barring extenuating circumstances (like no brake lights), the rear car is almost always at fault. The offense that often goes onto the ticket is "failure to reduce speed in order to avoid an accident". The front car always has the right to slow down without being rear-ended, it is the following car's responsibility to stay far enough back to be able to stop without hitting the front car, even in the case of a panic stop.

The only time I've ever heard of the front car getting the ticket in a rear-ending is when the front car had brake lights which were malfunctioning or absent.

Brake-checking is a rude thing to do and definitely also against the law, if a cop sees you doing it for no reason they'll pull you over for reckless driving or something like that, probably a lesser charge than reckless driving though. But even if you do brake-check someone, it is their responsibility to be far enough behind you that they can stop and avoid hitting you. If a rear-ending is the result of the front car brake-checking the rear car but there's no proof or no witnesses, then it's up to the cop to decide, and he's probably going to blame the rear car, as all the front car has to say is something like "I saw an animal run out in front of me".

 

[Benm]

You can say "don't break the law" all you want but think about it. The whole reason to not speed is to reduce injuries and deaths. No other reason at all!

This is not entirely true, at least not in holland.

On many highways the speed limit has been reduced to mitigate problems with noise or exhaust fumes for nearby inhabitants. Such roads are exactly the same before and after the speed limit reduction, and there is no additional traffic or any other reason they would suddenly be unsafe at 120.

Obviously speeding is still dangerous since some drivers will adhere to the lower speed limit, while others do not. This creates big difference in vehicle speeds (especially when its 120 lowered to 90 or 80), and collisions occur because slow cars overtaking trucks move into the left lane all of a sudden without looking behind far enough.

 

[Nanolaser]

Maybe they shoud try to learn people to ignore the reflex, especially when you drive on a motorcycle. :gh: I know it is quite difficult but it could save your life when a black cat or other small animal suddenly crosses the road,...

 

[oic0]

This is not entirely true, at least not in holland.

On many highways the speed limit has been reduced to mitigate problems with noise or exhaust fumes for nearby inhabitants. Such roads are exactly the same before and after the speed limit reduction, and there is no additional traffic or any other reason they would suddenly be unsafe at 120.

Obviously speeding is still dangerous since some drivers will adhere to the lower speed limit, while others do not. This creates big difference in vehicle speeds (especially when its 120 lowered to 90 or 80), and collisions occur because slow cars overtaking trucks move into the left lane all of a sudden without looking behind far enough.

Lowering the speed to reduce noise etc... is unsafe. Speeding its self isn't whats dangerous, its people going different speeds on the same road that is. US research shows most drivers will drive whatever speed feels safe and right on the road regardless of the limit. When those drivers are mixed with those who follow the limit on the sign, road conditions become very unsafe. Here they are supposed to try and set the speed limit to what most people would drive anyway. They've done research with arbitrarily raising or lowering the speed limit on roads and a large portion of drivers just ignored the change in either direction, causing more accidents. AFIK in the US if everyone else is speeding you can technically get a ticket for doing the speed limit since technically you are the threat to safety in the pack. Cameras and radar etc... just throw safety out the window in the name of $$$$$