Hummm, intresting any thoughts on Photo Blocker?

[su_jumptd]

Just thought I'd stir :stir: it up a little......what are your thought on Photo Blocker?

www.photoblocker.com

[jaskjb]

Mythbusters did a show on this, and none of them worked. Was pretty interesting

[su_jumptd]

Looks like it works pretty good to me. Or, am I reading into it too much?

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

[atrovarious]

Not a big fan of x-cops who try to profit off of defeating other cops but this is what I use and where I bought it...uh yeah the guy is an x cop so be careful.
http://www.radarbusters.com/products/photo-radar/super-protector-videos.asp
http://www.radarbusters.com/products/photo-radar/Super-Protector-details.asp
http://www.radarbusters.com/products/photo-radar/Super-Protector.asp

Makes a lot more sense than a spray.

[deputy5211]

These products are unlawful in many states, including Texas.

[andy]

These products are unlawful in many states, including Texas.

While I can appreciate the fact that they are illegal, and not being a 'user' I still have to ask myself: Despite the fact that these prodicts are illegal, HOW does the average LEO determine that you have an illegal cover on your license plate? ESPECIALLY if it is in form of a spray. Or has Texas now outlawed ALL license plate covers?

Just curious, and I am NOT trying to stir the pot.

[deputy5211]

While I can appreciate the fact that they are illegal, and not being a 'user' I still have to ask myself: Despite the fact that these prodicts are illegal, HOW does the average LEO determine that you have an illegal cover on your license plate? ESPECIALLY if it is in form of a spray. Or has Texas now outlawed ALL license plate covers?

Just curious, and I am NOT trying to stir the pot.

Looking at the covers, it is not difficult to visually discern the refractive covers from a clear cover. The rectangular refractive insert is a quick giveaway.

As for the sprays, I have not seen them in use, been a while since I worked the streets. I'd be interested in getting some samples for research purposes, as I am curious about whether the added reflectivity of the spray is visually detectable under normal headlamps and/or HID, or if it just keyed to the frequency range of the strobes.

As for the law in Texas, section § 502.409 of the Transportation Code is one place that addresses license plate covers, coatings, etc. I have pasted it below (emphasis added), or you can view the unaltered text on the state's web site at this link (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/htm/tn.007.00.000502.00.htm#502.409.00) :

§ 502.409. WRONG, FICTITIOUS, ALTERED, OR OBSCURED
LICENSE PLATE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person
attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number[0] plate[0] or
registration insignia that:
(1) is assigned to a different motor vehicle;
(2) is assigned to the vehicle under any other motor
vehicle law other than by the department;
(3) is assigned for a registration period other than
the registration period in effect;
(4) is fictitious;
(5) has letters, numbers, or other identification
marks that because of blurring or reflective matter are not plainly
visible at all times during daylight;
(6) has an attached illuminated device or sticker,
decal, emblem, or other insignia that is not authorized by law and
that interferes with the readability of the letters or numbers on
the plate or the name of the state in which the vehicle is
registered; or
(7) has a coating, covering, or protective material
that:
(A) distorts angular visibility or
detectability; or
(B) alters or obscures the letters or numbers on
the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design
feature of the plate.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under
Subsection (a) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more
than $200, unless it is shown at the trial of the offense that the
owner knowingly altered or made illegible the letters, numbers, and
other identification marks, in which case the offense is a Class B
misdemeanor.
(c) to (e) Repealed by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, §
30.66, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a)(4) is a Class B
misdemeanor.


HTH.

[atrovarious]

These products are unlawful in many states, including Texas.
Plate covers are said to be or actually are illegal in many states however they are quite abundant including some tinted ones that make it nearly impossible to see in the light much less the dark.
It's really a toss up because getting a ticked for a plate cover is better than a moving violation, but getting a DUI is worse than a few moving violations.
http://www.dwi.com/blog/texas/license-plate-frames-could-get-you-arrested
It really depends on the a hole that stops you and whether you drink or not I guess.

[andy]

I figured that there is some wording in regards to that. Now after reading, and playing devils advocate. *IF* and only *IF* those sprays are special in a way that they get extremely reflective with a flash, and ONLY with a flash there is no mentioning in the law. While it talks about angular visibility and all the stuff about being visible in daylight, if you have a coating on the license plate that changes reflectivity with a flash, it would not be covered by that paragraph. Or do I see that wrong?

[deputy5211]

Plate covers are said to be or actually are illegal in many states however they are quite abundant including some tinted ones that make it nearly impossible to see in the light much less the dark.
It's really a toss up because getting a ticked for a plate cover is better than a moving violation, but getting a DUI is worse than a few moving violations.
http://www.dwi.com/blog/texas/license-plate-frames-could-get-you-arrested
It really depends on the a hole that stops you and whether you drink or not I guess.

I disagree with your statement "getting a ticked for a plate cover is better than a moving violation" because most moving violations are Class C Misdemeanors. According to my read of the TRC, above, if the state can prove up at trial that you made the modification intentionally, then it is a Class B Misdemeanor -- MUCH worse.

I am not sure what connection you are trying to establish by bringing DUI into the discussion, unless you are just pointing out that a DUI is worse than almost any other "typical" moving violation.

Kindly help me to understand your remark "It really depends on the a hole that stops you and whether you drink or not I guess." Are you saying that a police officer who pulls you over is an "a hole," or did I misinterpret your intended meaning?

[dlbushey]

I sure as hell don't want Big Brother watching me!

How many times have you sat at a busy intersection and as your light turns green, 2,3 even 4 cars that should be stopped...violate your right of way and run the red light. Where's a cop when you need one?!?!

I can see both sides of the argument. If you run a red light, you should be ticketed. Them's the rules. BUT...if someone else is driving my car and THEY run the light as a cam captures the tag number...who gets the ticket? That's right...ME. The speed/redlight cameras are not at all fair. Don't punish the registered owner, punish the driver. There's gotta be another way.

[deputy5211]

I figured that there is some wording in regards to that. Now after reading, and playing devils advocate. *IF* and only *IF* those sprays are special in a way that they get extremely reflective with a flash, and ONLY with a flash there is no mentioning in the law. While it talks about angular visibility and all the stuff about being visible in daylight, if you have a coating on the license plate that changes reflectivity with a flash, it would not be covered by that paragraph. Or do I see that wrong?

Devil's Advocate. . . I love it!

I read it differently than you, Andy. I'm no lawyer, and don't claim to be, but my interpretation, based on my training and experience, is that the law does not need to include every possible circumstance of violation. Specifically, (a)(7)(A) and (a)(7)(B) discuss angular visibility and distortion/readability, and do not restrict the interference to daylight, angle, or flash/no flash conditions. The general theory is the reasonable and prudent person test. Would a reasonable and prudent person believe that a "photo blocker" was intended to aid one in getting away with a violation?

Yes, I know that we all have our own ideas about reasonable and prudent person and what we think he or she should believe :rolleyes:

IMO, the alleged apparent intentional interference to angular visibility and/or readability by the cameras would seem to be prima facie evidence of the elements of the offense.

Here's what I see as the really bad part for motorists who are caught. . . Citations can only be written for Class C Misdemeanors. If an officer is going to file a charge for the alleged Class B Misdemeanor, that means a trip to jail instead of a ticket.

[astuber]

§ 502.409. WRONG, FICTITIOUS, ALTERED, OR OBSCURED
LICENSE PLATE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person
attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number[0] plate[0] or
registration insignia that:
(1) is assigned to a different motor vehicle;
(2) is assigned to the vehicle under any other motor
vehicle law other than by the department;
(3) is assigned for a registration period other than
the registration period in effect;
(4) is fictitious;
(5) has letters, numbers, or other identification
marks that because of blurring or reflective matter are not plainly
visible at all times during daylight;
(6) has an attached illuminated device or sticker,
decal, emblem, or other insignia that is not authorized by law and
that interferes with the readability of the letters or numbers on
the plate or the name of the state in which the vehicle is
registered; or
(7) has a coating, covering, or protective material
that:
(A) distorts angular visibility or
detectability; or
(B) alters or obscures the letters or numbers on
the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design
feature of the plate.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under
Subsection (a) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more
than $200, unless it is shown at the trial of the offense that the
owner knowingly altered or made illegible the letters, numbers, and
other identification marks, in which case the offense is a Class B
misdemeanor.
(c) to (e) Repealed by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, §
30.66, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a)(4) is a Class B
misdemeanor.


To further stir the pot... Wasn't this statute recently amended by the Texas Legislature because the Texas DPS and some police departments were writing tickets because a license plate holder partially covered part of the word TEXAS on the plate?

One of the arguments that I have seen against the use of red light cameras is that when the projected revenue doesn't materialize that some jurisdictions have shortened the yellow light to catch more red light runners. Sort of negates the safety reasoning for the red light cameras'.

[deputy5211]

If you run a red light, you should be ticketed. Them's the rules. BUT...if someone else is driving my car and THEY run the light as a cam captures the tag number...who gets the ticket? That's right...ME. The speed/redlight cameras are not at all fair. Don't punish the registered owner, punish the driver. There's gotta be another way.

"Not at all fair?" - If you get a citation, protest it and say "not me," there are typically processes for dealing with that, sometimes involving a front-view image that may hopefully show the operator's face. Also, each alleged violation is supposed to be evaluated by a LEO before the violation notice is issued. Is there a potential for errors? Of course. Do I think that the automated system can make a better determination of a violation better than a human observer? Sometimes. Can automated traffic systems, such as red light cameras, help increase safety? I believe so. Can some automated traffic systems, such as photo radar, cause increased risk to the public? Possibly. Each implementation should be evaluated on the totality of the circumstances and not just based on the potential revenue.

JMTCW.

[deputy5211]

To further stir the pot... Wasn't this statute recently amended by the Texas Legislature because the Texas DPS and some police departments were writing tickets because a license plate holder partially covered part of the word TEXAS on the plate?

One of the arguments that I have seen against the use of red light cameras is that when the projected revenue doesn't materialize that some jurisdictions have shortened the yellow light to catch more red light runners. Sort of negates the safety reasoning for the red light cameras'.

Hi Alan.

IIRC, the statute that was amended related to covering/obscuring ANY part of the license plate or its design elements, not limited to the word "TEXAS" (see attached image). This restriction also included the various graphics and borders on the plate. TEXAS still needs to be visible, but I understand that the change will clarify the language and intent of the statute and allow for incidental obstruction of elements provided the plate is still clearly recognizable as a Texas tag with a clear and legible number.

BTW, I don't believe that the revised statute will go into effect until 01 September, which is when most new or amended laws in this state are written to take effect.

[grifscoots]

show the operator's face[/color].

I knew there was a reason I was saving that Donald Duck suit.

[deputy5211]

If you get a citation, protest it and say "not me," there are typically processes for dealing with that, sometimes involving a front-view image that may hopefully
show the operator's face.
[QUOTE=grifscoots]I knew there was a reason I was saving that Donald Duck suit.

See that. . . and S the M told you to get quackin' on getting that out of her house and out of her way. Now you can tell her you found a good use for it and no more need for a fowl mood. ;)

[hschisler]

Interesting discussion, and very enlightening to have the law enforcement perspective.

It's illegal in Ohio to have a license plate cover, but I see them all the time. (I also see these doofuses who put the expiration stickers in the wrong corners, on the license plate cover, etc., etc. :rotf: )

You also aren't supposed to have a license plate frame that obscures the expiration sticker or the county sticker. My license plate frame (not cover) obscures both stickers, but I've never been stopped. Doesn't mean I couldn't be, I just haven't, and it's my fault if I am.

Regarding the reflective spray products: I'm wondering if an LEO (or anyone) can tell the product has been applied simply by looking at it. I'm also wondering if you can tell the product has been applied by shining a flashlight or headlight on it. If so, I'd think a police cruiser's (or motor's) headlights would make every treated plate a dead giveaway. Hopefully -- at $30/can -- these products ONLY light up when hit by a strobe light.

So what's the bottom line for the spray products: Do they work or not? Some have said Mythbusters says "no". Has anyone tried them?

[su_jumptd]

Hey all,
I thought this subject might spark some interesting and educational conversation, I like it. The only reason I asked this question was that when I bought my motor I noticed what seemed to be a plastic covering over the plate, which I thought was just to make it look nice or protect it from the weather. But, upon closer inspection I notice some horizontal, silver, reflective lines about one inch apart across the plastic cover. I asked the seller about it and he told me it was for radar anti-detection, prevention. I looked into it a little more on the web and I think its one of the plastic plate that suppose to disperse the radar beam and give a false or no reading.....guessing here. The on my bike now is very similar to this one http://photo-radar.net/shield.html

By the way, I’ve watched the news on the license plate cover law and they reported that the law on that may change because the law makers did not intend for it to be as vague as they wrote it. Example: police where stopping people for “every” little reason and falling back on that specific license plate law. So if the screw that hold you plate on your car is “just” a smig to big….police “could” say that it was obstructing a part of the plate and stop you. (Exaggerating here, of course)

Well, that was long winded…BUT if the photo blocker really works….I’d use it.

[atrovarious]

Like I've said before, be very careful about what you read on this subject but since you asked:
No LP cover will have any effect on radar, any.
No LP cover will have any appeciable effect on laser even if it did work as the lights on the front of the car are move often the target as they are just as reflective and twice the target thus providing a better angle in many cases.
Your news story about cops pulling people over for reasons in which the lawmakers (people chosen by the people) did not intend, illustrates why we have three branches of government. This is a concept taught but seldom learned in high school. It also illustrates why cops are hired without a college education and therefore why their job is to enforce the law and not to interpret it.
One final point, the Mythbusters episode was filmed with the aid of the guy that invented the speed camara. This person has a vested interest in the public not defeating his invention. So for what it's worth, I happen to know that at least one of their results was completely false though I still like the show.

[garry_kramer]

Is there a specific angle that will not bounce back the laser? I can see if the plate is 90 degrees to the gun, the laser bounces back striaght, if the angle of the plate is up or down from 90 degrees from the road, the laser will not bounce striaght back to the gun. What would this angle be? More than 12 degrees like it was said earlier in this tread?

[andy]

Is there a specific angle that will not bounce back the laser? I can see if the plate is 90 degrees to the gun, the laser bounces back striaght, if the angle of the plate is up or down from 90 degrees from the road, the laser will not bounce striaght back to the gun. What would this angle be? More than 12 degrees like it was said earlier in this tread?

Is there any angle from which a motorcycle would not be visible when you use a flashlight? In essence laser devices are just glorified and technically complicated flash lights.

So unless you can make yourself invisible from a flash light you can't make yourself invisible from a laser device.