How can these be legal? They’re those plastic things people put over their license plates that apparently make them impossible to catch on photo radar. I saw many when I was at TorDope (since there’s a toll highway around Toronto) and I’ve seen quite a few here in Montreal. (We have no toll highways, but we have photo radar.)
So, apparently, if a photo radar takes a pic of your rear plate when you’re speeding or whatever, it won’t register, and you won’t get a ticket in the mail.
I’m not defending enforcement of speed laws or getting out of tolls, etc., but I just wonder how these things can still be legal?. In terms of photo radar, it’s like painting your license plate black. Please explain.
They’re legal 'cause they don’t work. I can’t find a cite, but I did see a demonstration showing perfect detection and clear pictures on a red-light camera, using three different types of “anti-photo” plate covers.
They aren’t. Well, at least, it depends on the city/county/state/country in which you live. One such product is here, however what they don’t tell you is that they’re illegal nearly everywhere… AND, they don’t work. I caught a news story about how the cops that process the photos can apply image filters and still discern the numbers. Then they’ve got you for running a red light AND blocking your plate.
Here in San Diego we have tons of those red light cameras, though recently I understand they haven’t been operating because of some lawsuit against Lockheed-Martin who make the devices.
When they were in operation, almost everyone I knew was getting nailed by these things because of one intersection in particular where traffic would sometimes back up suddenly and you’d find yourself in gridlock in the intersection. Then the light would change and surprise, you would get a ticket in the mail. From the direction we were driving, the offending camera would photograph your front license plate.
In response, many people started removing their front plates, though a few were harassed by the cops for doing so, and got ‘fix it’ tickets. Others, like myself, bought polarized plastic covers for our front plates. (Sorry, I can’t remember the site on the Internet)
Basically, it was a cheap piece of polarized plastic film that if viewed straight ahead was clear, but if viewed at more than about 15 degrees off center, looked opaque. If a cop looks at me in his rear view mirror or straight ahead across an intersection, he can read my license plate just fine, but going through that ill fated intersection, the camera can’t get a clear shot.
Even though all the cameras aren’t operating now, I have still left the film over my plate ‘just in case’…
Oh, and I DON’T claim this will work against photoradar or any human operated device, just the red light cameras, and only the one that I specifically have a problem with (at Town Centre and La Jolla Village Dr. for anyone who lives in my home town.)
They’re illegal here in Hawaii, but the point is moot now because everyone was pissed off at the Van Cams and the scared lawmakers repealed the Van Cams.
I always thought that those were more meant to block radars from cop cars, not photos. From what I understand, the cops use the licensce plates to bounce their radar/lasers off of becuase they are so reflective.
(As a side comment, my physics teacher, while doing some experiments in optics, found a certain type of paint (nothing special just something from Sears) that absorbed rather then reflected radar wave lenghts. He painted his whole car with it and “tested” it by whizzing past cops and never getting pulled over. But that’s another thread)
In California, it would be proper to get a ticket for being stuck in the intersection when a light changes red. Though the ticket would be for a gridlock violation, not running a red light.
In California, it would be proper to get a ticket for being stuck in the intersection when a light changes red. Though the ticket would be for a gridlock violation, not running a red light.
>> As a side comment, my physics teacher, while doing some experiments in optics, found a certain type of paint (nothing special just something from Sears) that absorbed rather then reflected radar wave lenghts. He painted his whole car with it and “tested” it by whizzing past cops and never getting pulled over.
I doubt it. Or are you telling me the USAF wasted billions and billions on stealth technology because they did not think of buying Sears paint?
If I read this section of the Vehicle Code correctly, plastic covers on license plates are illegal in California. I see them here often, though, so I suspect enforcement is quite lax.
It’s somewhat plausible - stealth planes DO use what amounts to radar absorbing paint, but that alone wouldn’t be sufficient to dampen the radar reflections from high power search radar sufficiently. I’d imagine that police radar is extremely low power in comparison, and so a surface that doesn’t reflect as many waves may be sufficient to screw it up.