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)

Law/Police/Crime Technology

Posted on Tue Dec 07, 2004



Comments

We had a stealth car. It was an old Lincoln Town Car...every now & again it would just shut off. We kept coasting along of course...& whenever it shut off we would say we were in "stealth mode". Some of my friends actually believed it.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  11:25 AM
even car is stealth, license plate is not. Police radar can always use it unless you have remote controlled shades or something. If you direct red laser to plate or sign far away, it reflects light right back and illuminates whole thing.
Posted by Loxx  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  11:41 AM
I was told - and of course I have no source, this was just scuttlebutt - that a few people got in a lot of trouble for stealing certain buckets of paint a few years ago from the classified facility they worked at. This paint essentially made their car so a radar gun couldn't get a good reading. This may or may not be true.
Posted by Patrick  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  11:43 AM
Mythbusters did an episode this season where they tested all the myths they could find regarding different methods of fooling radar and laser guns. Nothing worked. After seeing the tests, I dobt any paint, no matter what was in it, could have any effect.
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.
Posted by Matt  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  12:13 PM
Hey, stuff was invented a long time ago that makes it almost impossible to read or photograph your license plate. It's called black paint.
Posted by Big Gary C  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  12:39 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, stealth technology only works on radar. I'm almost afraid to bring this up but something truly invisible would be the alleged "Aurora" Wonderland planes. Oh dear, it looks like the Men in Black are knocking.
Posted by Mark  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  02:14 PM
Why would you think this is a hoax? Did you read the site, and view all the evidence showing how it worked?
Posted by coit  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  03:19 PM
The stuff is crap. Channel 12 out of Portland, OR did an investigative piece on it recently. They sprayed a license plate with it and could easily see and photograph the wording on the plate. Then they went further: They actually found the guy selling the stuff and he admitted, on camera, that the stuff doesn't work. He conceded that it was "for suckers." This is not second-hand info; I saw the story myself--twice--on Channel 12 (KPTV). Their website, KPTV.com, may well have the story on it.
Posted by crankymediaguy  on  Wed Dec 08, 2004  at  06:38 AM
My brother has a bird-dog (radar detector) that my dad gave him for his 16th b-day. (Way to go, Dad.) Well, he's been pulled over 4 times for speeding in the last 3 months. My mom got one of the officers to talk to him after court & the officer said that bird-dogs used to work...But b/c the new radar is constantly scanning, rather than sending out a pulse one at a time, that by the time your bird-dog alerts you...cops already know what you're doing. I don't see how spraying you CAR could keep you from being detected. Cars weigh a ton...you can't miss 'em!
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Wed Dec 08, 2004  at  08:12 AM
I took a look at the evidence on their site. I am convinced this stuff won't work as advertised. I particularly like the side-by-side shot of the car before and after the spray was applied. The after shot looks very much like the first one, just over exposed. The reflections on the car are exactly the same as the before photo except they are brighter. Looking at the tail-lights is another clue.
Posted by Reinstag  on  Wed Dec 08, 2004  at  09:54 AM
Coit, sometimes you don't need to make a full examination of their claims to tell they're bogus. In this case, it's claiming that it works by reacting differently to a flash than normal light. There is an obvious problem with this: These cameras do not all rely on flashes. Even the ones that do use flashes only do so in low light. Even if it worked its usefulness would be marginal at best.
Posted by Matt  on  Wed Dec 08, 2004  at  10:16 AM
The infamous coit has returned.
Posted by John  on  Wed Dec 08, 2004  at  04:46 PM
I remember this joke was a 1st april joke made by french television 20 years ago. They say that hairspray could avoided you being caught by radar.

(sorry for my bad english)
Posted by Fabrice  on  Thu Dec 16, 2004  at  08:32 AM
Has anybody tried the photoblocker or are you all saying bla bla bla with what he say, she say thing. Let me tell you people, this stuff works for real.
Posted by berry  on  Wed Dec 22, 2004  at  01:25 PM
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.

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
Posted by Mary Ann  on  Wed Dec 22, 2004  at  01:38 PM
Come on people, believe the nice schill. Would someone named Mary Ann who reads like an infomercial lie to us?
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Dec 22, 2004  at  02:53 PM
Mary Ann said:

"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.
Posted by crankymediaguy  on  Wed Dec 22, 2004  at  08:51 PM
I don't know about the fox news thing but they were on the "LA time" just recently saying much about the photoblocker.
Posted by Miller  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  11:38 AM
So many scams out there! This Photoblocker is an absolute scam! It is a rip off, and you just became the sucker for buying it. They make up loads of stuff and pay people to say stuff about their products that is not true. Their videos look doctored and spliced, so I do not believe this crap.

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....
Posted by Dorf Lungren  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  02:16 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:\\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.
Posted by Matt  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  10:33 PM
click link for above:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax?URL=http://www.photoblockercanada.com
Posted by matt  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  10:44 PM
I think it's called spamming.
Posted by dani  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  07:36 AM
Something is fishy.

"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?
Posted by Alex  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  07:49 AM
i can see it working,
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.
Posted by Travis  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  09:24 AM
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.
Posted by tiana  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  09:56 PM
Tiana said:

"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.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Jan 27, 2005  at  01:20 AM
Cranky Media said
"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
Posted by Mike  on  Thu Jan 27, 2005  at  09:13 AM
The reason he did not tell anyone was because he dooes not want the staff to think they are above the law. I have it on my cars and know it works.....I don't speed....on home streets. but out on teh stright way i go wiht the flow ...about 5-9 over. I have been flashed meany times, with no ticket ( I paid for one ticke by a real cop.... Still not good.
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.
Posted by Tiana  on  Thu Jan 27, 2005  at  11:32 PM
Mary Ann said:

"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.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Jan 28, 2005  at  03:03 AM
I still believe that the photoblocker spray works. Forget about the Fox news or any thing, I thought I was going to get a ticket the other day for driving 41mph on a 35mph and I got flashed and I was in the midst of changing lanes but I did not get a ticket. I am not encouraging people to run the red light or speed up, but I just don
Posted by Mary Ann  on  Tue Feb 01, 2005  at  12:35 PM
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.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Tue Feb 01, 2005  at  01:31 PM
Charybdis said:

"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.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Feb 02, 2005  at  04:05 AM
Still waiting for a link to phantom being sued by end users????

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
Posted by matt  on  Thu Feb 03, 2005  at  10:38 PM
photoblocker has worked for me why would I sue them. phantomplate would have been a different issue if it did not work.
Posted by John  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  02:22 PM
How does it feel to be a tool, John?
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  02:45 PM
Dont get you six pack,
but still waiting for a negative link????
Posted by matt  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  04:18 PM
Matt said;
"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?
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  10:00 PM
why only the one quote?

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
Posted by matt  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  10:28 PM
Here is a good link from NBC:

http://www.nbc10.com/consumeralert/2647033/detail.html

Im going to have to say Mat wins
Posted by Travis  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  11:35 PM
Matt, This is too easy.

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?
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Fri Feb 04, 2005  at  11:47 PM
Joesixpack are you the audio guy?
Posted by chkris  on  Sun Feb 06, 2005  at  04:19 PM
chkris, I don't think I'm the "audio guy" because I don't understand the question. Could you be more specific?
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Sun Feb 06, 2005  at  05:13 PM
Hello,
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.
Posted by Marcie Mistole  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  12:23 PM
Well of course you were told not to tell them it works. If you were to tell them that it works, you would be outright lying.

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/
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  01:32 PM
Marcie,
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.

😊
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  02:12 PM
Who uses 3 questions marks?
Posted by ENG 101  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  02:38 PM
Apparently a guy named "Mark", and along those same lines... who uses 3 instead of "three"?!?.?? Maybe a guy named ENG 101? Also, who uses all capitals in their names?????? Actually, the motivation behind the three question marks was to try and convey, over this medium, my extreme perplextion (?) that there were actually dispatchers, employed by the government, who had such a crappy grasp of their own language.
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  02:59 PM
Have to support MnJ here, three question marks looks one hell of a lot better than CAPS AFTER CAPS.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  03:01 PM
the reason the postes are the same is because it is from a BLOG, that is it, its being bloging postes.
Posted by Vince  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  08:21 PM
some people just don't know how to type, like me.
teh
Posted by vince  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  08:24 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.