Welcome to Photoblogger - All about Photoblocker Spray

UK make the spray ILLEGAL after 2006!

2005-08-13T12:38:00.000-07:00

Photoblocker Spray could save your license, but you WILL NOT be able to buy it after 2006! The Government in the United Kingdom is so worried over the threat Photoblocker Spray poses to the millions they earn every month in speeding fines, that on MARCH 10TH 2005, legislation was announced that would make the spray ILLEGAL.

How many cans sold worldwide?

2005-06-28T04:47:00.000-07:00

Sources:
Photoblocker UK....: 500,000 (european sales only)
Phantomplate Inc. : 300,000 (world wide)

Someone is lying...

http://www.photoblocker.no http://www.photoblocker.info
- Your Trusted Partner

Virginia DOT Study Shows Cams Increase Injury Accidents

2005-06-25T15:53:00.000-07:00

The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied all of the state red light camera programs and found an overall increase in injury accidents. A brand new, exhaustive study of all seven Virginia red light camera programs shows an overall increase in injury accidents has occurred where the devices are installed. The study was performed by The Virginia Transportation Research Council at the request of the state transportation secretary. The report also notes a fatal flaw in the Virginia's camera law -- motorists can ignore any ticket received in the mail. Only tickets that are personally served matter (the same thing happened in Arizona).
Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible" decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed. Camera proponents explain this away by asserting angle accidents are more serious, but this claim has not been scientifically studied according to this report. The rear end collisions caused by the cameras still produce injuries -- the original promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.
This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina.
Key Statistic:Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes. Page xiii
Summary of Empirical Bayes Method (Level 4 Analysis) [Editor's note: only Fairfax County data reflects the most rigorous analysis. Other cities did not provide volume, yellow time, and data on other key factors.] The latter half of Appendix D shows the results of an Empirical Bayes analysis for Fairfax County crash data only. These results suggest the following: The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%. The cameras are correlated with an increase in rear-end crashes related to the presence of a red light; the increase ranges between 50% and 71%. The cameras are correlated with a decrease in crashes attributable to red light running, and the decrease is between 24% and 33%. The cameras are correlated with a decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, with the decrease being between 20% and 33%. The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes, with the increase being between 7% and 24%. Page 28...but it obscures the that only a small percentage of crashes are attributable to red light running. Data from Virginia’s Department of Motor Vehicles, for example, suggested that in 1998 (a year when no red light cameras were in operation), only 3.3% of all crashes involved a driver who “ran traffic control” (DMV, 1999). Page 124 Article Excerpt: There is a practical issue with regard to issuing citations for red light running: the Code of Virginia requires that an in-person summons, rather than certified mail, be used to compel an individual to appear in court. Because of the high cost of delivering summonses outside Virginia, this requirement could make the programs administratively difficult for some localities if it became commonly known that only an in-person summons can require a vehicle owner either to pay the penalty or to appear in court. However, the program can still legally continue in its present form without a change in the Code. Page xii
A Fairfax County assessment showed a 40% reduction in accidents after 3 months of camera operation (Ruby and Hobeika, 2003). A limitation of the study, however, was that it covered only a 3-month period. Further, the study did not account for the changes in the yellow time while the impact of the cameras was examined. Page 13 The one surviving legal worry actually turns out to be a practical problem, generated by the interaction of the notice provisions in the enabling statute and the Commonwealth’s other service requirements. Because the mere mailing of a ticket without personal service by a law enforcement officer does not constitute sufficient notice under the statute’s own terms, successful enforcement may require personal in-hand service if the accused fails to either pay the penalty or come to court. Although the statute permits the jurisdiction to make the initial attempt to summon the accused to court via mail, if the person fails to respond, he or she is not considered to have been satisfactorily served with notice. However, personal service on all violators is obviously a very expensive proposition, involving many personnel hours, and would defeat one of the primary motivating factors for employing automated detection systems in the first place—a reduction in the number of officers required to enforce red light laws. Thus, unless a jurisdiction is willing to devote resources to implementing extensive in-hand service, citations mailed for red light camera violations become essentially unenforceable. The average citizen is probably not aware of this loophole, but if word were widely disseminated, such knowledge could completely undermine the effectiveness of red light camera programs, as citations issued to violators would lose their practical impact. Again, this is a practical, but not legal, challenge. Page 17 Source: Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement Programs in Virginia (The Virginia Transportation Research Council)

http://www.photoblocker.info http://www.photoblocker.no http://www.photoblocker.de

Western Gazette (UK): TOWN PUTS BRAKE ON MARKET TRADER

2005-06-24T10:50:00.000-07:00

Town centre bosses in Yeovil have been accused of Big Brother tactics after putting the brake on a market trader selling an anti-speed camera detection spray. Graham Marshall has accused the council of over-reacting when he was ordered to close his stall selling the spray which makes vehicle number plates invisible to speed cameras.The actions of the officers, which included Mayor Ian Martin was also criticised by a fellow trader who said it was taking away freedom of choice.It is not illegal to sell PhotoBlocker spray but it is illegal for motorists to use it to conceal their number plate.Mr Marshall had obtained an official permit to set up the stall in Middle Street on Friday morning to sell cans of the spray, called PhotoBlocker and said trade was brisk until he was approached by a police officer who asked to see if he had the required permit.Mr Marshall of Bournemouth said shortly afterwards he was approached by town centre manager Nina Higgins and Cllr Martin and asked to pack up and leave.He was shocked by the confrontation which was witnessed by fellow traders and bemused onlookers.He said: "I was told I was not wanted here and they demanded I left instantly. It progressed into a massive scene. I have never been treated like that before."Everything was going fine and everyone was happy. I have sold the product at loads of different markets and at shows and festivals and Yeovil is the only place I have ever had a problem with.""We discourage speeding with every spray we sell and it does not help people break the law."High street shops in the town sell a box which beeps to tell you whether a speed camera is near. Is that not the same thing?"I even had the certificate in my car to prove it was legal but they were determined to see us kicked off."South Somerset District Council is responsible for running the twice-weekly market.Market manager Mark Pollock described the decision to grant the licence as an oversight and said he alerted Ms Higgins after he had been contacted by the police.He said: "When the booking was made we took the initial view that the product was essentially legal and had been operating elsewhere."But on Friday, after talking to police, we realised the full implications and it became clear this was an inappropriate stall and the booking should never have been made."We do not endorse or support this product and we made a mistake. As soon as we realised what had happened we corrected it and are taking steps to make sure it is not repeated in future. This trader will not be coming back to Yeovil."Cllr Martin played down the matter, saying: "I accompanied Nina in her official role to offer civic support to ask the trader to pack up."We had a quick chat and he agreed to move on. There was no real confrontation, we just had a chat and even shook hands."But one market trader who witnessed the incident said Mr Marshall should have been allowed to carry on trading.Steve Attwell, who was running a sweets stall opposite to Mr Marshall, said: "Whether you agree with what he is selling or not does not matter. People have the right to buy the product because it is legal and the council has taken this choice away from the punters."He was given a licence and was only trying to earn a day's wages. Who is the council to decide what people want. The town is acting like Big Brother in trying to control everything that is going on. If people decide to speed, it is their choice and they have to take full responsibility."There are stalls selling all kinds of things and sex shops in the town which may be deemed undesirable. They are all legal, but then so was this.

http://www.photoblocker.no http://www.photoblocker.de http://www.photoblocker.se
http://www.photoblocker.info

Is this product legal?

2005-06-13T01:32:00.000-07:00

Photoblocker Spray is a special reflective spray that’s able to make it impossible for traffic cameras to capture an image of your car’s license plate when you’re speeding or running red lights.

The FAQ says it all:

Q. Is this product legal?
A. YES. The law in most countries requires your license to be legible to the naked eye. Photoblocker Spray is a high gloss, clear, reflective spray that is undetectable. It causes no distortion nor does it obstruct your license plate’s view. YOUR LICENSE PLATE WILL BE VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE. Besides, no one will even know you have it on. It only fools the cameras.

http://www.photoblocker.info

Why should YOU be a PhantomPlate™ Europe Dealer?

2005-06-12T16:09:00.000-07:00

Now, think about it. No one likes to get unjust traffic tickets. Red light cameras and photo radar are popping up all over the world at an alarming rate. Motorists have fired bullets at them and thrown garbage on them — all to get back at big brother. The puplic is in desperate need for an effective product that can give them relief. PhantomPlate is the only manufacturer in the world that has a PROVEN defense- PhotoBlocker Spray, The Reflector and PhotoShield.

We have an excellent program for dealers, agents, or distributors across the globe.
Here are a few aspects of the program that set us apart:

- Generous Profit margins (over 90%)
- Simple PROVEN Product Offering
- Volume discount
- Jump Start program
- Qualified sales leads
- Advertising support
- Exclusive sales Territory representative program
- Lead generation programs

http://www.photoblocker.info Sales: info@photoblocker.info