Idea

[The Stranger]

Ok you are driving at night, barely exceeding the speed limit and BANG out of the blue you are flashed by one of those photographic toll booths.

But you don't worry because you have the CaN Photo Phucker (tm) fitted to your vehicle.

This small device has a small photo sensitive gizmo, which is sensitive to sudden large changes in light and triggers a blinding flash directed down at your number plate, thus causing the photo image to be overexposed in this region and thus useless to the toll booth.

So this is a work of fiction, but is it viable?
The small photo sensitive gizmos are available.
The circuitry I am sure, would react in time, far quicker than the shutter speed of the camera, but would you be able to generate the light in time?

Or am I just dreaming?

[N4CR]

Hhhhmmmmm..... speed of light raises some interesting problems.

I'm guessing the reflection of the light traveling to the plate and back would take less time than a circuit to have a light reading above threshold (light sensitive diode) and then trigger a current flow for a flashbulb which has to heat up in a very short time ( less than the exposure of the camera). Doing the above would be very hard, but not impossible. An electrical engineer and a decent physicist would help.

[zeRax]

oOOooOOoh, ill be watchin this :), ive got a number of ideas, alsorts of tax evasion area's

[dhunt]

Ok you are driving at night, barely exceeding the speed limit and BANG out of the blue you are flashed by one of those photographic toll booths.

But you don't worry because you have the CaN Photo Phucker (tm) fitted to your vehicle.

This small device has a small photo sensitive gizmo, which is sensitive to sudden large changes in light and triggers a blinding flash directed down at your number plate, thus causing the photo image to be overexposed in this region and thus useless to the toll booth.

So this is a work of fiction, but is it viable?
The small photo sensitive gizmos are available.
The circuitry I am sure, would react in time, far quicker than the shutter speed of the camera, but would you be able to generate the light in time?

Or am I just dreaming?

I'm sure I've seen these devices for sale somewhere on the net so I suppose it is possible. I think worked by detecting the infrared from the autofocus in the camera so worked even if there isn't a flash.

[zeRax]

im guessing itll need alsorts of extra electrical gizmo's, and wonder what people behind u will think when you come out of shadow into sunlight again and ur number plate goes booya bright :E hehe

[dhunt]

Have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/479483.stm

I can't find the place that sells them but it definitely is possible.

[Jonty]

you can just order plates with a bright reflective surface (highly illegal I would imagine). Not sure how they go with car lights but they certainly prevent a camera catching the numbers.

[Ixion]

Hhhhmmmmm..... speed of light raises some interesting problems.

I'm guessing the reflection of the light traveling to the plate and back would take less time than a circuit to have a light reading above threshold (light sensitive diode) and then trigger a current flow for a flashbulb which has to heat up in a very short time ( less than the exposure of the camera). Doing the above would be very hard, but not impossible. An electrical engineer and a decent physicist would help.

It may not be as hard as that. Once the flash goes off the camera shutter remins open for quite a length of time (because even with the flash, there's still not a lot of light) A substantial fraction of a second. So, as long as you flash your actinic glare before the shutter closes you might still be OK to photoflodd the film.

But is there not a theory that speed cameras don't get bikes (can't front on, no plate, but many claim they don't get rear on either). Has anyone ever actually had a ticket from a speed camera (not a cop-stop, but one in the mail)

[The Stranger]

Ok ok, this was my idea.
Mine I tell you. The bastards stole it.

[skelstar]

Theres a problem with the long exposure theorey: if a bike is travelling away-towards a camera (away in this case) then if the shutter was open for long enough the image would become blurred.

You could have somehting like a Xenon flash tube that flashes out the back of your bike. The problem you will strike pretty quickly is the trigger for the phucker (or whatever it was called). It may trigger on anything that presents a difference in light ie car headlights behind you going over bumps in the road etc.

[N4CR]

Has anyone ever actually had a ticket from a speed camera (not a cop-stop, but one in the mail)


I have gone though a few over the 14kmh tolerance for cameras (afaik) at night, while the orange flashy thing was in there (this is one of the busiest cameras in the north island) and it didn't go off. Infact, been through the Mt Wellington highway one twice at speed with no flash at night and also the one from Meadowbank to Remuera multiple times.

Tell ya what, tomorrow night I'll go cruising through 3 of them 20kmh over just to be a bastard and see what happens ;)

edit: and yes I have seen them all flash cars infront of me before at night.

[The Stranger]

It may not be as hard as that. Once the flash goes off the camera shutter remins open for quite a length of time (because even with the flash, there's still not a lot of light) A substantial fraction of a second. So, as long as you flash your actinic glare before the shutter closes you might still be OK to photoflodd the film.

But is there not a theory that speed cameras don't get bikes (can't front on, no plate, but many claim they don't get rear on either). Has anyone ever actually had a ticket from a speed camera (not a cop-stop, but one in the mail)

Ok I haven't seen my 2 tickets flashed from the front whilst on my bike and that was about 3 months ago.
Not so much thinking of the bike, but unfortunately I have to drive a cage now and then.

They used to have snesors on the old Cadi's in the 50s and 60s which detected on coming headlights and dipped your lights. I am told they worked very well.

So I know the ability to detect is available, it is just the flash that would need to be sorted to react fast enough.

Having spent many many hours arc welding I was thinking an electric arc.

[The Stranger]

Could be angled and have a screen, and I am pretty sure (having seen a few) that the output of those flashes is significantly greater than most head lights. If so car headlights should not pose a problem.

[N4CR]

Could be angled and have a screen, and I am pretty sure (having seen a few) that the output of those flashes is significantly greater than most head lights. If so car headlights should not pose a problem.

I'm pretty sure that angle is constant, as long as you are straight and roughly in the middle the angle of the camera will be constant - notice how they set the trigger pads infront of each other on a two+ lane trap? Side closest to the camera (on your left) will be the closest towards the camera and progressively going outwards towards the front of your vehicle as it gets further away. 4 lanes is the maximum - Mt wellington Highway has 5 lanes and only the 1st four of them closest to the camera are triggered due to focal length I'm guessing.

[myvice]

Could you use a large automatic welding mask lens?
Or an anti-radar missile system?
Oh go on, I know you want to!

[The Stranger]

A mate assures me that at 200kmh+ the cameras wont get you. Recons it is to do with the timing and the exposure etc. But I have not been game to verify this though.
Knowing the guy, I am sure he has.

[zooter]

If enough people got them they would mod the cameras to flash you a couple of "redeye reduction flashes" to dejuice your counterflash and then snap you.

[Slingshot]

It would work and it would be a piece of cake...I considered doing it many years ago but never got around to it.

First the theory...when it's dark and a camera takes a photo using the flash, the exposure is controlled by the length of the flash, not the shutter speed. Obviously there are limits to this but I can't be bothered going into this in too much detail.
Higher end modern cameras will actually measure the amount of flash reflecting off the film that it's exposing and actually turn the flash off once it's received enough light (ATTL), this is where the problem could come from. To get around it you would need to dump a heap of extra light onto the film to make sure the camera could not adjust in time.

So anyway, either buy or build a slave unit. This is a thing that is designed to trigger a flash when it senses another flash so that you can have more than one flash but no messy cords. Hook em up to 3 or 4 disposable camera flash units, then position them on the bike.

I'll leave the testing to you, let me know if you get a ticket!

[ManDownUnder]

Pin g Big Dave or someone seriously into photography.

I'm sure there's a "flash relay" or something like that (Google didn't help on this one) but I know the photographers use something similar to light up huge objects if they need to trigger multiple flashes all at once for a REALLY big photo.

They detect the flash of light from another flash, and that triggers their own flash to go off...

Sounds like it might do the job?

[dhunt]

Here we are http://www.buyradardetectors.com/products/tiger-lily/equalizer-vf2.aspx



Tired of receiving tickets in the mail? The VF2 Photo Jammer actively blocks any system that uses a flash camera to photograph your license plate! This includes speed cameras, red light cameras -- even toll booth cameras.

The VF2 looks like a regular license plate light, and mounts directly above your license plate. It works by using a sophisticated sensor to detect a camera flash or an infrared signal. When either of these are detected, a powerful burst of white light is instantly released downward across the license plate. When the enforcement camera takes the picture, all it will see is the bright light -- the license plate numbers will not be visible!

This technology works against all analog photo traps, all infrared photo traps, and against all digital photo traps in use today.

The VF-2 was recently tested by Speed Measurement Labs (SML) in El Paso, Texas and was found to perform very well. In the SML tests, the VF2 defeated each and every photo attempt in the test!

[N4CR]

That last link sounds like a good idea. Another one would be to put an LCD panel covering the plate that is black when triggered - see through with normal operation and appears to be a normal plate, when any flash/light change is done it triggers for .3secs or so, that even police driving behind wouldn't realise. Not that you would be speeding in that case anyway ;)

edit: that also foxes the whole preflash thing in the future.

Damn I'm good.

[SARGE]

much cheaper alternative....

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=332221&postcount=29

[Pillick]

haha, dunno about the theory, but I love the name.

[Sniper]

Johnny English: Use you rockets to destroy the offending toll booth.

[Lou Girardin]

GATSO speed cameras will work sucessfully uo to 275 km/h (as tested by Top Gear)
A diffuser lens on a flash unit should give the beam spread needed to blind cameras at an angle to your vehicle.

[thehollowmen]

Ok you are driving at night, barely exceeding the speed limit and BANG out of the blue you are flashed by one of those photographic toll booths.

But you don't worry because you have the CaN Photo Phucker (tm) fitted to your vehicle.


They're known by many names including slave flashes, light triggered flashes etc.

I've got a couple in my hand, from memory they cost about $40 each.

[XP@]

But is there not a theory that speed cameras don't get bikes (can't front on, no plate, but many claim they don't get rear on either). Has anyone ever actually had a ticket from a speed camera (not a cop-stop, but one in the mail)
Yup, had 2 of them...
Not had to pay either though! (was being tailgated in one and the wind was strong and gusty in the other)

[Biff]

Erm - so light directed at your bike, at the speed of light, is detected, then another light, travelling at the speed of light, is flashed back? Hmmm - I can't see it working. Even taking into account any latency in the electromatronic circustree. Love to be proven wrong though.

[Pixie]

Erm - so light directed at your bike, at the speed of light, is detected, then another light, travelling at the speed of light, is flashed back? Hmmm - I can't see it working. Even taking into account any latency in the electromatronic circustree. Love to be proven wrong though.
Why not?
Considering the stuff travels at 0.3 Gm/sec

[Biff]

Why not?
Considering the stuff travels at 0.3 Gm/sec So - photon particles travelling at 186,000 miles per second (Kmps) leave the camera, they then hit the detector circuit on the bike, the detector circuit then does it's stuff, recognising the particles, processes the information (depending on the design) then sends an instruction to a light source of some description on the bike, activating it, which is then fired back at the camera at 186Kmps.

In this time the initial light source from the camera would have hit the bike and have been relected back to the camera. Would it not? I can't see the detector circuit detecting the light particles, switching on a light source (not a filament bulb - they take far too long to switch on) and then for that light radiating from the bike reaching the camera, in effect temporarily blinding it, before the camera has recorded the initial reflection. And if the bike is moving you also have to consider doppler shift.

[thehollowmen]

Erm - so light directed at your bike, at the speed of light, is detected, then another light, travelling at the speed of light, is flashed back? Hmmm - I can't see it working. Even taking into account any latency in the electromatronic circustree. Love to be proven wrong though.

They hold the shutter open for about 1/60 of a second or slower with a flash. This is to time the camera with the flash, otherwise the shutter will open and close before the flash fires. I don't really know why this delay is there...

This allows plenty of time for your (charged) flash to recognise their flash and bat one back. I have played with this a lot with standard cameras. Those slave flashes fire back and will show up in that 1/60 of a second with no problems.

[thehollowmen]

So - photon particles travelling at 186,000 miles per second (Kmps) leave the camera, they then hit the detector circuit on the bike, the detector circuit then does it's stuff, recognising the particles, processes the information (depending on the design) then sends an instruction to a light source of some description on the bike, activating it, which is then fired back at the camera at 186Kmps.

In this time the initial light source from the camera would have hit the bike and have been relected back to the camera. Would it not? I can't see the detector circuit detecting the light particles, switching on a light source (not a filament bulb - they take far too long to switch on) and then for that light radiating from the bike reaching the camera, in effect temporarily blinding it, before the camera has recorded the initial reflection. And if the bike is moving you also have to consider doppler shift.

What you've got to remember is the camera shutter is held open for 1/60 of a second. Pleeeenty of time at those speeds.

[thehollowmen]

I think the limiting factor for this device is going to be making sure the transisor / relay is faster than half the police shutter speed.

[Biff]

What you've got to remember is the camera shutter is held open for 1/60 of a second. Pleeeenty of time at those speeds.

I must be missing something - How? A serious question, as light would have travelled around 3 thousand miles in that time, without considering the effect of doppler shift.

[Ixion]

Eh ? You mean how is the shutter held open ? With springs and cogs and little motors and stuff. Remember, the film is chemical, not electronic.

[Biff]

Eh ? You mean how is the shutter held open ? With springs and cogs and little motors and stuff. Remember, the film is chemical, not electronic.

Erm - no. What I meant was how does it help that a shutter is held open for 1/60th of a second. Because in this time the detector on the bike is expected to detect, processes and activate a pre-charged light to fire a light back at the camera before the light originating from the camera bounces off the bike and returns to the camera lens.

The originating light wouldn't be detected before it hit the bike, it would be detected just after it due to latency within the detectors circuitry. So the light source would have to leave the bike before the camera's reflected light in order to work. Or at least get to it off within a couple of mS in order to over expose the chemical paper before the lens closed. If indeed they still use chemical paper here (they use digital cameras in the UK).

I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just not convinced at this stage.

[heavenly.talker]

Here's an idea...

Don't go more than 9 kms over the speed limit where there is likely to be a camera! lol

[Ixion]

..Or at least get to it off within a couple of mS in order to over expose the chemical paper before the lens closed. If indeed they still use chemical paper here (they use digital cameras in the UK).

I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just not convinced at this stage.

Yes, the "flood" light would get to the emulsion after the reflected light from the camera flash. But that's OK it will still overexpose the film.The original light from the camera flash will imprint , turning the silver halide black here and there as appropriate. Then the flood light comes in through the still open shutter and turns everything black. Or blackish. The original image is lost in the overexposure. 1/60 second is lots of milliseconds. All this assumes classical emulsion film technology. If it's digitidolly, that's a different ball game, which I know nuffin about .

[R6_kid]

hmm, i was just thinking, those 'black' lights do a pretty good job of screwing things up... what if you just had ur plate coated in a paint with the same properties as 'black' lights... and a few high powered LED's shining on it. You wouldnt see it during the day, would stand out at night, and when the light flashes combined with the LED's im pretty sure it would just look like one blurry mess.

[Biff]

Yes, the "flood" light would get to the emulsion after the reflected light from the camera flash. But that's OK it will still overexpose the film.The original light from the camera flash will imprint , turning the silver halide black here and there as appropriate. Then the flood light comes in through the still open shutter and turns everything black. Or blackish. The original image is lost in the overexposure. 1/60 second is lots of milliseconds. All this assumes classical emulsion film technology. If it's digitidolly, that's a different ball game, which I know nuffin about .

Ahhhhhhh.:niceone:

[justsomeguy]

A mate assures me that at 200kmh+ the cameras wont get you. Recons it is to do with the timing and the exposure etc. But I have not been game to verify this though.
Knowing the guy, I am sure he has.

You are growing more and more naughty everyday........

TopGear conducted an experiment to test how fast you need to go to get out of the camera's range.

The resulting speed was around 170mph or 272kmph they did it in a TVR Tuscan on a closed runway.