photoblockers for traffic camera
 

any one has experienced with photoblocker ? does it really work ? :iono:

that stuff never works and i laugh when i see people using them.

:thanks: I've seen mixed reviews

Plus keep in mind that many systems today use a video camera that is just constantly recording without the need for a flash (thus making the spray on stuff useless even if it did work).

what r we talking about here?

It's a product that you spray on your license plate that claims to reflect traffic camera flashes so that your license plate isn't legible in the traffic camera photo.

ow yeah...... i remember the rumours... was all bullsh*t in the end apparently... same as the plastic things u put over the plates that supposedly did the same thing...

wankers must have made a killing....

Yeah, this!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...plate-readers/

oh crap really ? they use a video camera .... didn't know that.

Yep. Modern light and speed cameras are HD quality and running all the time (video not still pictures.) The flashes you see are used to supplement light at night time.

These products used to work on the older cameras that were infared. They are now useless.

Might as well just take your plates off if youre going to go hooning around

Or you can invest in paintball guns and engage in some target practice :bellyroll:...speed/redlight cameras are just revenue streams...they don't really make anything safer

I know that little Timmy o'Tool feels much safer now when he's ball goes flying out into the middle of the road and proceeds to fetch it, with the knowledge that my head will be bearded in my speedometer and that I am doing the speed limit when I hit him. I think one of us should be watching the road, know?

Yea, cellophane used to work, created a glare when it took your picture. Not now with the new video cameras though.

It's B.S. My buddy got a $40 ticket for doing 60 in a 55 (construction zone). No cop would even think about wasting gas for that ticket.

Mythbusters (obviously the pinnacle of scientific testing and research) did an episode about plate blockers. There conclusion was the only way to beat the ticket was to be travelling at +200mph.
I'm not claiming that Mythbusters are correct but I wouldn't rely on any form of plate blocker to save your licence.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/my...d-cameras.html

lol pretty sure some guy in texas got done for doing 240mph in a CCX or veyron or something

If I remember correctly the 200 mph+ was in regards to beating UK traffic cameras as they have to take two individual pictures to prove the speeding offence, by going 200 mph+ the car was out of range when the camera tried to take the second picture. I guess the US only requires one picture to be taken.

I guess the *one* good thing about Massachusetts is that we don't have traffic cameras. The one good thing. Everything else about being a motorist sucks.

They have two types of cameras in the UK. The ones you're describing are the average speed cameras. They use two cameras, one as you enter the monitored zone, and one where the zone ends. Those are installed in areas that some authority decided were dangerous and chose to make them 'safer' by ensuring that EVERY driver on that 1 mile stretch of road is focused only on their speedometer.

I don't think they used that type of camera on Mythbusters. I'm pretty sure they had a single camera setup, but it's been a while since I've seen that episode.

-Justin

Que?

What your mean 'que'?

Simple version, it's better to be watching the road then doing the speed limit (speed within reason though).

I agree 100%

I was implying to use the speed cameras for target practice while in a stationary position.

If I was so inclined I personally would love to give every speed camera a nice thermite bath! Muhahaha