license plate covers

 

There are places which sell a cover for your license plate. Allegedly it blocks your plate from being read by camera.

I'm assuming it no longer works (assuming it ever did). Does anyone have any definitive information?

It's not just about tolls and tickets. Some communities are scanning every plate they can. The clam is they are looking for stolen cars. The statistics suggest this there aren't finding enough stolen cars to justify the $$$ being spent on the toys.

<<Page 3>>

...

I find it amusing that many people are against CLEAR license plate covers or say "if you aren't doing anything wrong, don't worry." :!:

When I lived in Philadelphia, tag covers were very common, because they deterred thieves from stealing your sticker. Insurance is very expensive there, and you can't get a registration sticker without insurance. So sticker thieves took a pair of tin snips and cut off the corner of your license plate that contained the sticker.

A well secured plate cover was the only viable way of reducing the chances of this. Thieves were more likely to move on then start fussing with a plate cover.

The city police recommended license plate covers to deter theft.

Like the idea of clear covers...

great use, the buggers peel stickers off here, so many keep sticking new on top of old,
when the stickers get thick enough they peel off easy somewhere in the middle, and they just glue the stack of stickers on
nobody notices, because everybody has a thick stack of stickers

--
the title of my autiobiography "Mistakes have been made"

Plate

ericruby wrote:
jgermann wrote:
ericruby wrote:

...
I am against all unresonable searches as well as most all automated data collection.

I'm sure I will be dead before our society and country collapses in totality, but I weep for our children and grandchildren.

How do you feel about Public Records and the Freedom of Information Act?

I am okay with Public Records and the FOI Act. That, to me, is part of living in a society.

Unreasonable searches and plate recognition and the likedo not fall into those catagories, IMO.

Perhaps my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

On Thu. Someone tossed a water bottle at my car. So I snapped a pic of their plate. The c*** goes so what! what are you going to do with it? She felt confident that I can not search nor google it. I can't, but my friend can.

old stickers

When I put mine on this year, I took a razor and first removed all the old ones. I was surprised just how many there were on there.
As far as plate covers go, I remember seeing a device on a TV truck show years ago that would fit the bill, although I have not found any info on it. It's an electrically operated articulated arm that folds the license plate down 90 degrees to allow access to the wiring connector for a trailer hitch. Seems like that would work and if you see a cop just bring the plate back up again.

Doesn't work at all

gatorj wrote:
goboymd wrote:

Where can you buy the spray?

https://www.phantomplate.com/photoblocker.html

I tried it, as far as I can tell it doesn't work at all.

Different stickers ...

telecomdigest2 wrote:

I find it amusing that many people are against CLEAR license plate covers or say "if you aren't doing anything wrong, don't worry." :!:

When I lived in Philadelphia, tag covers were very common, because they deterred thieves from stealing your sticker. Insurance is very expensive there, and you can't get a registration sticker without insurance. So sticker thieves took a pair of tin snips and cut off the corner of your license plate that contained the sticker.

A well secured plate cover was the only viable way of reducing the chances of this. Thieves were more likely to move on then start fussing with a plate cover.

The city police recommended license plate covers to deter theft.

Another way was to take a razor blade and put a cut on the sticker a few times so if someone tried to peel it off it would come off in pieces, not as a whole sticker.

Remember when Penndot came out with those inside the window yellow stickers to prevent theft? They looked like a Post-it note, easy to counterfeit.

http://www.dot3.state.pa.us/pdotforms/misc/faq_nwstylregstk(10-00).pdf

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

good luck with that

good luck with that

--
nuvi 250 --> 1250T --> 265T Lost my 1250T

8B88BB

8BB88B B8BBB8 8B8B88 Works for me, because I still have Squarish College looking type font on my license plate, where there is only a slight different in the corners. Tickets I know that should have came in the mail, never came.

No Go in New York

License plate covers in New York are illegal. That being said, I do have a clear cover over my front license plate to keep it from getting damaged. I have older embossed style custom plates that New York no longer makes. Custom plates are now flat with printed characters and the font just look weird to me. I got mine before the changeover to flat plates and I want to keep them. The funny thing is that regular issue plates are still embossed so they do have the equipment to make them.

--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

Just another way to fill

Just another way to fill their coffers with our money!

--
an94

Hope this does not encourage...

NoMoreTrafficTickets wrote:

8BB88B B8BBB8 8B8B88 Works for me, ... Tickets I know that should have came in the mail, never came.

Hope this does not encourage you to break the law in the future.

How?

Steevo wrote:
gatorj wrote:
goboymd wrote:

Where can you buy the spray?

https://www.phantomplate.com/photoblocker.html

I tried it, as far as I can tell it doesn't work at all.

How did you try it? On the website I linked to, there are several videos with TV stations, etc. testing it with decent results. It will only work with systems that use a flash.

And I hope this encourages

And I hope this encourages you not to make anymore assumptions in the future.

@NoMoreTrafficTickets

NoMoreTrafficTickets wrote:

And I hope this encourages you not to make anymore assumptions in the future.

Since I assume that this was directed to me, what assumptions did I make?

You said

NoMoreTrafficTickets wrote:

..Tickets I know that should have came in the mail, never came.

You admitted that you should have received a ticket, did you not?

plate covers

In NY, covering your plate with any material is illegal.

I have the leftover pink can of photoblocker right here.

gatorj wrote:
Steevo wrote:
gatorj wrote:
goboymd wrote:

Where can you buy the spray?

https://www.phantomplate.com/photoblocker.html

I tried it, as far as I can tell it doesn't work at all.

How did you try it? On the website I linked to, there are several videos with TV stations, etc. testing it with decent results. It will only work with systems that use a flash.

I tried it by driving through Arizona and getting an ATS ticket in the mail. I have the leftover pink can of photoblocker right here. I don't see those flashes in use anymore. Not needed now, the digital cameras are very high sensitivity.

I did see a cover, looked like the other covers, but it had a fresnel lens in it that if you were standing behind the car looking at a downward angle you couldn't see about half the plate. It was quite obvious but the guy had it on the car. My impression was that did seem to work, but it was quite obvious.

FWIW there are valid reasons for having a license plate cover. I have indeed had the tags (annual sticker) stolen off a car once.

I must have missed

I must have missed something. What does 8BB88B B8BBB8 8B8B88, do?

the letters

gerrydrake wrote:

I must have missed something. What does 8BB88B B8BBB8 8B8B88, do?

and numbers are so close to looking the same on some plates it is very easy to get a digit wrong. Wrong digits, no ticket.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Saw that one too. And since

Saw that one too. And since then, the camera tech has gotten only better.

Flashes still used.in Tampa Bay area.

All of the RLC cameras in the Tampa Bay area use flash devices. The spray would not be effective in areas where flashes are not used, but their use is still widespread from everything I've read.

It doesn't work at all.

gatorj wrote:
Steevo wrote:
gatorj wrote:
goboymd wrote:

Where can you buy the spray?

https://www.phantomplate.com/photoblocker.html

I tried it, as far as I can tell it doesn't work at all.

How did you try it? On the website I linked to, there are several videos with TV stations, etc. testing it with decent results. It will only work with systems that use a flash.

Haha. I realize the website that is selling that product has videos that show that it works, and why would they put up videos that show it doesn't? They wouldn't.

But as I posted earlier, I got a ticket with that and the cover over the plate. It didn't help at all.

As to traffic cameras that use flash? I don't think that is done anymore, or not much.

I agree with almost bob

If we can see it, the camera can see it. The ability of our eyes to observe the EM spectrum is laughably poor and electronics designers should have no problem developing superior lens systems.

For fixed location RLC's and speed cams, it would appear that POIs are the way to go.

Cover

Everything I've read of real world excperience says they don't work.

With trucks

Sometimes leaving Tail Gate down will block camera, also sun visor will block face. No recognizable face, no ticket, your not required to admit or identify Driver

I have one from here

I have one from here http://photomaskcover.myshopify.com/ that absolutely works. I tested it extensively since I'm going to get sets for several other vehicles as soon as I have the extra money lying around. Figured since they're about a hundred bucks a car it would be worth picking up a couple of $20 tickets if it didn't work. Put it on my motorcycle and then went out and blew several different enforced lights and toll gates. That was four months ago and no tickets/bills.

This is America. We have a constitutional right to travel in a free and unobstructed manner. It's nobody's god damned business where I go, where my family goes, or where you go. And as far as I'm concerned anyone who says differently is pissing on the memory of the men and women who have died so that we may live this way.

flash type

Steevo wrote:

Haha. I realize the website that is selling that product has videos that show that it works, and why would they put up videos that show it doesn't? They wouldn't.

But as I posted earlier, I got a ticket with that and the cover over the plate. It didn't help at all.

As to traffic cameras that use flash? I don't think that is done anymore, or not much.

All of the RLC in Philadelphia, PA use the flash type.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

Pennsylvania

windwalker wrote:

Sometimes leaving Tail Gate down will block camera, also sun visor will block face. No recognizable face, no ticket, your not required to admit or identify Driver

PA law concerning RLC says no "front" shots, so there is no face shots in PA. Owner of the vehicle gets the ticket, if the owner can prove they weren't driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction the ticket is squashed. Law also say they do not have to disclose who was driving the vehicle.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

fraud

soberbyker wrote:
windwalker wrote:

Sometimes leaving Tail Gate down will block camera, also sun visor will block face. No recognizable face, no ticket, your not required to admit or identify Driver

PA law concerning RLC says no "front" shots, so there is no face shots in PA. Owner of the vehicle gets the ticket, if the owner can prove they weren't driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction the ticket is squashed. Law also say they do not have to disclose who was driving the vehicle.

EZPass fraud. There is little correlation sometimes between laws and doing the "right thing"

Effective against scanners

Nick Kostetsky wrote:

I have one from here http://photomaskcover.myshopify.com/ that absolutely works. I tested it extensively since I'm going to get sets for several other vehicles as soon as I have the extra money lying around. Figured since they're about a hundred bucks a car it would be worth picking up a couple of $20 tickets if it didn't work. Put it on my motorcycle and then went out and blew several different enforced lights and toll gates. That was four months ago and no tickets/bills.

The ad says it is effective against police scanners. If that is the case, will the police ticket you for having it when they can't scan your plate. (in NY)

HUH?

johnnatash4 wrote:
soberbyker wrote:
windwalker wrote:

Sometimes leaving Tail Gate down will block camera, also sun visor will block face. No recognizable face, no ticket, your not required to admit or identify Driver

PA law concerning RLC says no "front" shots, so there is no face shots in PA. Owner of the vehicle gets the ticket, if the owner can prove they weren't driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction the ticket is squashed. Law also say they do not have to disclose who was driving the vehicle.

EZPass fraud. There is little correlation sometimes between laws and doing the "right thing"

What does EZPass have to do with the RLC law I mentioned?

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

wow

This topic has to be in the running for the longest running thread on this site.

--
Garmin Drive Smart 61 NA LMT-S

Is there any comon sense

Is there any comon sense things legal in New York?

Don't come up in my neck of the woods!

Nick Kostetsky wrote:

I have one from here http://photomaskcover.myshopify.com/ that absolutely works. I tested it extensively since I'm going to get sets for several other vehicles as soon as I have the extra money lying around. Figured since they're about a hundred bucks a car it would be worth picking up a couple of $20 tickets if it didn't work. Put it on my motorcycle and then went out and blew several different enforced lights and toll gates. That was four months ago and no tickets/bills.

This is America. We have a constitutional right to travel in a free and unobstructed manner. It's nobody's god damned business where I go, where my family goes, or where you go. And as far as I'm concerned anyone who says differently is pissing on the memory of the men and women who have died so that we may live this way.

I don't want to be the one running you down as you blow the red lights, and or act recklessly!

--
Nuvi 2460LMT.

@Nick

Nick Kostetsky wrote:

...

This is America. We have a constitutional right to travel in a free and unobstructed manner. It's nobody's [...] business where I go, where my family goes, or where you go. And as far as I'm concerned anyone who says differently is [disparaging] the memory of the men and women who have died so that we may live this way.

I suspect that you think that you made a wonderful point about what a patriot you are, but I hope you will stop and think a minute about what you said.

You do not have a constitutional right to trespass on someone else's property and are legally "obstructed" from doing so.

The Mann Act makes it illegal to transport anyone with the intent to commit a sexual crime. In Hoke v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Mann Act's restriction on travel was not unconstitutional.

You may have never done (and hopefully will never do) anything illegal and, if so, where you go should not be of concern. However, I sincerely hope that those plotting to do harm to our citizens and/or infrastructure will be monitored to find out who they associate with and what they are purchasing, etc.

Had we been able to connect the dots on the 9/11 terrorists, there would be "men and women who have died" both in the attack and in the wars that followed who would be alive today.

It sounds like, at best, the

It sounds like, at best, the cover might be effective against some of the older RLC. Based on what I've read in this thread I wouldn't bother with a cover.

I understand a few posters have a valid reason to protect a license plate. The insurance sticker doesn't make sense to me. Too easy to cancel your insurance, or let it lapse. The fact that insurance was in effect for one day doesn't really mean anything. Logic isn't a requirement of any law or government policy.

registration

lewc wrote:

It sounds like, at best, the cover might be effective against some of the older RLC. Based on what I've read in this thread I wouldn't bother with a cover.

I understand a few posters have a valid reason to protect a license plate. The insurance sticker doesn't make sense to me. Too easy to cancel your insurance, or let it lapse. The fact that insurance was in effect for one day doesn't really mean anything. Logic isn't a requirement of any law or government policy.

Unless I missed discussion of another sticker placed on the license plate somewhere, I was talking about a registration sticker, not insurance. The registration sticker is what makes the plate valid for the year, insurance is a whole different animal which is also required by PA law but the only way to check that is to be pulled over for something else.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

License plate cover?

License plate cover? regardless they are colored, clear, or anything else, AFAIK, they are all illegal in California. I had even gotten a ticket for license plate was too dirty while returning from a ski trip.

If the officer is in a bad mood, you will get a ticket unless your plate is shining naked. Otherwise, most officer would not care unless you are driving erratically.

And only the back plate....

Jery wrote:

it doesn't seem like the cops stop anybody for license plate covers that are so dark you can't read the plate in bright sunlight, or age old card board temporary license plates. Maybe the cops know that these are the liberals that collect checks from voting and keeping the liberal socialists in office.

Same goes for all the people driving around with only one back plate in Illinois, where the law dictates you need both front and back plates. I know people who have done this for years and never got pulled over.

--
Nuvi 765T, Nuvi 2350LMT

...

windwalker wrote:

Sometimes leaving Tail Gate down will block camera, also sun visor will block face. No recognizable face, no ticket, your not required to admit or identify Driver

That is only true in California, where they need to prove a specific driver committed the violation before finding guilty of a (very expensive $400+) ticket.

In other states, the fine goes to the registered owner.

What is really needed

Never mind license plate covers.

What is really needed is the driver controlled, rotating plates that we all saw in one of the James Bond movies. Of course, you'd have to generate perfect new phony plates or use old retired ones no longer tracked.

Forget it!
Fred

I saw this...

FZbar wrote:

Never mind license plate covers.

What is really needed is the driver controlled, rotating plates that we all saw in one of the James Bond movies. Of course, you'd have to generate perfect new phony plates or use old retired ones no longer tracked.

Forget it!
Fred

I saw this, but of course, this guy got caught:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/driver-busted-...

How do you prove a negative?

soberbyker wrote:
windwalker wrote:

Sometimes leaving Tail Gate down will block camera, also sun visor will block face. No recognizable face, no ticket, your not required to admit or identify Driver

PA law concerning RLC says no "front" shots, so there is no face shots in PA. Owner of the vehicle gets the ticket, if the owner can prove they weren't driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction the ticket is squashed. Law also say they do not have to disclose who was driving the vehicle.

How do you prove a negative?

In California there has to be a clear picture of the driver's face. The fines are about $348. Very high.

The ATS salesman I met at a city council meeting said the RLC camera fines in CA are ridiculous. I agree.

Thats why we hate the cams

They changed the laws and made it civil so the burden of proof is minimal and defense requires at least a days lost wages. Best part was about 30% was going to Australia (not that I have any thing against Oz)where the Cam Co. was, during these difficult economic times!

not that hard

Steevo wrote:
soberbyker wrote:
windwalker wrote:

Sometimes leaving Tail Gate down will block camera, also sun visor will block face. No recognizable face, no ticket, your not required to admit or identify Driver

PA law concerning RLC says no "front" shots, so there is no face shots in PA. Owner of the vehicle gets the ticket, if the owner can prove they weren't driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction the ticket is squashed. Law also say they do not have to disclose who was driving the vehicle.

How do you prove a negative?

In California there has to be a clear picture of the driver's face. The fines are about $348. Very high.

The ATS salesman I met at a city council meeting said the RLC camera fines in CA are ridiculous. I agree.

It's easy, you were at work, a doctor's office, or some other place where people saw you at the time of the ticket. The driver of the car at the time of the infraction could be another family member, a friend, etc.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

plates

ericruby wrote:
jgermann wrote:

I am not understanding how plate recognition equates to unreasonable searches.

What exactly is wrong with plate recognition? It can locate stolen vehicles. It can be used to catch people with outstanding arrest warrants.

Plate recognition does not equate to unreasonable searches. It comes under automated data collection to which I am opposed.

Too much retention of images. Box Car has a good post. Yes, it 'could' be used to catch people with outstanding warrants, but that should happen after a cop calls in the plate due to a probable cause incident, IMHO.

I'm sure we will disagree on this and that is okay.

in my opinion, outstanding warrants linked to the plate, is probable cause.
but when the plate owner is not driving the car it should be "Carry on Sir"

--
the title of my autiobiography "Mistakes have been made"

here is what you need!

Used in the UK

Yeah, I think those are used in the UK.

I don't know if I have seen any in the US and the plates are different, so the device would have to be different.

How about if you were home alone?

soberbyker wrote:
Steevo wrote:
soberbyker wrote:
windwalker wrote:

Sometimes leaving Tail Gate down will block camera, also sun visor will block face. No recognizable face, no ticket, your not required to admit or identify Driver

PA law concerning RLC says no "front" shots, so there is no face shots in PA. Owner of the vehicle gets the ticket, if the owner can prove they weren't driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction the ticket is squashed. Law also say they do not have to disclose who was driving the vehicle.

How do you prove a negative?

In California there has to be a clear picture of the driver's face. The fines are about $348. Very high.

The ATS salesman I met at a city council meeting said the RLC camera fines in CA are ridiculous. I agree.

It's easy, you were at work, a doctor's office, or some other place where people saw you at the time of the ticket. The driver of the car at the time of the infraction could be another family member, a friend, etc.

How about if you were home alone? Or out driving, in another area at the time? Is there a way to prove that?

Why should you have to? The burden of proof is on the accuser in this country. In this case that's the government, and for good reason, we want things to be more difficult rather than less for the government, they use your own money to prosecute you.

I am glad the government has limits on it's powers.

jgermann wrote:
tomturtle wrote:

Alot of people do not like automated traffic enforcement whether it be red light cameras, speed cameras, or plate readers scanning for other things. They do not have to have anything to hide. They may just be uncomfortable with having all their movements tracked and scrutinized like they are in some totalitarian state. I can understand why plate covers would be appealing.

But then, if your vehicle got stolen, it would make it more difficult to recover.

I often wonder why people are alarmed when law enforcement uses tools like red light/speed cameras or license plate readers to claim that a totalitarian state is upon us, when - for years - Walmart, Target, Starbucks, phone companies, internet service providers, etc. have a complete record of where we went, what we looked at, and what we bought.

When you leave your house, generally your movements are no longer private. Park in a parking lot - chances are you are on camera. Go into some establishment, chances are you are on camera.

If you are worried about your privacy - and I am myself worried - then consider the totality of the problem.

You have consistently argued on this site for more government power and against individual rights and privacy.

I am much more alarmed at the government gathering photo evidence than I am Walmart. The government is much more a concern.

We have a good reason to suspect the government and to put roadblocks in front of the government using our own money to prosecute us, making us defend ourselves at our expense against a government that can use our own money to try to convict us.

I am glad the government has limits on it's powers.

The Constitution of the United States was written by our founding fathers to limit the powers of government. Thank them for that.

I for one like to have as many rights as possible, and I am very comfortable with the government having to work very hard to act against the people. I am very comfortable with the government having to follow a lot of very difficult rules to convict us. I think that's good.

I do not want to give up my rights at all, I want the government to be unable to find enough evidence to convict citizens. I don't want them to be able to take shortcuts, use evidence gathered by automated cameras and the like against us.

Maybe true in many states, I

Maybe true in many states, I won't say most because that's a very broad statement hard to prove, but I won't dispute it either.

What I do know is that of maybe 20 or so states I have driven through enough times to pay attention, the only place I have ever seen it actually posted was in Colorado a few years ago. There were signs at a fairly frequent interval on the freeways I drove on, that all license plate covers were illegal and would be ticketed. Not frames, but covers - and I didn't see a single vehicle with covers on the week or so I was there.

Of course we also know that many laws in many states are never enforced even though they are there, like 2 license plates provided by the DMV and 2 supposed to be attached, but a lot of people think they only need it on the back of the vehicle and just store the 2nd plate intended for the front.

<<Page 3>>