Saw this originally on Engadget, but it looks like the coming wave in technology might be products designed to thwart automated enforcement devices, like the cameras posted at traffic lights. Not sure it this works, or even if it is legal, but PhotoBlocker is a spray that renders your license plate unreadable when you blaze through an intersection.
The website is pretty cheesy looking, and the spray is a whopping $29.99 for a can, but they claim to have proof that it works from Fox News, Dutch TV, the Denver police, CBS News, and others. Still not convinced? I heard of a more effective low-tech solution if you want an alternative: cover your face. Apparently even if they read your tag, if they don't have a clear show of you driving, there is no way to charge you.
First, about the product on the plate: it is illegal. If they catch you with it, they can send you to Guantanamo... Second: I'm not sure at all about the mask thing. If it's you or your pet driving the car is not important: it's the car that matters. So, except if you reported it stollen, you are responsable and should then deal with your pet if HE was driving!
As far as covering your face goes, forgetaboutit. The traffic ticket is sent to the owner of the vehicle, who is recognized in the courts as the responsible party. If you go to court and say that you have no idea who was operating the vehicle - you're found guilty.
Yes, the spray is illegal in the US I think. However, why spend $30 on that stuff when you can do the same thing with oven cleaner? That stuff probably is oven cleaner, especially if they mention that you have to reapply it after a rainstorm or something.
There was a story about that on the nightly news in Oregon last week. They tested it out and it made no difference in pictures. They then interviewed a guy who sold it and he admitted it was a product for suckers.
The spray is illegal, and should not be used unless you have no fear of jail. As for the actual tickets, it doesn't matter who is driving, the ticket goes to the registered owner of the vehicle. Case in point I got a ticket for my brother borrowing my car and running a light. The court doesn't care who was driving or what the circumstances were at the time of the incident. I was told to think before loaning out my vehicle to an unresponsible driver.
The car may not matter either... I work with someone who got a speeding ticket in the mail and the accompanying picture was not the vehicle they drove. The reason for the ticket? An M in the license plate in the picture was interpretted as a W. They fought tooth and nail to get it rectified. Once they proved that the vehicle was not theirs and they were nowhere near the place where the speeding infraction took place, they finally got it cleared up. Still that took a while and was frustrating to the point of comedy.
The issue of whether the owner of the car was the driver of the car at the time the citation was issued electronically is one of the foundational arguments used by those opposed to the implementation of this type of enforcement.
Prior to electronic enforcement, the driver of the vehicle was issued the citation. If a wreck occurred and there was property damage or personal injury, the owner of the vehicle could be sued for "negligent entrustment".
Now, with electronic enforcement, the owner of the vehicle has an increased and undue responsibility to the state.
My wife got a ticket for not paying a toll in NJ (she actually DID pay the toll, but the automated toll booth didn't recognize it, and we're fighting the $25 charge). You can't see her face in the photo, but she's the registered owner, and there you go.
The penalty for tampering with the readability of a license plate varies from state to state(and cop to cop). If the police department uses a quota system, like the Peoples Republic of Falls Church Virginia, expect to get a ticket.
The resolution to a mailed ticket when the vehicle’s owner claims he wasn’t driving varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some places the owner is automatically liable. In others the owner must point out the offender to get off, and in others the ticket will be cancelled if the owner signs a statement that they were not driving.
Also, jurisdictions do make mistakes on the vehicles caught by photo enforcement. My mother received a ticket in the mail with a photo of a car running a red light. The problem was that it wasn’t her car and the plate didn’t match. She’s had to jump through hoops to get it resolved.
Photo enforcement would be a much smaller issue if speed limits were more realistic, yellow lights were tad longer and the state could not profit from these devices. Until then ... be creative.
I heard that if you recieve a ticket. Pay the ticket through the mail, and pay more than the amount due they have to issue a refund check. If you never cash the refund check the points will not go on your license because the transaction is incomplete. Has anyone ever heard of this before? Any truth to it?
That's intersting. Maybe being a girl, I've always been able to talk my way out of tickets, except for the time my scooter had an out of date inspection sticker. They impounded it on the spot and I had to walk miles. Guess wearing a helmet doens't help, and no spray would have saved the situation!
Step 1: take photo Step 2: overexpose photo in Photoshop (notice that the entire photo is brighter, and overcontrasted, not just the plate?) Step 3: Sell oven cleaner to suckers.
Most radar detectors are passive and impossible to detect (without actually looking into the car for the unit) also they are legal in most places.
Radar BLOCKERS on the other hand are easy to detect and illegal in most places.
This spray doesn't work anyway, the people processing the image cab do some tricks to get the number to show up enough to read - turn it negative, increase contrast, sharpen, those kinda things, they had a news thing on it over here in the UK a while ago.
Props to anonymous who pointed out that the ENTIRE PHOTO is overexposed, not just the license plate. So are you supposed to spray the ENTIRE CAR, or is this BMW-driving idiot just a great example of how not to use oven cleaner? I'm voting photoshop, too. And probably a pirated version. Hah.
Get a smoke-colored license plate cover. Put it on. Stop washing your car. This is a REALLY effective way to obstruct the view of your plate. It's also another really effective way to get pulled over for having an obstructed or obscured license plate.
We're all geeks, right? Why not install an actuated screen that you can roll down over the license plate when you're about to do something so remarkably stupid as running a light. You can roll that sucker back up after you're past the camera, assuming you didn't die in a fiery wreck in the intersection. Suckers.
The only spray that would block the plate from being read is spray paint. The photos were taken with flash photography. The one where the plate is visible, the flash was off camera creating a greater angle of reflection, the second was taken with the flash close to the lens and the light reflected off the plate directly back to the camera. I doubt the conditions would be repreated on the road. I'd like to see the same test done with the actual conditions on the road or just in daylight. don't waste your money, I guarantee it will not work.
As far as radar detectors being undetectable, I believe the radar-detector-detectors actually detect emissions from the local oscillator(s) used in the receive circuit in the radar detector (used to reduce the incoming signal to a lower intermediate freq before further processing). So, although the radar detectors are not emitting anything "on purpose", they are still emitting a detectable signal.
What I would like to see is an instant SMS sent through to the registered owner of the car to inform them of any infringements in their vehicle. This would mean if they were driving they could slow down, or the states working on a quota system could charge them for reading an SMS while they are driving.
If they weren't driving they could then ring the person who is and say "Take it easy, you're costing me money you bastard!!"
What I fear in the future is a "Minority Report" style ticketing system where you get tickets if you are thinking about opening up your Transam on the interstate.....spooky!
Hey, while we're all signing up for our National Identity Cards and getting our Personal RFID Chips implanted, we can give them our numbers so that they can SMS us once the system is set up.
I just hope I get a hands-free steering system or a heads-up SMS display so I don't WRECK while I'm trying to do 90MPH around a corner.
the spray is Not illegal. Most states require your plate to be visible to an officer. A camra is not equal to an officer. If your state has a law that is pro-photo inforcement georgia, move.
The court doesn't care who was driving or what the circumstances were at the time of the incident.
That is absurd. You ownership does not make you responsible for the car's involvement in an infraction. You can owne a car and not have a licence to drive. How can your driving priviliage be linked to your ownership when the violator is not the owner. Your grant of use can not make you liable for misuse. That judge is a ------- Idiot.
Final word on automated photo traffic enforcement. States that have this in effect also must have the option for you to sign an affidavit swearing you were not opperating the vehicle at the time of the violation. Most people are unaware of this. The necessary doccument is available on several traffic law web sites however.
I bought mine in Canada a year ago and love it,I know it works that is all i care about do a google search for photoblocker canada, i think that will work.
Saw this originally on