Number Plate Spray - Photo Blocker

Originally Posted by socommk23

i believe the negative of the photo taken will still show up the numbers on your plate...this is how they have got around anti flash plates.

I've heared this before, but I fail to see why something on the negative is not on the picture. Also, more and more cameras are now digital, so there is no negative.

.

[Red ones]

I believe you commit the offence when you "ATTEMPT to pervert the course of justice." So, whether it works or not, it is illegal to apply it in the hope that it might work.

Technically, the substance is not illegal, just using it is!

Originally Posted by Red ones

I believe you commit the offence when you "ATTEMPT to pervert the course of justice." So, whether it works or not, it is illegal to apply it in the hope that it might work.

Technically, the substance is not illegal, just using it is!

Well Put. I believe you to be correct. As you say the substance is legal, just using it to....... (as you said)

I have seen veichle with anti-flash coating on them, its incredibley obvoius at night and i can't really see the point in it. Its something that going to uneccarley wind up the police and to i reckon your more likley to get pulled for using it than missing a speed camera and get fined.

I think hairspary has a similar effect, or you can use WD40 and dirt which is probaly less likley to wind up the police but does leave you bike looking a bit of a state.

Originally Posted by tomjones2

or you can use WD40 and dirt which is probaly less likley to wind up the police but does leave you bike looking a bit of a state.

This is my current method, it does not work without spending alot of time with mud.
I've experimented a little to find the perfect mix of mud and wd40, so far it's not been very successful. I might try pva glue and mud next.

[Sid Squid]

It doesn't work - or at least not in an even remotely reliable way.

How do I know this? When it was demonstrated to me at a show I took a few photos, some with and some without flash.

All were eminently readable.

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

It doesn't work - or at least not in an even remotely reliable way.

How do I know this? When it was demonstrated to me at a show I took a few photos, some with and some without flash.

All were eminently readable.

that must have ****ed them off squidy, someone puts on a show to demonstrate and sell the wonders of a "get off your speeding fine here" product, and lo and behold.........Professor Sir Sidney Squid with his digicam blows a hole in their sales pitch. Good man, keep up the good work.

Esther Rantzen eat your heart out!

[tinpants]

Originally Posted by Carsick

This is my current method, it does not work without spending alot of time with mud.
I've experimented a little to find the perfect mix of mud and wd40, so far it's not been very successful. I might try pva glue and mud next.

You could be getting a bit close to "tampering with a legal requirement" or some such thing. Or perverting the course etc etc. I believe the Road Traffic Act 1988 stipulates that number plates must be readable from 67ft ( I think) or 20.5 metres. This, I assume would also mean that you have to keep the 'plate clean and legible??

IMHO of course!

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by will

Esther Rantzen eat your heart out!

I accept that a speed camera works in a specific circumstance - distance, flash intensity & duration etc - which clearly I could not replicate whilst at the show in question, but all the same the suggestion that the coating in some way obscures the pictures by reflecting the light and in essence causing overexposure, was far from what I found. Thus my feeling that if it has an effect it's simply not reliable.

Incidentally it wasn't a digital camera - I can't see that this makes a significant difference, or at least not enough to change the substance of my findings - I used my ancient OM2 and Zuiko 35-70. Therefore my previously present scepticism was only confirmed at a later point once the pics were processed.

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

Incidentally it wasn't a digital camera - I can't see that this makes a significant difference, or at least not enough to change the substance of my findings - I used my ancient OM2 and Zuiko 35-70. Therefore my previously present scepticism was only confirmed at a later point once the pics were processed.

film? how quaint!