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

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  06:02 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  on  Fri Sep 29, 2006  at  10:08 PM
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 😊 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  Fri Sep 29, 2006  at  10:26 PM
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  12:59 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  08:39 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  01:43 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  09:11 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  09:25 PM
Posted by Smeggy (steve)  on  Thu Oct 12, 2006  at  07:04 AM
Posted by Smeggy (steve)  on  Thu Oct 12, 2006  at  07:20 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  08:05 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  06:16 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)  on  Wed Oct 18, 2006  at  02:00 AM
Smeggy said:

"I
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Oct 18, 2006  at  02:15 AM
Right, I
Posted by Steve (smeggy)  on  Wed Oct 18, 2006  at  05:07 PM
Weekend, Sep 30 - Oct 1, 2006

Copyright
Posted by nidia  on  Sun Oct 22, 2006  at  01:24 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)  on  Sun Oct 22, 2006  at  07:55 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)  on  Sun Oct 22, 2006  at  08:05 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  09:30 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  12:48 AM
Nidia:
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  on  Wed Oct 25, 2006  at  05:54 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  Wed Oct 25, 2006  at  11:31 PM
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  12:10 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)  on  Thu Oct 26, 2006  at  07:43 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  on  Mon Nov 06, 2006  at  03:00 AM
Stompbot:
Posted by Smeggy (steve)  on  Mon Nov 06, 2006  at  06:11 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  on  Sat Nov 25, 2006  at  04:01 PM
Not again!
How do you KNOW the product works?
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  on  Sun Nov 26, 2006  at  03:06 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  12:44 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  02:24 PM
Oh my, where do I begin with you nidia

Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  on  Wed Nov 29, 2006  at  08:35 AM
How soon do you think before the new teenage passtime becomes cutting camera wires? lol!!!
Posted by Jason  on  Thu Nov 30, 2006  at  10:51 PM
Steve,

now we r getting rude...you 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 "....is more practical banning anything marketed as such." Hey, that's what you say...BUT what I wrote was not my opinion....it 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  08:33 PM
No, it's just that you can
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  on  Sat Dec 02, 2006  at  06:08 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  on  Sat Dec 02, 2006  at  06:19 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.
Safespeed.org.uk 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)  on  Sat Dec 02, 2006  at  07:35 AM
Steve:
"There is no harm in it - apart from the fact it
Posted by itchypalms  on  Sat Dec 02, 2006  at  08:44 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...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_bwH53kBdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKUT3Ls8bZY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7DIPalznk
Posted by Josha  on  Tue Dec 05, 2006  at  06:51 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:\\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.

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  on  Tue Dec 05, 2006  at  06:58 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  Tue Dec 05, 2006  at  10:18 PM
Oh dear, homework indeed, some people just aren
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  on  Wed Dec 06, 2006  at  01:45 PM
Nidia, I didn
Posted by Smeggy (Steve)  on  Wed Dec 06, 2006  at  01:52 PM
Josha said:

"YOU SIR ARE A MORAN."

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  02:18 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  06:24 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  08:22 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)  on  Wed Dec 27, 2006  at  03:42 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  12:23 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  on  Fri Mar 09, 2007  at  09:21 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  on  Sat Mar 10, 2007  at  12:36 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  on  Mon Mar 12, 2007  at  11:24 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.