anyone have any experiences with these?

http://www.invisiplate.com/index.html
http://www.phantomplate.com/

do they work? I'm getting sick of the local municipalities putting these up and then reducing the yellow light times by up to two seconds, guaranteeing extra revenue while not increasing safety in any way, shape, or form.

BTW, I haven't been hit by any such photo-tickets, but I recently read a study that shows that the yellow light times of places that put these up have dropped considerably, and have actually increased the number of change of light collisions because of it.

shadowcat

 

now i know why people have those covers on.... never used any of those products so not sure. I would try the cover if it's not too expensive. the spray you would have to do it all the time, and eventually buy more. Cover just a one time thing.

 

how about not running yellows then?

 

I tried something similar when i was in washington DC because they have those camera everywhere! then i go back to NC and i have a ticket in the mail with my car and three shots taken of it. One profile shot, one front view and one rear view. I only had the covers on the rear so they got me with the fronts. You could still kinda make out what the rear plates said but it would have been thrown out in court

I went back up to the Metro Courthouse when i was back in town and they pretty much ripped up the ticket just because i showed up. It was obvious i ran a red light but those tickets don't do well in court. The lady behind the desk told me it's just to get extra money...if a rich dude ran a red and saw a $50 fine in the mail then they most likely will pay it without showing to court.

eric

 

thats what i was thinking

 

Technically they're only supposed to photo the car when the light is red and you've not yet passed a certain "zone" that they set up in the intersection.

I don't run red lights, but I'd run the covers (if they were effective) to make sure I don't get popped. There's something about the fact that the producing company gets paid by earning a percentage of the fines that are collected that doesn't sit right with me. Sorta sounds like a "deal with the devil" and makes me not trust their system.

 

this is true. They work the same way those alarms do when you enter a convienience store except they're activated when the red light is on.

San Fransico and surrounding areas are a joke to drive when you know where everything is and are familiar with the area like most of you are (for me it's a bit harder).

When you drive on the east coast in cities like DC and New York where every intersection has those cameras it becomes a real problem when you don't know you're way around. You'll be suprised on how many lred lights you run when you're tryng to look at street signs, road construction, pedestrians, etc. Next thing you know you have a ticket in the mail!

 

"remember folks, lights timed for 35 mph are also timed for 70..."

 

Seriously, the number one reason municipalities put these up is to increase revenue. I don't run reds, and I don't run "oranges," nor do I usually speed to catch a yellow. I've never received a ticket for any such infraction. I do not drive like a maniac on city streets. I just firmly believe that this crap should not be supported, tacitly, implicitly, or explicitly.

Please read:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/078ftoqz.asp

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_intro_redlight.htm

http://www.drivers.com/topic/49/

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030...0934-9216r.htm

This is not about my driving habits or trying to avoid a ticket (like I said earlier, I don't run reds). It's about protesting a legal abuse that a municipality uses to increase revenue. I will not argue that it increases safety and reduces red-light accidents. However, studies have shown that just putting up a sign saying that the intersection has photo-radar is just as effective a deterrant as actually putting up the equipment. What I find particularly egregious is municipalities DECREASING the length of the yellow light to GET MORE INCOME from photo-radar. If that's not wrong, I don't know what it.

shadowcat

 

The plate covers are illegal. Period. Even thought they are sold here, they are illegal to put on your vehicle.

 

i have them on my plates only because it's keeps punks from stealing my 'special plates' it also protects my 'special plates' from the weather.

at least i've told 2 cops that

 

we are still better off and very fortunate to be where we are right now even if had 10 of these revenue issues or what not, compared to someone who lives in a third world country who are stricken with the burden of just trying to survive each day..

so for me, this is ok, coz they are just trying to protect the citizens, and accidents will always happen no matter what you do, even if you are a very defensive driver...may it be caused by a short yellow light, or a drunk driver...if its your time, its your time...there's nothing you can do

 

In the past, oh 10 years maybe, I've had no more than 3 or 4 instances where you hit that tricky situation of the quick yellow light at just the very wrong time. Where you know if you maintain speed, not "run" the yellow, you will hit red before you leave the intersection. So, at most, there are 3 times where I ran a yellow or red and I knew it wasn't my fault... BUT, even then I probably wasn't doing the speed limit... which, well, makes it my fault.

If you drive the speed limit and pay attention to the traffic signals you will never run a red light, or even a yellow. While the municipal governments might be cranking up the heat with cameras, its only heat because drivers are already hot. Be honest with yourself. You speed. I speed (heh). But I highly doubt the municipal powers are doing something illegal to gain stoplight revenue (unless there was a personal kick-back going on ).

If you're running red lights and the government isn't doing something illegal... maybe you are?


jason

p.s. For the record:

Also CVC 5201(e) states, that except for special circumstances, an cover on the license place is illegal. It does not, however, supply a definition for cover in terms of whether it is opaque, or not. It does say that you cannot hide the plates from emissions testing equipment (you know, the sneaky road testing folks). It says nothing about covering them from stoplight (or other) cameras. But, the law is certainly vague enough, on the side of the State. (AFAIK, the SFMC says nothing about license plates in any regard).

 

while I agree, that is not entirely true. I know an intersection at Santa Cruz (High and Bay) has a quick yellow with 'light' traffic. During late night early morning or when there is only 1 car on High street. The light goes yellow when the car is halfway through and red right before the car gets to the other side. Speed limit is 25mph there so unless I step on it right off the bat and going over 30, there is no way in hell I could make it there before it goes red. But I don't really care since there is no camera there. I just drive through it at normal speed.

I say all the intersection with cameras should have the count down yellow. So people can't complaint. I was hit by someone running a red before (quick yellow). So I like the 'yello light ticket' system (prefer with count down).

 

all you have to do is cover your face with something when the camera gos off. if they cant identify you in thee picture, then they cant issue the ticket. one of my dumb *** friends tried it, and its been 4 months and no ticket. i know they are still giving those tickets cause my mom got one last month. just keep a magazine in the passanger seat. :banana: