NoPhoto Prevents Speeding, Red Light Cameras from Catching

When the company guarantees to pay any camera ticket fine and any increase in insurance rates that result from a violation when their device comes up short, or when the device is independently tested and found to always work, then it may be worth considering.

So far, there has been no good technology solution to 100% prevent camera tickets, and dozens of companies have marketed such solutions.

If anyone does come up with a technology that always beats the ticket, they'll either upgrade the enforcement technology or make the device illegal.

To obsure your license plate

it's not obscured if you mean "shrouded in or hidden by darkness." It is if you mean "not clearly seen or easily distinguished." In any event, it's probably illegal in that the USDOT won't let you can't use a strobe light facing to the rear for that purpose.

it is illegal to obscure your license plate or use any reflective coatings (which produce glare when camera flashes so photo just shows white). How is this different.

Obey the laws and we wouldn't need this device. ha! ha!

Apparently, the flashing light made the previous thread on this topic invisible.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/37909

This kinds of thing is regulated at the State level and that restriction may not be true everywhere. So you may want to specify which State you're referring to.

Federal regulations cover lights on vehicles, their placement and their use which where the "nophoto" may violate.

In New York State, any kind of cover over the license plate is illegal though I see them everywhere and have a clear one myself on my front plate (they no longer make my style license plate and I do not want it damaged from road debris).

There was an interesting device similar in concept to the flash detection described in the Cnet article. Basically the cover would turn opaque due to being a giant LCD when a flash was detected. The license plate would only be hidden briefly and then turn transparent again. There may be some in use around here but unless you are by a bright flash, you wouldn't know it.

Sometimes there are situations and circumstances why someone may have to break a traffic law, rule or regulation.

Remember.. Things may not seem to be what they look like.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

You keep stating an exception as your only reason against the argument of obeying the laws. I don't think there is anyone that would not agree that there are always exceptions. However, we also know that an exception doesn't negate the law. Time for you to come up with another excuse why you advocate breaking the traffic laws.

Perhaps in your state, but definitely not all.

Also, since this only activates in response to a camera flash, the chances of being detected using this are remote.

@Nuvi1300WTGPS, I am assuming that you are one of those opposed to Automated Traffic Enforcement and, as a result, want to raise any possible objection.

As Box Car says, exceptions do not negate laws.

Sometimes those machines fire when they shouldn't.

Exceptions do not negate laws, but that does that mean society must be scrutinized to death by automated traffic enforcement?

"scrutinized to death by automated traffic enforcement?" seem a bit over the top on the exaggeration scale. Since you have the database of cameras, you could arrange your routes to and fro to avoid them entirely if you wanted so that you would not be so "scrutinized".

When I go to the Walmart, I am being scrutinized by cameras. If I am in a turn lane while moving about town, my vehicle is scrutinized by a camera noting my presence.

My area has Department of Transportation cameras that monitor (24/7) all of the major roads (as do many other cities). One can look at them on the internet. The evening news usually has a feed from one or more of them for the 5 o'clock local news reports. My guess is that similar cameras are part of the feeds to those areas that have "traffic" reports that show up on or GPS devices.

Likely your area has some similar cameras also. If so, do you rail against them for "scrutinizing you to death"?

Cameras at WalMart do not issue tickets. Traffic cams are can be a useful tool for observing traffic trends and congestion. Those cameras do not issue tickets either. Yet those two examples could assist in criminal investigations.
Most states do not allow RLC to be used as evidence in a criminal investigation. RLC could be a useful tool though. When many motorists are observed entering an intersection a split second after a red light, traffic engineers could try a longer yellow.
Scrutinized to death and cash cows are good descriptions of RLC.

When Chicago rakes in over $300 million since they installed RLCs, I don't believe I'm exaggerating.

There is no route for me to take that does not have RLCs. That's how prolific they are where I come from.

Spokybob is right. Surveillance cameras are different from red light and speed cameras.

Given that surveillence cameras generally keep the video for some period of time, explain why you think that traffic cameras warrant the "scrutinized to death" label - unless we should apply that label to all cameras.

From a privacy standpoint - which may or not be your worry - I would say that surveillance cameras are worse.

Sorry, but I feel conversing about surveillance cameras vs. red light and speed cameras is derailing the thread.