today in the news of the world theres a story about some sort of cosmetic that you can put on your number plate to stop you getting done by speed cameras? but i thought the cameras would be able to view the image using computers and changing things so they could see the number plate? is this right? and what is it thats ment to cover them up?

Sheffield is full of unreadable plates. They have a grey cast to them, so they don't reflect properly. I think this only works on the older flash cameras. They're easy to spot with the naked eye, and you'll be forced to replace your plates every time you have an MOT, unless you know somebody who does dodgy MOTs

I could be wrong.

also, they dont work and you'll get stopped by the police every day as they are illegal.

it's an old urban legend. The Sun shows quality journalism again.:rolleyes:

the best way to avoid getting speeding fines from speed cameras is to drive safely and not speed... have you ever been hit by a car? because I have and I can tell you that even at about 35mph it bloody well hurts like hell for MONTHS... I dont ever speed because of the fact I know there are limits for a reason, if there wasn't a reason, they wouldn't be there...

and to anyone who goes doing 40 and 45 in a 30 limit, I hope to god that one day when your out walking somebody hits you and teaches you a lesson, I was thankful the driver that hit me was doing 35 in a 40 limit, if he'd have gone any faster I might have been crippled for life, thankfully I came away with torn ligaments and severely bruised tendons and muscles... but it took a LONG time for my legs to heal, and it's NOT nice

it wasnt the spray they were talking about, it was some sort of make up that was invisable

It is an urban myth as Cyclone says. I think the most common one was that covering the numberplate in hairspray made it unreadable. The images captured by the cameras are analysed by trained Police admin personnel using PC's and they can do all the usual things - zoom in, turn to negative, apply various filters and have a nearly 100% success rate of identifying the numbers. The only way to get away with it is a) don't speed b) have a number plate so dirty/snow-covered that it is totally obscured. As pigupig says, having an unreadable number plate is an offence in itself that you are likely to get stopped for. Italic characters and the boltholes in the wrong place are included in this. There are rules on the font and spacing of the letters and individuals manufacturing plates that don't adhere to these specs are, I believe, on dodgy ground too.
However, Chavs'll believe anything they hear down the pub though and keep putting italic number plates on their lowered, blacked out Golfs, Novas etc

It's such an urban myth that people have been buying the stuff for years in the states!
Do a google on photoblocker.


Sorry. That reads a bit pointed. Not meant to be. I also think that people are being conned by this stuff.

they can't actually use a modified or enhanced picture as evidence in court, you can request a copy of the picture if you recieve a nip, if the plate is not readable by eye (or with a magnifying glass i suppose) in it's original form, then you can go to court and be aquitted.

why not have the james bond revolving license plate hooked up to you soon to become illegal road angel, soon as it spots the filth, it spins your plates around and reads 'up yours'...:hihi:

okay maybe not.

"The Filth" as 1 man and his BMW call our Police service, should have laser guided misiles that spot number plates saying "up Yours" and blast them off the face of the planet..:mad:

Maybe they should :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
jesus.


Originally posted by viking
"The Filth" as 1 man and his BMW call our Police service, should have laser guided misiles that spot number plates saying "up Yours" and blast them off the face of the planet..:mad: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by xafier
the best way to avoid getting speeding fines from speed cameras is to drive safely and not speed... have you ever been hit by a car? because I have and I can tell you that even at about 35mph it bloody well hurts like hell for MONTHS... I dont ever speed because of the fact I know there are limits for a reason, if there wasn't a reason, they wouldn't be there...

and to anyone who goes doing 40 and 45 in a 30 limit, I hope to god that one day when your out walking somebody hits you and teaches you a lesson, I was thankful the driver that hit me was doing 35 in a 40 limit, if he'd have gone any faster I might have been crippled for life, thankfully I came away with torn ligaments and severely bruised tendons and muscles... but it took a LONG time for my legs to heal, and it's NOT nice

Glad you're ok now, BUT...

Driving safely and not speeding are two separate issues.

Doing 71 on the motorway doesn't necessarily mean i'm not driving safely.

Same goes for town driving.

Someone doing 32 in a 30 could be more likely to observe what is going on around them, as their eyes are on the road, rather than their speedo.

For me to hit someone/something in my car, I would have to be unobservant, be doing such a speed that I lose control of my vehicle, or have some idiot get in my way (or all 3).

I observe well and don't lose control of my vehicle, so it must be the third option, people getting in my way.

I almost got myself ran over the other week, by stupidly tripping myself up and almost falling into the path of a taxi, on a pedestrian crossing where the red man was on.

If I had've fell and been hit, it wouldn't be the taxi driver's fault, it would be my fault.

Originally posted by dinp
If I had've fell and been hit, it wouldn't be the taxi driver's fault, it would be my fault.
Where's Saxon??:suspect:

I'm sure that all pedestrian crossings are supposed to be approached with caution, especially when there are people near them.

And as for 'getting in the way'?!?!?!?!?!

Pedestrians legally have the right of way over any vehicle. There is no legal way you can run them over.

I'd like to see what the judge makes of 'He was in my way, M' Lud' :mad:

And how dare you address Xafier with this 'info'?

In Glasgow the pedestrians do have right of way, and the whole experience of driving up there is much more pleasant, because road users are driving with consideration for others, not the usual 'get out of my way' attitude that's rife elsewhere.

Originally posted by Strix
Where's Saxon??:suspect:

I'm sure that all pedestrian crossings are supposed to be approached with caution, especially when there are people near them.

He was approaching carefully, but you don't expect pedestrians to fall on the road in front of you!

Originally posted by Strix
And as for 'getting in the way'?!?!?!?!?!

Pedestrians legally have the right of way over any vehicle. There is no legal way you can run them over.

I'd like to see what the judge makes of 'He was in my way, M' Lud' :mad:

So you mean to say that I can randomly walk in the road in front of traffic and its my right of way? Come on, pull the other one :D

Tell ya what, let cars and pedestrians swap, cars on paths, people on roads. ;) Would solve a lot of congestion in the city centre lol.

I'm not suggesting its legal to mow people down, but when crossing the road, pedestrians as much as motorists are obligated to look where the hell they're going.

If a car and pedestrian collide, and the motorist was not speeding, looked where they were going and took every course of action possible to avoid hitting the person, but the pedestrian either didnt look, or looked and went for it anyway, whose fault is it?

Originally posted by Strix
And how dare you address Xafier with this 'info'?

In Glasgow the pedestrians do have right of way, and the whole experience of driving up there is much more pleasant, because road users are driving with consideration for others, not the usual 'get out of my way' attitude that's rife elsewhere.

Its nothing personal against xafier at all, his/her comments just made me think in general about how one-sided the arguments towards motorists, from every angle, are these days.

"Own a car = You are the devil" is pretty much a summary of it.

No Dinp. Carelessness costs lives.

It's just worrying that people turn into inconsiderate wretches behind the wheel of a car. There are some serious psychological power-tripping problems that seem to be associated with the safety people feel when encapsulated by their metal bubble.

Sheffield is the worst city I've driven in for road rage, speeding, non-indicating, undertaking..... and I've even had a woman (with a child in the passenger seat) mount a kerb and drive fully along the pavement in order to undertake me as she came out of a side street. :loopy:

That's compared to Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Peterborough, Leicester, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds...

I just don't get it :confused:

Originally posted by Strix
No Dinp. Carelessness costs lives.

It's just worrying that people turn into inconsiderate wretches behind the wheel of a car. There are some serious psychological power-tripping problems that seem to be associated with the safety people feel when encapsulated by their metal bubble.

Sheffield is the worst city I've driven in for road rage, speeding, non-indicating, undertaking..... and I've even had a woman (with a child in the passenger seat) mount a kerb and drive fully along the pavement in order to undertake me as she came out of a side street. :loopy:

That's compared to Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Peterborough, Leicester, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds...

I just don't get it :confused:

I hate driving in Sheffield as well. Corby, where i'm from originally is a dream compared to here, and its far more relaxed.

This morning, on the walk to uni, when waiting to cross the road at Granville Square, a lorry deliberately blocked my path because his light was about to change to red, so he edged forwards.

2 mins down the road, between the Europa garage and Columbia place (Suffolk Road), a lorry deliberately blocked the entire junction, so no traffic could turn right when their light was green.

I see the story from both sides of the coin, I walked everywhere last year as I didnt have a car. This year I do, and I can't believe the number of idiots on the roads. Red-light-running is so regular here it may as well be law.

Some pedestrians are dopey though, its not fair to ALWAYS blame the motorist.

If a car and pedestrian collide, and the motorist was not speeding, looked where they were going and took every course of action possible to avoid hitting the person, but the pedestrian either didnt look, or looked and went for it anyway, whose fault is it?
I'd guess it's still going to be the motorist's fault as they're the one in charge of a 1 ton lump of metal moving at a speed that was too great. And by "too great" I mean, they collided with a pedestrian and so were going too fast considerint there are pedestrians around. One should always drive expecting the unexpected.

Originally posted by hotphil
I'd guess it's still going to be the motorist's fault as they're the one in charge of a 1 ton lump of metal moving at a speed that was too great. And by "too great" I mean, they collided with a pedestrian and so were going too fast considerint there are pedestrians around. One should always drive expecting the unexpected.

I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with that statement.

What the hell do you expect Motorists to do, slow down to 6mph every time they see a person on the path? Would you like to see us return to the 1900s where people walk in front of cars with a red flag? With the current speeds in the city centre, i'm sure they haven't ruled this out :D

Come on, speed limits are there for a reason as others have said, so if a motorist is abiding by the limit and some dopey twit wanders out into the road without looking, how can you blame the motorist, just because what they drive is heavier?

What if a cyclist hits someone carrying a particularly heavy pair of shoes? Is the pedestrian then to blame, because they have the extra weight?

Obviously i'm being pedantic, but I reject that argument entirely.

IMO, the person causing the accident, be it pedestrian or motorist, should be at fault. The car driver is not always the devil.

the police identify something like 94% of accidents involving pedestrians as either the pedestrians fault or shared fault.

It's rare that a motorist either drives up the pavement or ignores the red light at a pedestrian crossing.

Originally posted by Strix
And how dare you address Xafier with this 'info'?

...and how dare you address dinp in this way?

Originally posted by foo_fighter
...and how dare you address dinp in this way?

Yes, how dare one addresssith moi in such a manor?!!? For I am Lord Dinpleton of the Castle-Duchess Regiment (est 1673) you peasant :hihi:

Originally posted by dinp
Someone doing 32 in a 30 could be more likely to observe what is going on around them, as their eyes are on the road, rather than their speedo.

For me to hit someone/something in my car, I would have to be unobservant, be doing such a speed that I lose control of my vehicle, or have some idiot get in my way (or all 3).

I observe well and don't lose control of my vehicle, so it must be the third option, people getting in my way.

I think your missing the point I was trying to get accross, observant or not there are still times when theres a kid you cant see who goes chasing a football accross a road, if you hit him at 30, he might survive with minor injury's, at 35, severe injury's... at 40+ chances of him living are very slim...

I live near Birly Spa Lane, its a 30mph road, and I've seen people doing 40+ a LOT of times, bare in mind this area is full of kids... how theres managed to be no people killed on that road I have no idea...

all I'm saying is, you can never be 100% observant, at least sticking to limits means you are less likely to kill... especially when its 30mph areas what are residential... ok 75/80 on a motorway is fine, all there is is cars... 35/40 where theres children, is not fine...

and whats the need for speeding anyways? 30mph is still a hell of a lot faster than you can walk/jog/run :P

maybe sticking to the limits means that you are so interested in your speedo that the chance of hitting the child increases by 10 fold.

You do the maths, it's better to go over by 2 miles/hr, miss 9 children and take the increased 25% risk on the last one.

(Statistically this is, not for an individual driver).

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe sticking to the limits means that you are so interested in your speedo that the chance of hitting the child increases by 10 fold.

You do the maths, it's better to go over by 2 miles/hr, miss 9 children and take the increased 25% risk on the last one.

(Statistically this is, not for an individual driver).

once your used to a particular car you can generally roughly guess your speed, I know I can, the odd glance every so often to check but keeping your eyes on the road is important yes... I'm not talking 2mph over anyways, I'm talking 5 or 10... the amount of pressure and force exerted by a car on a person grows exponentially with speed... thats why 5mph makes a big difference

Originally posted by xafier
once your used to a particular car you can generally roughly guess your speed, I know I can, the odd glance every so often to check but keeping your eyes on the road is important yes... I'm not talking 2mph over anyways, I'm talking 5 or 10... the amount of pressure and force exerted by a car on a person grows exponentially with speed... thats why 5mph makes a big difference

Oh dear, back the physics class with you. It doesn't grow exponentially at all. it certainly grows at a rate < ^2. Exactly what the rate is you'd have to model with a very good simulation or experimentally (with dummies, not children).

Roughly guess - this is not compatible with speed cameras (although recent evidence suggests that they may as well roughly guess as well).
I agree, people are capable of moderating their speed and maintaining a safe speed for the road without constantly looking at their speedo, unfortunately safe and roughly might come to 35, say as you come from the 60 limit heading towards grenoside on the A61. Unfortunately there is a camera virtually on the border, and funnily enough it's also far too close to a bend according to the police guidelines. And whilst it may fall within the boundary for number of accidents, it's actually not near the accident site (the corner in the 60 zone) but happens to be just inside the reduction in the limit.

I heard this story from a colleague and wanted to check it out so thanks for the info guys - as I suspected - too good to be true! Have to say ManwithBMW ha ha ha, I only registered to say, nice sense of humour!!!!

Originally posted by Strix
Sheffield is full of unreadable plates. They have a grey cast to them, so they don't reflect properly. I think this only works on the older flash cameras. They're easy to spot with the naked eye, and you'll be forced to replace your plates every time you have an MOT, unless you know somebody who does dodgy MOTs

I could be wrong.

The plates you are talking of strix will either be the ones with the number masking spray on (causing the grey cast) or simply defective plates that have allowed water between the clear perspex and reflective backing. This causes dirt ingress and makes them illedgeable.
There is also an item that can be placed over the plate which, when viewed directly from front or rear, does not impair the digits. However from a sideward angle or above, say that of a camera, alledgedly prevents a viewing. I presume it has some sort of honycombe effect in its construction.
I know of someone (ahem! :wink: ) who has an anti flash plate fixed to their motorcycle (for "show use" only :wink: ) that supposedly, has a backing that reflects the light from a camera flash.
I doubt he will be trying out this theory any time soon.
I do not know if any of the above items live up to their claims either.

In no way do I advocate the use of any such device:nono:

Originally posted by viking
"The Filth" as 1 man and his BMW call our Police service, should have laser guided misiles that spot number plates saying "up Yours" and blast them off the face of the planet..:mad:

If you mean the slogans in small type at the bottom of plates its hardly the end of the world viking (not to mention a waste of missile and Police funding:loopy: ).
Maybe, rather cheesy in a Chav boy racer way yeah.
What next? Public floggings for anyone who should dare drive a red vehicle on a Thursday! :roll:

And yes, I'm slogan free:P

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe sticking to the limits means that you are so interested in your speedo that the chance of hitting the child increases by 10 fold.

That's only if you're hell bent on driving at EXACTLY the speed limit to prove the point. When I drive through a heavily parked area or one where I cannot see what is coming due to major obstructions (e.g. any housing estate) I generally drive between 20 and 25mph, up to 30 when I have a clear bit.

Remember, 30mph is a maximum, not an absolute requirement.

It's like rivers. The chance of surviving falling into a river in winter is quite low.

One solution is to ban rivers which are too cold.

Or you could tell people to be careful when near a river.

Originally posted by PerlOfWisdom
It's like rivers. The chance of surviving falling into a river in winter is quite low.

One solution is to ban rivers which are too cold.

Or you could tell people to be careful when near a river.

Not at all, a River can't think for itself, drivers can.

People - stay off the roads

Cars - stay off the pavement

Problem solved. :thumbsup: