I have raised the question of "Photoblocker" in this forum before, and I believe it was rated about the same as Snakeoil. The article in Auto Express issue 829 raises some issues though.
"The Association of Chief Constables says Photoblocker doesn't even work", they would say that wouldn't they, but they do not give any reasons? But the main point of the article is to warn motorists that if caught using the spray you could be fined £1,000, "using the product breaches the Road Vehicle (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, which say it's illegal to tamper with a plate in a way which stops it being photographed". Call me old fashioned, but if they say on one hand that it "doesn't even work", how can it be illegal at the same time. Also why has this spray not been tested once and for all on Top Gear, they managed to get hold of a Gatso to test the speed you could go through it without setting it off, or some similar program, perhaps it does work and they are frightened to show it? Even the last sentence of the article sums it up, whether Photoblocker works or not remains a mystery.
Regards chris7
|
The regulations were presumably not written with 'photoblocker' in mind but to prevent plates being obscured by any substance or object e.g. mud or cycle frame.
It isn't the role of Top Gear or any other TV programme to educate the public on how to break the law. I suspect they might be breaking the law themselves if they did so.
|
|
I have seen Gatso photographs (no, not of my car!!) where photoblocker was used. In most cases, it had absolutely no effect, with the number still clearly visible. Even where it appeared to have 'worked', very simple photo processing techniques undid the effect with incredible clarity. With digital cameras now making more of an appearance, and the use of infra-red flash, I can only imagine that products like this will become even more worthless, assuming that digitally forcing a photo is not counted as manipulation of evidence.
|
Goes back to the same argument as the "premium "petrols and diesels (No I am not re-opening that debate!).
If a company can prove something actually works, it will do this publically and publish the hard and fast results.
If Photoblocker, like Esso etc , can't or won't do this, then I would not purchase their products.
|
|
Leaving out any moral issue, surely a company cannot advertise( or even produce?) a product that is expressly designed to break the law. i.e obscure the number plate.
|
Leaving out any moral issue, surely a company cannot advertise( or even produce?) a product that is expressly designed to break the law. i.e obscure the number plate.
When that question was tested in the USA, wrt to peer-to-peer filesharing software, the courts there ruled that it was OK as long as there was a legal use for the product.
I dunno abt UK law on that sort of thing, but I'd be hard-pressed to think of any legitimate use for Photoblocker -- unless films stars spray it on their faces when they go out, as anti-paparazzi ply ....
|
|
|
