The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
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/CrimeTechnology
Posted by The Curator on Tue Dec 07, 2004
Who said red light cameras don't use flash during the day? believe me, they do. You may not notice it that much because of day light but they do.
As for cranky media guy, I still keep my word...I'll give you my plates when I sell my car. Then your job will be to confirm/or Not whether PB's claim that once sprayed stays forever. Deal?
Posted by nidia  on  Fri Sep 29, 2006  at  08:02 PM
I meant to say that the flash shouldn't trigger.

However, even if it does, it's not going to be brighter than the sun on a clear day. If the sun can't cause too much glare, how is the (probably) sub-400 watt bulb going to do it?
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Sat Sep 30, 2006  at  12:08 AM
Charybdis in Hell,
and ofcourse Cranky,

let me just say this..u guys r making a big fuss over this. Maybe u graduated in physics smile IT DOES WORK! If it worked for me in two different occasions, y wouldn't it work for others...or am I a special case, along with other special cases such as ...Wall Street Journal, The LA Times, The Mail (U.K), Washington Times, The new York Times, Fox News (Colorado, N.J., N.Y...) ?? Come on now...get real.
Posted by nidia  on  Sat Sep 30, 2006  at  12:26 AM
nidia said:

"Then your job will be to confirm/or Not whether PB's claim that once sprayed stays forever. Deal?"

Nope. In most cases, it isn't possible to prove a negative. That's why the burden of proof is on the person who makes an extraordinary claim. That would be YOU, nidia. In other words, it's YOUR job to eliminate all the other reasons that you may not have gotten a ticket when there was a traffic camera present. Once you have done that, THEN you can begin to attempt to prove that this spray works. Ball's in your court, nidia.

"IT DOES WORK! If it worked for me in two different occasions, y wouldn't it work for others..."

How do you know for certain that the spray worked for you? Can you completely factor out every other possibility? You cite several sources; did THEY say that they factored out every other possibility...or did they say something like, "The spray SEEMED to work" or "Users swear by the spray"?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat Sep 30, 2006  at  02:59 AM
No, they didn't say "it seemed to work"...Fox news said "surprisingly effective." and others' comments after they tested the products include " the result was an unreadable tag", "the product really works"
Posted by nidia  on  Sat Sep 30, 2006  at  10:39 AM
I'm wondering how Fox and the others factored out all other possible reasons why the cars with the spray on their license plates didn't get tickets.

Did they even bother to factor out the other possibilities at all?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sun Oct 01, 2006  at  03:43 AM
Ceanky,

Nooooo! lol! what they did was not check whether the drivers got ticket. What Fox News did was..got together with Denver Police and test whether the product work. They drove over the speed limit triggering the speed camera. As expected, the speed camera took picture. Then the police checked the pictures...and guess what? the picture was overexposed and the tag unreadable.
By the way, the Trading Standards Officials in England fined a guy who was selling a product called Safeplate. The guy was also selling Photoblocker...but guess what? the only product he was fined was the safeplate (the counterfeit) because they find that it didn't do what it said on the tin. But the Photoblocker, with all the independent tests and results, was found -YET AGAIN - to work! So, for those who think Photoblocker is just another hair spray..learn from Safeplate.huhu!
Posted by nidia  on  Sun Oct 01, 2006  at  11:11 AM
hey Cranky,

here is the video I promised you. Now, I arrest my case....satisfied? You still have my plates (when I sell my car ofcourse) to look forward to. enjoy:

http://www.phantomplate.com/vidpop_kxan.html

http://real.phantomplate.com:8080/ramgen/~phantomplate/foxnews-denver-dsl.rm
Posted by nidia  on  Sun Oct 01, 2006  at  11:25 PM
Posted by Smeggy (steve)  in  England  on  Thu Oct 12, 2006  at  09:04 AM
Posted by Smeggy (steve)  in  England  on  Thu Oct 12, 2006  at  09:20 AM
Since I couldn't post the full article, this is FYI .After reading the article, you may enjoy >>>>
http://www.phantomplate.com/vidpop_kxan.html


Weekend, Sep 30 - Oct 1, 2006

Copyright
Posted by nidia  on  Thu Oct 12, 2006  at  10:05 PM
Thanks, Smeggy, for your input. The "angle of incidence" explanation had occurred to me but, unlike you, I'm NOT an expert in this area, so I didn't know if it was relevant or not.

Thanks especially for talking about "negative proofs." That's something that can't be repeated often enough, as I've found out from debating various people on this website.

I'm still not entirely convinced of the usefulness of license plate sprays, especially since I saw a guy who distributes the stuff say on KPTV, Channel 12 in Portland, that it doesn't work, but I'm a *little* bit more open to the possibility than I was.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Oct 13, 2006  at  08:16 PM
Hey Cranky,
The angle of incidence is critical; the spray is supposed to work by reflecting all of the light back emitted from the source area back to the source area, the plate will still be perfectly readable except for when viewed in line with the flash. These sprays can work (especially against digital type cameras) but like you I
Posted by Smeggy (steve)  in  England  on  Wed Oct 18, 2006  at  04:00 AM
Smeggy said:

"I
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Oct 18, 2006  at  04:15 AM
Right, I
Posted by Steve (smeggy)  on  Wed Oct 18, 2006  at  07:07 PM
Weekend, Sep 30 - Oct 1, 2006

Copyright
Posted by nidia  on  Sun Oct 22, 2006  at  03:24 AM
Nidia, did you get 'express written consent' before reproducing that text? :c)

"something other than obvious dirt obscured the license plate."
.....and? So what? Was that bloke shown the original enforcement film photos (assuming he as seen photos at all) or a digital copy of them? If the latter it means nothing - just like ALL the photos you see on the internet!!!

A quick Google:

"Officials say illegible licence plates show up on anything from 10% to 40% of photos, with snow, dirt or turning vehicles accounting for most of the failure."

http://www.phantomplate.com/lo_pressrelease.asp?pressname=nationalpost

Try again!
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Sun Oct 22, 2006  at  09:55 AM
Below is the only page Google could find with that quote from Peter M Rivera.

http://www.stopphotocops.com/howitworks.html

Look at the demonstration photo of the car without and
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Sun Oct 22, 2006  at  10:05 AM
Steve,
as in Britain, it'd be illegeal to use photoblocker spray in any other country...BUT ONLY IF they could tell who is using it....they Can't! It is a clear spray that cannot be detected by the naked eye. If you don't want to get traffic/red light camera tickets (protect yourself), use it. I don't use it to run red light...but believe me I'm not the only one who's gotten a ticket for driving through a yello....many have got tickets for making a legal right turn.

And, Cranky,I have yet to see the guy who sells the product and supposedly said it didn't work. Searched over and over again...I guess only you could watch it..hehehe:)
Posted by nidia  on  Tue Oct 24, 2006  at  11:30 PM
nidia said:

"And, Cranky,I have yet to see the guy who sells the product and supposedly said it didn't work. Searched over and over again...I guess only you could watch it..hehehe"

Nidia, you have my word that I really did see that. I can tell you the station I saw it on: KPTV, Channel 12 in Portland, Oregon.

Their website is kptv.com; they may or may not still have that video in their archives. I'm not exactly sure when I saw that story. It was possibly last year. The guy was described as a distributor of license plate spray and he said on camera that the stuff didn't work. Make of that what you will.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Oct 25, 2006  at  02:48 AM
Nidia:
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Wed Oct 25, 2006  at  07:54 AM
cranky...I checked again and again..no archive has it. What were you drinking when you watched it?

Smeggy, what do they call you at the police station? lol!
Posted by nidia  on  Thu Oct 26, 2006  at  01:31 AM
nidia said:

"cranky...I checked again and again..no archive has it. What were you drinking when you watched it?"

Well, nothing. I don't drink or do recreational drugs of any kind, so I wasn't high when I saw that story. I DID see it on KPTV. I wish I had an exact date for when the story ran; that would help us find it. Most likely, the story did not originate at KPTV; they use a lot of stories from other stations on their news,
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Oct 26, 2006  at  02:10 AM
nidia: "Smeggy, what do they call you at the police station? lol!"

It's clear that I'm no longer needed here if that's the best response you have.
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Thu Oct 26, 2006  at  09:43 AM
i used photoblocker on my car, found a photo speed trap posted 35 mph and drove through at least 12 times at 45 mph. i was flashed every time!!! that was over 2 months ago and no ticket!!! i believe
Posted by stompbot  in  albuquerque  on  Mon Nov 06, 2006  at  05:00 AM
Stompbot:
Posted by Smeggy (steve)  in  England  on  Mon Nov 06, 2006  at  08:11 AM
I have used the product and it works GREAT! As a retired cop, I know first hand how law enforcement can be used by cities.
Posted by Darrell Gath  in  Medford, Oregon  on  Sat Nov 25, 2006  at  06:01 PM
Not again!
How do you KNOW the product works?
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  in  Portsmouth, UK  on  Sun Nov 26, 2006  at  05:06 PM
see..! even cops use it....IT WORKS! If you think about it, why would States bother to ban the spray if it doesn't work? They ban it because Photoblocker spray is causing them to lose tens of thousands of dollars in revenue. You can't tell me it is illegal because it is made in the U.S. according to the law that governs the manufacturing of similar products...or else they would have sued the company for unfair advertising etc. (some people who tried to sell spray that doesn't work -such as Safeplate have been fined in the U.K.)

Sooooo, Photoblocker remains the one and only spray that hides your plates from traffic/redlight cameras...saving you hundreds of dollars in fine.
I know it has saved me hundreds in fines...and have only praise for the product!
Posted by nidia  on  Mon Nov 27, 2006  at  02:44 PM
nidia said:

"If you think about it, why would States bother to ban the spray if it doesn't work? They ban it because Photoblocker spray is causing them to lose tens of thousands of dollars in revenue."

Nidia, it's banned in some states because the legislators there want to prevent people from circumventing the law. They don't have testing labs; they just know that the product claims to be able to keep cops from reading your license plate so they make it illegal to try to do that. The spray may or may not work but the fact that lawmakers ban it isn't proof that it does.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Nov 27, 2006  at  04:24 PM
Comments: Page 4 of 8 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.