The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
Swiss peasants harvest spaghetti from trees, 1957
The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals, 1959
What do the lines on Solo cups mean?
The Cradle of the Deep, a literary hoax, 1929
The Nazi Air Marker Hoax, 1942
Stotham, Massachusetts: the town that didn't exist, 1920
The Sandpaper Test, 1960
The disumbrationist art hoax, 1924
Jennifer Love Hewitt's Disappearing Breasts
Boy floats away in balloon, 2009
PhotoBlocker Spray
image 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)
Categories: Law/Police/Crime, Technology
Posted by The Curator on Tue Dec 07, 2004
Comments (222)
Oh my, where do I begin with you nidia

Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Wed Nov 29, 2006  at  10:35 AM
How soon do you think before the new teenage passtime becomes cutting camera wires? lol!!!
Posted by Jason  on  Fri Dec 01, 2006  at  12:51 AM

now we r getting said,"The rest of your post is garbage! " because you don't like it? grow up! First of all, I found out most of the info. on Photoblocker after I started posting comments here. When I bought the product, I read a few newspaper articles on their website and I was convinced it works. I mean, why would all those newspapers and Tv stations agree the product work? You said "...strongly suggests you have an interest in it" Now you mention it, I should ask the company if they have plan to become public...I'll be the first to buy shares.
I have praise for Photoblocker only because (I don't know how many more companies sell similar products)the other one I know -Safeplate, which is manufactured in the U.K - does not work and was fined by the trading standard for selling a product which doesn't do what it says on the tin. it was on newspaper.
Regarding states banning Photoblocker, you said " more practical banning anything marketed as such." Hey, that's what you say...BUT what I wrote was not my was what the legislator admitted..that it was costing them in revenue. Read earlier posts to see the newspaper articles.
Posted by nidia  on  Fri Dec 01, 2006  at  10:33 PM
No, it's just that you can
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Sat Dec 02, 2006  at  08:08 AM
I came here because I'm searching for user response on the plate sprays effectiveness.
It doesn't cost all that much and ignoring personal intent (everybody's got a reason to want the spray), I really want to get the stuff if it works just once!

If there are dummy speed cameras or cameras that have been turned off... then me, my family and our friends must be incredibly unlucky.

Ok, so there are for and against here. I just want to fight back - I'm sick and tired of constantly worrying about my speed, passing through 3 different speed limits within half a mile in some places. This is where I have mostly been caught, doing 14km over a 40km limit or 11km over a 60km limit.

It strikes me as being over the top. If I'm not able to see a speed limit change then sure that's my problem. I have issues with a 40km zone. To me that's a slow zone for obvious safety reasons and it should be sign-posted clearly, not almost hidden where a new comer to the area won't see it coming in at 60km.

There are a lot of us who do not go around ignoring the laws, we try to keep in line but geez the cameras take the cake.

So my rant is all about the so-called effectiveness of speed cameras. I do hate detest and whine at rules and regulations that try to supposedly "protect" the people when the playing field is not level. The guy in a Nissan who sped past me in a 60km zone last week probably has this spray or maybe he's lucky enough the cameras are turned off where ever he goes. His kind does this every bloody Friday night on a strip of road here in the City.

To tell the truth, I want to believe that this spray is going to work sometimes. It's not expensive and it's not illegal as long as my plates are visible to the human eye.

Cranky and Steve, I appreciate your opinion and logic.
Nidia I also appreciate your input too.

My eyes are open now and I'm just going to buy it, what the heck, I spend more on a night out.
Posted by itchypalms  in  Australia  on  Sat Dec 02, 2006  at  08:19 AM
itchypalms: "So my rant is all about the so-called effectiveness of speed cameras."

Hell yes!

I completely and utterly agree with you. This is one device for which claims of their effectiveness have been proven to be total bull. It also negatively impacts on long-term driver attitude and skill set. is leading the UK fight against speed cameras and their usage (is often quite in the UK media in related TV programs and articles). Have a look around in there and say hi to me on their forums (I use the same nick).

"My eyes are open now and I'm just going to buy it, what the heck, I spend more on a night out."
There is no harm in it - apart from the fact it
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Sat Dec 02, 2006  at  09:35 AM
"There is no harm in it - apart from the fact it
Posted by itchypalms  in  Australia  on  Sat Dec 02, 2006  at  10:44 AM
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.

YOU SIR ARE A MORAN. THAT STORY WAS ON A PRODUCT CALLED Photo stopper NOT PhotoBlocker. A totally different product and I might say a cheap imitation. How dare you post such total rubbish and misinform all of us. Who are you? probably a cop, politician or a camera vendor? Whoever you are the truth is out there and people will find it. The guy in the Oregon story you are referring to is an idiot who got in trouble for selling fake Photoblockers called Photo stopper. I should know because I got burrend when I both the fake stuff. Luckily when I contacted the makers of Photoblocker they were kind enough to give me a can of their "real" stuff. All they wanted in return was to track down the counterfeiters.

For all you skeptics out there check out YouTube. The proof is out there. You decide...
Posted by Josha  in  Los Angeles, CA  on  Tue Dec 05, 2006  at  08:51 PM
the stuff works!!
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:\\

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.

YOU are right Mat.. Ontrack is just jelous of PhantomPlate. Sorry ass losers and cheats...Thanks for selling me the fake photoblocker you call photo stopper. What needs to be done is stop you.
Posted by Josha  in  Los Angeles, CA  on  Tue Dec 05, 2006  at  08:58 PM
Hey Josha

thanks for making it clear for us...all the time when Smeggy goes on about KPTV showing a photoblocker seller who admitted that photoblocker didn't work,(but wouldn't send me the link) I was wondering what it could have been! I knew it couldn't have been Photoblocker..because if it worked for me (and luck usually ain't on my side), I saw no reason why it wouldn't work for another.
Photo stopper ain't the only fake spray...there's also another one they sold in England > Safeplate. And try getting your money back after getting a ticket, and you would see what they are really about. The nice, polite, "you have made the right decision by protecting yourself with Safeplate" turns into " there is no gurantee it works everytime"...take that with a stinking attitude, and you have safeplate.
Posted by Nidia  on  Wed Dec 06, 2006  at  12:18 AM
Oh dear, homework indeed, some people just aren
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Wed Dec 06, 2006  at  03:45 PM
Nidia, I didn
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Wed Dec 06, 2006  at  03:52 PM
Josha said:


Wow, is that anything like a morOn?

"I should know because I got burrend when I both the fake stuff."

Did you intend to use the simple word "burned?"

Yup, I'M the stupid one here.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Dec 06, 2006  at  04:18 PM
I was not stand for this kind of products to avoiding against the traffic law such as over speeding or go through the red light etc...

If you have any doubt and unacceptable of receiving the ticket, you can contacting or asking to local traffic management unit for that.

"There are like covering license plate number by anything thing can be"
Posted by Ningwai  on  Fri Dec 15, 2006  at  08:24 AM
I've personally tested photoblocker and would recommend it to anyone. Of course, cops will tell you that it does not work, because they don't want you to use it.
Posted by eRock  on  Tue Dec 26, 2006  at  10:22 PM
eRock : "I've personally tested photoblocker and would recommend it to anyone. Of course, cops will tell you that it does not work, because they don't want you to use it."
Of course, the sellers will tell you that it works because they want you to buy it.

How did you test Photoblocker?
Did you use police approved equipment in a representative setup and process the resultant negatives to achieve a full contrast positive and examine that? If not then whatever testing you have done is invalid.
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Wed Dec 27, 2006  at  05:42 AM
Smeggy said:

"How did you test Photoblocker?
Did you use police approved equipment in a representative setup and process the resultant negatives to achieve a full contrast positive and examine that? If not then whatever testing you have done is invalid."

Silly Smeggy. Don't you know that Photoblocker is a faith-based product? It only works if you BELIEVE it does.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Dec 28, 2006  at  02:23 AM
Mythbusters finally did an episode on this and their conclusion was the the spray (they didn't specify which brand unfortunately, so it's rather meaningless) didn't work at all. They only thing that did to any extent was the lens covering the plate, but that's illegal as all hell and very easy for a cop to notice.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Fri Mar 09, 2007  at  11:21 AM
I just downloaded the Mythbuster's episode and it was definately 'photoblocker' because it had the logo of the guy kicking at the top of the can.

Now, there was one prob' with the way they applied it on the plate ! They just sprayed it straight on the plate at the track then took off. They didn't as they claim follow the instructions - you are meant to let the first coat dry, then reapply the second coat, and it has to be practically 'baked on' sitting in the sun, they suggest to leave it in the sun all day with as long as possible between coasts being the best way to apply it.

And, TopGear in the UK had already tested out the speed camera theory using an Aston Martin (I think ?) to beat the camera - they got up to 140 MPH and the flash camera never went off ! MB's 'only' got to 100 MPH...

So as is usual on MB's, they get close with their mythbusting but half their experiments are flawed, that's why they keep having to 'revisit' the stories later on. Jamie and Adam are not scientist's and it's just an emtertainment excercise.

I've seen quite a number of their experiments that have been done by other's over the years with completely opposite results obtained. What irks me most about MB's is the way they are so 'final' with their judgements. I visit their forum and they only revisit old stories because of the outcry of forum poster's.
Posted by John  in  Adelaide  on  Sat Mar 10, 2007  at  02:36 PM
I don't recall them spraying it on during the test, but it's possible. More likely with the inhouse testing he did with his own camera. I do recognize that it's an entertainment show and not a science one, I simply mentioned it because of its relevance to this thread. I made no conclusions based on their demonstrations.

Adam got the car up to 129mph if I recall, and the professional driver got it up to 140. It would only really be an option on the highway as anyplace else would probably be too unsafe or not long and straight enough. And I don't think I'd risk the extra hundreds that a ticket for 140 would add, as opposed to one for 80.

As for their track record, while they're not scientists they have been right far more often than they've been wrong. Most of the complaints have to do with them not taking the time to check out variations in a myth, or at least those tests not making it to air.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Mon Mar 12, 2007  at  01:24 PM
The photostopper spray works just as well as Photostopper,
that site sells both types now, i asked why and they said the Photostopper spray is the original anti-flash made in Canada, they save allot of money on shipping costs... so they stock that also.

as for people saying is does not work these sights on youtube say they do too,
they also have the covers on
Posted by Josh  in  Calgary  on  Tue Mar 13, 2007  at  10:24 PM
Oh not again. Josh, are you a seller? Seriously?

I have already commented on this. I repeat:
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Wed Mar 14, 2007  at  07:35 PM
Three years ago I applied several coats of PB to the front and rear plates on my vehicle. Today, I tripped a cam during the red phase. I know it clicked because I saw it flash (this is at around 1:00pm in the midday sun). Did the PB product work? I'll let you know.

Posted by Richard  in  Orange Co. California  on  Fri Apr 13, 2007  at  11:27 PM
Richard, unfortunately your situation wouldn't constitute a reasonable test of the product, whether or not you get a ticket.

If you DO get a ticket, I'm sure the manufacturer would say that the stuff doesn't work if it's been on the plate(s) for three years.

If you DON'T get a ticket, one person's situation still hardly constitutes a real "test" of the product's efficacy.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat Apr 14, 2007  at  03:13 AM
Just wanted to clarify my previous post on the Top Gear episode - I re-watched the show and it was their third try when they beat the speed camera but it wasn't at 140 MPH but at 171 MPH !
Posted by John  in  Adelaide  on  Sun Apr 15, 2007  at  03:13 AM
Cranky, It would be more than satisfactory for me to recommend the product if I don't get a ticket regardless of what you think is unfortunate. Under the law in Ca. they have 15 days to certify delivery of the ticket via the postal service from the day of the violation.

Again, I'll let you know.
Posted by Richard  in  Orange Co. California  on  Sun Apr 15, 2007  at  11:42 PM
By the way, PB advertises on the home page that the product never washes or wears off after just one application. That was one of the reasons I bought it. Also, I put more than one application on each plate following the instructions to the letter.
Posted by Richard  in  Orange Co. California  on  Sun Apr 15, 2007  at  11:49 PM
Whether or not you get a ticket, your single experience is simply not enough to "prove" that the stuff works.

To do that scientifically, you would have to have many people in many different cars apply the stuff as recommended and drive past a calibrated and proven-to-operate traffic camera a number of times each. Then you would have to see if the camera caught some of them, and how many.

By the way, at least in Washington D.C. as of a few years back, some of the traffic cameras were dummies, there to intimidate people into not running red lights. They couldn't catch anyone doing anything.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  03:31 AM
Cranky, you have not convinced me of anything. As for my personal experience - I'll let you know.
Posted by Richard  in  Orange Co. California  on  Tue Apr 17, 2007  at  01:22 AM
Richard, I'm not the one in the position of trying to prove anything to anyone. You are.

You are trying to make the case that this spray can make your license plate "invisible" to a camera, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Your personal experience, while interesting, does not constitute PROOF that the stuff works. As I said, to do that scientifically, you would have to have many cars using the stuff (and some NOT using it) under a variety of controlled conditions. Anything short of that is merely anecdotal.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Apr 17, 2007  at  02:48 AM
Comments: Page 5 of 8 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.