The makers of PhotoBlocker spray claim that their product will make your license plate invisible to photo radar, red light cameras, and infrared and laster cameras. Special crystals in the spray will reflect back the flash (or light source) used by these cameras, making your license look like a bright blur. Would this actually work? Would it be legal if it did? They say that the spray is invisible to the naked eye, which means that it won't be of much use if a cop pulls you over. Personally, I've always thought someone should make a stealth car, made out of the same material as the stealth airplanes. That would be cool. (via Red Ferret)
Comments
Now the license plate camera paint, I believe could work, much like the 3M tape that reflects directly back at the camera, and George lucas tried to use for the lightsabers in Star Wars. Problem was, it didn't work THAT well, and they had to add a glowing blade in post. I could see the paint working ~25 percent of the time.
(sorry for my bad english)
I have tested the spray myself. I triggered one of these nasty cameras intentionally one early morning when there was nobody around. I saw the flash go off but I have yet to receive any tickets. It is a nice feeling to know that I am not driving naked. These cameras are not for safety they are all about revenue. I have donated enough money to the local police department. They are not going to get me again for driving 5 miles over the speed limit.
See for yourself. They have the police test results on their web site http://www.phantomplate.com
"Guys, I am telling you this stuff works. I should know, I have been using it for two years. Two years ago I was getting photo-radar tickets every three months. Then I saw a FOX News report that showed how well this PHOTOBLOCKER spray worked. It showed Denver police Department testing it and cops actually called it surprisingly effective."
Fascinating! MY local Fox affiliate, KPTV, Portland, Oregon recently ran a story TWICE that said the stuff was totally ineffective. Not only that, but they actually found the guy who was selling the stuff mail-order and got him to admit, ON CAMERA, that the stuff didn't work and that it was "for suckers," as he put it.
Seems that YOUR Fox station and mine should put their heads together and get their story straight. Assuming, of course, that you didn't just make this whole thing up.
I had the stuff tested myself by the local cops, and they laughed at it. It does not work at all, under ANY situation. PhotoBlocker is getting hammered now on the internet and by customers who bought this stuff and got a ticket.
I hear that there is a class-action lawsuit in the works against PhotoBlocker. Eveyone who got a ticket should send their lawyer after them. Send them your ticket and tell them to pay it. After all, they say that their product "is 100% effective", so why should they not pay it.
There are quality products out there that do work. I should know. I have used for them for the last 8 years, like license plate covers that do not rely on flash to work. Manufactured by ON TRACK Manufacturing Corp. at:
http://www.ontrackcorp.com.
or call them at: 1-800-652-1059
I live in the country's worst photoradar area.
These guys at On Track are honest, and have been doing this for a decade. They also have their own spray available, but their covers are the best that I have ever seen! Everyone around here uses them! You get what you pay for....
I use it and i know, the gut pussing Ontrack ....i have seen your posts on the net, same wording and all.
If you want to by a COVER then go to ontrack....but you WILL get pulled over by cops!!!!!!!!
if you want to be stelth then get the spray!!!!
I got mine in CANADA at http:\\www.photoblockercanada.com
The reason i seen all your posts is i was doing more homework on the stuff....i GOOGLED photoblocker wiht the word scam and hoaxs guess what nothing!
When photoblocker saves you ONE ticket it payed for itself.
Ontrack sells the knock off Photostoper. and photo fog.
I dont thinking speeding is right butI HATE BIG BROTHER.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax?URL=http://www.photoblockercanada.com
"I had the stuff tested myself by the local cops, and they laughed at it. It does not work at all, under ANY situation. PhotoBlocker is getting hammered now on the internet and by customers who bought this stuff and got a ticket. "
If this was the case why are they making a decision on to making PhotoBlocker illegal here in Illinois. Now I think if the other product photofog was as effective as the Photoblocker spray it would have been illegal since it has been out for a while. And actually I personally think that the testimonial looks more credible on
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/160991.html
than the website mentioned by
Dorf or I should say matt?
and the news artical say you need a flash.....that is what photoblocker and fog say to.
all cameras here use a flash.
just like 3M stuff out there to reflect light.
We just were able to get this product in the UK and it works.
I bought 20 can from a dealer here because my husband runs a mobil maid service and would get photo ticketa atleast 3-4 times a month, then he would have to find out who was driving... when and try to prove it was the employee to dock their pay.
He applied to all 113 cars WITHOUT telling teh Maids... he has not recived a ticket in over 3 months. He does not want teh people to drive reckless but it has saved him alot of time and money.
"I bought this for my husband and he loved it.
We just were able to get this product in the UK and it works.
"I bought 20 can from a dealer here because my husband runs a mobil maid service and would get photo ticketa atleast 3-4 times a month, then he would have to find out who was driving... when and try to prove it was the employee to dock their pay.
"He applied to all 113 cars WITHOUT telling teh Maids... he has not recived a ticket in over 3 months. He does not want teh people to drive reckless but it has saved him alot of time and money."
First off, Tiana, it is possible that the decrease in tickets is attributable to something other than the use of the spray. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, my local Fox TV affiliate actually had the stuff tested and it did nothing at all. Not only that, but the guy who sells it here in Oregon ADMITTED on camera that he knew it was worthless.
Secondly, it's interesting that your husband didn't choose to talk to his employees and explain to them how speeding was illegal and unacceptable to him, but instead chose to ateempt to prevent their being caught in the act. Will you and your husband be able to sleep if and when one of your employees hurts or kills someone while speeding, knowing that you chose not to stop them from doing it? Just a question.
"Secondly, it's interesting that your husband didn't choose to talk to his employees and explain to them how speeding was illegal and unacceptable to him, but instead chose to ateempt to prevent their being caught in the act. Will you and your husband be able to sleep if and when one of your employees hurts or kills someone while speeding, knowing that you chose not to stop them from doing it? Just a question."
Do you think that they would be able to stop them without the PhotoBlocker Spray? Tiana said that they were swamped by tickets anyways. So either ways these people are going to speed and they have no control because even if they fire them they will speed with their own car. And can you imagine getting a ticket for being 5mph over the speed or any kind of faulty tickets. You can squabble but it is a big hassle and the likelihood of you winning is very little. I think it is worth trying it at any rate.
http://www.phantomplate.com/main.html
Befor i spent over 760.00 on something i do my homework, many friends have bought this stuff so that is how i heard about it.
I see no information about class action law suits, and little to no bad press, many FOX stations in the US tried it and it works....Yes you do need a flash to get the result, if your areas has no flash then get covers. Am i above the law...NO but going with teh flow is not a crime to me.
"Guys, I am telling you this stuff works. I should know, I have been using it for two years. Two years ago I was getting photo-radar tickets every three months. Then I saw a FOX News report that showed how well this PHOTOBLOCKER spray worked. It showed Denver police Department testing it and cops actually called it surprisingly effective.
That's amazing, Mary Ann, because, as I've mentioned previously, MY local Fox affiliate did a story on it that said the exact opposite. They even had the guy who sells it on camera and he admitted that the crap doesn't work. By the way, my local Fox station is KPTV and their website is KPTV.com if you want to check. Oh, but you probably don't because your posting is worded exactly like I'd expect a shill for the company to write, complete with the fake folksy "Guys" salutation I've come to know and love from all the spam I receive.
"I have donated enough money to the local police department. They are not going to get me again for driving 5 miles over the speed limit."
What other laws do you consider yourself to be above, "Mary Ann?" Cheat on your taxes, too? Do you vote for "law and order" candidates? Do you realize that that makes you a flaming hypocrite? Is it only people with darker skin than you who should live by the law? Just curious.
"Cranky, I think that you're arguing with someone (and probably only one someone, regardless of how many different names they post under) who has a vested interest in this company, and therefore this is an argument that you will never win."
Yes, that's crossed my mind. You're probably right. I know I should probably just let it go. I just have difficulty letting go when faced with people who insist on "believing" (or pretending to believe) in highly unlikely things.
I still only see alot of pro's for the product
even look at ebay the amount being sold on that.
One news artical that says nothing; means nothing
but still waiting for a negative link????
"Still waiting for a link to phantom being sued by end users????"
Well Matt, here's the thing. You can't sue someone for not effectivly aiding and abetting you in a crime. For example, you would not be able to sue the manufacturer of a device that enabled you to recieve DirecTV without paying for it if it stopped working. Kind of a no brainer there. "Gee officer, he said it would be a whole Kilo of coke, but it was only 900 grams. Now he won't give me my money back"
"but still waiting for a negative link????"
Here's one that didn't take too much time to find;
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/231nd2.htm
So you don't have to read the whole article,
"...The Chicago Department of Transportation, which manages the program for the city, said products such as PhotoBlocker are the least of its concerns. Any threat was averted when the cameras were positioned at an angle to avoid overexposure.
No tickets have been thrown out because of the any special sprays or shields, city officials said. ..."
So, Matt, how DOES it feel to be a tool?
I like this one
"That is a testament right there: If it didn't work, why would they need to make it illegal," Scott said. "They are always saying they will make it illegal. They never do."
and if it does not work whay spend TAX money to change the law to say you can't add photoblocker to you plate????
2nd quote
""We are not saying this product is 100 percent effective, but it will give you a fighting chance," he said. "We are not encouraging anybody to run red lights, but you should have a fighting chance to protect yourself."
Sales of PhotoBlocker spray, Scott said, have surpassed 250,000. Less than half of one percent of all customers have complained about the results."
Plus down south newpaper are nothing compared to say
The Washington Post artical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A222-2004Jul20.html
OR
Ney York Times:
http://news.com.com/Safety%2Bof%2Btraffic-light%2Bcameras%2Bquestioned/2100-7341_3-5515138.html
OR
LA Times
http://www.phantomplate.com/print_latimes.html
HERE is a good one,
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
http://www.phantomplate.com/print_wsj_pg1.html
LETS watch news Footage:
FOX NEWS:
http://real.phantomplate.com:8080/ramgen/%7EPhantomplate.com/foxnews-denver-dsl.rm
And so much more out there then some small newspaper,
Back at you buddy..
PS: is that why you only wanted us to read your one quote???
ROTFLMAO
http://www.nbc10.com/consumeralert/2647033/detail.html
Im going to have to say Mat wins
From your Washington Post article;
" Speed Measurement Laboratories -- consultants to police departments and radar and radar-detector makers worldwide -- has tested most products designed to defeat photo enforcement, including car waxes and stealth sprays that claim to make cars "invisible to radar," photo-flash devices designed to flash back at cameras and the high-gloss tag sprays.
"There's a lot of good people in the industry who are honest and a lot of charlatans. But it doesn't work, that's the bottom line," says Carl Fors, owner of the Fort Worth company.
The bounce-back-the-flash concept does work sometimes, he says, but only on positive images traffic cameras produce. "If we reverse the image, go to a negative image, we can read every letter on a license plate," he says. "
And the News.com article ;
"Officials at Affiliated say that studies conducted by the company show the sprays to be ineffective"
And the LA Times story, with the only quote from a person who's actually SEEN the red-light camera images, "We see some occasional blurring".
Not exactly a gushing endorsment of the product, eh Matt?
Matt, you need to learn to distinguish between a salesperson pimping a product and reliable information. It'll save you a lot of money in the long run.
Oh, and remember that quote you liked so much?
"That is a testament right there: If it didn't work, why would they need to make it illegal," Scott said. "They are always saying they will make it illegal. They never do."
He states that they want to make it illegal, which proves that it works, but then in the next breath, he says that they "never do". Hmmmm, could he be blowing smoke up your ass?
And lets talk about all that tax money being spent to change the law (as a tax payer, I'm concerned, too). Well remember that first article? The Washington Post? (Would have been cool if you'd read the whole thing, Matt):
"For some law-abiding consumers, effectiveness may be a moot point. Many jurisdictions insist that such products are prohibited by laws that ban obstructing license plates. Ads for such products typically include a disclaimer about their legality."
Let's really see what that means. IF the spray works, then it's already illegal, so the fact that it's not illegal might lead one to think....
Let's not forget your heart-stopping "2nd Quote";
"Sales of PhotoBlocker spray, Scott said, have surpassed 250,000. Less than half of one percent of all customers have complained about the results."
That's the salesman talking there. You believe him? You think that's an unbiased source of information? I don't In fact, it smells like bullshit.
P.S. Why do you put so many question marks after your questions? Do you think it's more intimidating that way?
I worked for the Denver Police in there call center.
when they featured the storie about photoblocker, we were told not to tell them it workes. But that was a lie, most callers just wanted to know where to buy the spray.
For all of the links that I followed, I never found one that was not trying to sell the crap that actually said that it was effective. Every single article that I read has a line something along the lines of "Do Photoblocker and similar products work? It depends on the type of traffic enforcement camera and how it's positioned".
Positioning of the camera so that the flash is not directly in-line with the photo's "light path" is quite simple. That is all it takes to defeat this stuff. Take a picture of a mirror, dead-on. then take another with the camera tilted up, down, left, or right by a few degrees, and take another picture. This will demonstrate how to get rid of the flash effect.
There is nothing in any of these articles that is convincing, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE CONVINCED AND IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.
I also ran into "Mary Ann"'s first post elsewhere. Carbon copy. Identical to her first post here.
The post here is dated Dec 22nd. The other post is dated Dec 20th. It's amazing that nobody was dead sure it worked (and coincidentally had links to sell it)until "Bitu" aka Mary Ann's first post on both of the threads.
Not that I believe that I could ever convince the people posting and saying how great it is, because they're trying to make money.
If anyone is interested (which I highly doubt) the link is http://engadget.com/entry/1234000033022775/
There when you obviously meant "their"...
Storie ??? don't you mean "story"...
and finally, Workes ??? actually it works better this way...
Moral of this post... the city of Denver apparently doesn't require a diploma as a requirement for hiring.
😊
teh