I've never used it myself, but here's the catch: it doesn't work on red light cameras that don't use a flash. Around where I live, they don't use red light cameras period, so I don't know how many percent of them use a flash, but from what I heard, even in daylight the flash is pretty bright, and this spray causes the picture to get overexposed, thus making your licence plate number invisible.
where do you live? if your running red lights on purpose I don't want to be anywhere around
^Every once in a while it happens to all of us. Heavy traffic, long traffic lights, people talking on their phones when it goes green, etc. It happens to all of us. It's not necessarily puposefully running lights.
if your looking to hide your plate sonds like your looking to run the lights ..... agree, it does happen, happened to me a couple of years ago, took a diff way to work, looking for a street I didn't relize the light was turning until too late, good news no camera, bad news cop sitting on the cross street, oh well, such is life
why don't you just not run red lights? that you don't have to spend money on the spray and can stop putting people in danger
I work for the DriveTime section of a regional newspaper and we tested these products and:
1. They do not work.
2. Even if they did wipe out your plate under a flash photo, it wouldn't matter because traffic cams do not use flash.
From the Reading Eagle newspaper in Reading, PA. Nov 14, 2004.
I am the person who did the actual testing along with 2 coworkers that witnessed.
PhotoBlocker spray claims questioned
The product’s legality and its effectiveness in attempts to evade traffic light cameras and radar is examined locally.
There are products on the market these days that make a lot of prom-ises: knives that can cut through steel, pills that can eliminate cellulite, potions that can make a person look 20 years younger ... but do they work?
That was what the Reading Eagle Drive Time’s staff wanted to know about the product called PhotoBlocker, which claims to make license plates invisible to traffic light and toll booth cameras when sprayed onto a license plate.
So, we decided to test it to see if this was true.
Following the directions on the can, the license plate was cleaned and dried. Then, the product was sprayed as directed on the surface of the plate. After the spraying was completed and a “glossy coating was obtained” on the surface of the license plate, the plate was re-attached to the automobile. Then, a series of photographs were taken of the plate, with and without the flash.
When the photographs were observed, however, it appeared that the license plate number became more crystal clear than it had been be-fore the spray was applied.
This didn’t make any sense, seeing as the claim was the spray made license plates invisible to cameras. What should have resulted after spraying, according to
www.photoblocker.com, was a glare over the en-tire plate, preventing the numbers from being legible.
We contacted the people at PhotoBlocker to find out where we had gone wrong.
Joe Scott, director of marketing for the company, explained the rea-son our test didn’t work had to do with our cameras and the conditions.
The cameras installed on traffic lights can’t adjust to the environ-ment, said Scott. In addition, our car wasn’t moving when the photo was taken. That may have an affect on the outcome, as well.
And Scott emphasized one point: it only takes one number to be blurred on the picture of the license plate in order for it to work.
So maybe Scott was right. Our photo may have come out crystal clear, but we didn’t exactly reenact the scenario to a tee.
But even if this stuff does work, is it legal?
The PhotoBlocker company says yes, but according Sgt. Nicholas Bo-lognese of the Cumru Township Police Department, an amendment to Section 1332 of the Pennsylvania vehicle code states otherwise.
“Obscuring a license plate has always been illegal,” said Bolognese.
According to Bolognese, Section 1332 in its previous version stated, in part, that “it is unlawful to display on any vehicle a registration plate which is so dirty as to prevent the reading of number or letters thereon at a reasonable distance or is otherwise illegible at a reasonable dis-tance or is obscured in any manner."
But to makes things even more clear, Bolognese said this statute was amended in 2004.
“I am not sure if it was in response to attempts to defeat the auto-mated red light system but the legislature chose to amend Section 1332 (b) this way: Obscuring plate. It is unlawful to display on any vehicle a registration plate which: (1) Is so dirty as to prevent the reading of the number or letters thereon at a reasonable distance; (2) Is obscured in any manner which inhibits the proper operation of an automated red light enforcement system in place pursuant to Section 3116; or (3) Is otherwise illegible at a reasonable distance or obscured in any manner.”
According to Bolognese, the penalty for violating Section 1332 is $25 plus costs. However, the penalty for violating Section 1332 (b)(2) is $200 plus costs.
“Does PhotoBlocker spray work? Maybe,” said Bolognese. “Is it ille-gal? According to revised Section 1332 (b)(2) it is.”
And if the product does indeed work and our test was somehow flawed, at this point, it still might not be much use in this area.
That’s because according to Bolognese, the City of Philadelphia is the only municipality authorized to utilize an automated red light system in this area.
This information is contained in Section 2116 of the latest version of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, said Bolognese.
“The statute is very specific about where and how the system may be used,” he said. “The system administrator is the Philadelphia Parking Authority.”
But according to Scott, the red light system will be in our area soon.
The label on the can of spray touts its effectiveness, including quotes: “Surprisingly effective...,” Fox news states.
Another comes from NBC: “...proven to work...,” and yet another from The Washington Times states, “...the spray is not banned by any laws....”
What’s missing, however, is the rest of the quote from these sources; that is, the part that is before and after the ellipses.
According to PhotoBlocker’s Web site, the Denver Police Department and Fox news tested the product’s effectiveness.
But when contacted, the Denver Police Department didn’t have the reaction the product claimed they would.
“The Denver Police Department's participation in the testing of this product was minimal,” said Angela L. Garcia, administrative assistant to the deputy chief of police for operations at the Denver Police De-partment. “Fox News was allowed to drive past one of the Denver Po-lice Department's photo radar vans in a remote and controlled envi-ronment to test the validity of claims made by the manufacturers of several items. The Denver Police Department neither endorsed nor verified any of the findings made by the media. Therefore, we as a law enforcement entity, have no direct knowledge of the effectiveness of this particular product.”
In fact, whether this product actually works seems as enigmatic as the incomplete quotations on the product’s label.
Maybe the spray actually does work and maybe in some areas, it is legal to use the spray.
But even if it does work, at $29.99 (plus tax and shipping), is getting out of a few traffic tickets, or worse, breaking the law, worth it?
You decide.
Jeff thanks for posting that...it is interesting to hear the different side of the story from an 'independent' source. I had only heard positive things.
I bet you dupont satin black probably works better...