MythBusters Episode 73: "Speed Cameras"
Air Date: March 7, 2007
A speed camera cannot see through a crystallized plate cover.
busted
In the crystals inside the cover did not reflect enough light to fool the camera. Also, the legality of such a device was questioned.
A speed camera cannot see through a lenticular lens plate cover.
busted
While designed to distort the plate from an angle, all or most of the letters of the plate were still identifiable in the tests. Also, the legality of such a device was questioned.
A speed camera cannot see through plastic wrap.
busted
The plastic wrap proved to be ineffective.
A speed camera cannot see through hair spray.
busted
The hair spray was ineffective.
A speed camera cannot see through commercial spray PhotoBlocker Spray.
busted
The commercial spray was ineffective.
A speed camera cannot take a picture of a car if it is going fast enough.
busted*
Neither a normal car nor a Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 were able to travel fast enough to outrun the camera.
*This myth was revisited in episode 84 with a jet-powered car and it was confirmed.
A speed camera can take a picture of a passing bird.
confirmed
The speed camera managed to catch a pair of trained peregrine falcons passing it at a speed of 40 miles per hour.
Defibrillators can cause medical nitroglycerin chest patches to explode.
busted
Using a homemade defibrillator, the build team attempted to see whether the electric shock it created was enough to cause the nitroglycerin in the patches to explode. However, the defibrillator failed to detonate the patches, as well as patches covered with pure nitroglycerin. The build team was forced to use custom made, high power explosives in order to blow up the body.
Newer: Episode 74: "Dog Myths"
Older: Episode 72: "Underwater Car"
A car can outspeed a speed camera, Its been tested on Top Gear..I forget what the speed was but it was somewhere around 180mph.
June 23, 2007 at 4:54 PMI think that spray would have worked a lot better if they had taken a picture at an angle (which would always happen at a real intersection), but they took a picture straight on…
June 23, 2007 at 4:56 PMHahaha! Hilarious the way you guys just HAD to blow the body up with a defibrillator one way or the other.
June 26, 2007 at 7:41 AMI was dissapointed…
June 29, 2007 at 10:43 PMTop Gear did ineed beat the speed camera. When mythbusters were looking for questions, the first question should have been “what is the fastest speed recorded by one of your camera’s?” It would have been the starting point for that myth.
June 30, 2007 at 7:00 AMWith regard to the number plate , I have been using a 3M reflective sticks tape that has been cut and stuck directly on the numbers and when a flash hits it all you see is white, works superbly evertime.
July 16, 2007 at 5:32 AMi too was disappointed in the fact that they didn’t position the camera realisticly, although this may be because the speed camera guy wouldn’t have participated if they had actually shown how to beat the camera.
July 16, 2007 at 3:14 PMSo everybody knows Top Gear beat the radar and without going the speed of light like mythbuster suggested you needed to do. Also it’s ridiculous that they used such a small track to run the tests, their are plenty of cars that can reach 140mph (my $7k is rated at this speed) so why didn’t they go the extra 30mph? they didn’t prove anything by using a lambo, it was just for the “cool factor.” i hate it when they jump to conclusion with their smug attitudes.
July 19, 2007 at 3:16 AMFirst off, sorry for posting this by mistake as a comment on the “Snow Special”.
RE: Beating photo-ticket cameras:
I hope they actually get this comment for one of the re-do shows, but Adam didn’t use the method that actually works, at least according to the retired traffic court judge I had as a traffic school instructor.
THE WAY THAT WORKS:
You get a perfectly clear license plate cover — legal in almost all states, as long as it doesn’t obscure the plate (officer’s discretion) — and apply over it a clear laquer: hobby store spray-on, home improvement store brush-on, or fingernail polish.
HYPOTHESIS:
The photo camera’s high-intensity flash is reflected back at the camera lens, bleeding the picture out entirely, like a perfectly aimed laser pointer.
Oh, btw, why didn’t you guys try the laser pointer?
Love the show,
July 19, 2007 at 12:41 PMJeffrey
West Hollywood
hi i love ur show my science teacher shows it too us in class u guys and girls rock!
August 2, 2007 at 2:34 AMhey i no the best myth…When making ice cubes, using hot water rather than cold water freezes them faster.
August 2, 2007 at 2:35 AMI’ve got to agree with jamoecw; even if Adam and Jamie had found a way to beat the camera, there’s no chance they would have televised it, especially with the speed camera guy participating in the test. The breathalyser test they did in an earlier episode, with the help of the POLICE, is no different. I love the show, but I think that tests like this, where there is a blatant conflict of interest, are a bit of a waste of airtime.
August 15, 2007 at 9:31 PMRE: Episode 72: Beating Speed cameras
First off I love the show. But I have a suggestion for you guys should you choose to re visit the beating speed camera myth.
I grew up in the country and my parents and my uncle often joked that caked on dust or mud would foil the high speed camera’s on the 401 in Toronto.
The rational behind this is that looking at the dirty licence plate from 5 feet away its hard to clearly make out the numbers so if the human eye can’t make them out at a short distance then I would suspect the high speed camera may have the same problem.
I also think that driving with a dirty licence plate would get you into a lot less trouble then using one of those licence plate covers.
August 15, 2007 at 9:44 PMHello, my name is Homer, Long time watcher, 1st time poster: (Like Bart hAHahA)
“I grew up in the country and my parents and my uncle often joked that caked on dust or mud would foil the high speed camera’s on the 401 in Toronto.
The rational behind this is that looking at the dirty licence plate from 5 feet away its hard to clearly make out the numbers so if the human eye can’t make them out at a short distance then I would suspect the high speed camera may have the same problem.
I also think that driving with a dirty licence plate would get you into a lot less trouble then using one of those licence plate covers.”
-I have heard this one. Dirt would be an easy test.
-I agree that an extra 30 to 40mph would be a good REVISIT.
-Police are not going to let you have 3m tape on a plate.
-Clear cover is legal in NV, If the cover does not effect the naked eye=Legal.
Great topic, Enjoy the show.
August 17, 2007 at 6:40 PMI have an issue with the speed camera’s capture of the bird. When you tested the bird handler swinging the meat, he was stationary, but when the bird flew past him, he turned quickly to keep facing the bird. I think the speed camera was either clocking him turning and not the bird flying past him or that the combined movements of bird and handler triggered it’s reaction. It may have simply captured the bird because it was close enough to it’s handler to be in the same picture. Amazing photo, by the way. Although it made sense to clock the meat and make sure that it wasn’t triggering the camera, Adam was right. You should have had the bird’s handler stand out of the camera’s range. That would have been the only way to make sure the camera was capturing the bird and not the handler turning around as the bird went past.
August 21, 2007 at 10:44 AMIt would be also better if they tried the the experiment at night. There is a way to block the camera at night using a commercially available Neon-light accessory around the plate number.
August 27, 2007 at 5:03 AMMotorcycles can beat road sensor type cameras by riding down the white lines, the sensors are far enough apart it won’t be picked up.
Anyone that beats a speed camera by going down a public highway at 180mph deserves to hit the next bridge abutment at that same speed. Go find a track and risk only your own life you morons.
August 28, 2007 at 1:33 PMTopgear did it with a TVR driven by the Stig at 170 mph.
August 28, 2007 at 11:07 PMUpdate: The MythBusters just revisited some of the speed camera myths using a jet car and better camera positioning. See Episode 84.
September 7, 2007 at 3:54 AMAbout the ninja the art ia not to be there, anouther werds its a turning action to the left or right, avoiding the bullet all together. No one in there right mined would just let you just shoot at them!
September 10, 2007 at 1:23 AMhi guys, if u notice on the american number plates they have letters that stick out. so im think on the UK plates the only reason that our cars beet the camera was becaus ours are flat. an indeed we can buy over there reflective strips to g on our plates on stop the camera from catchin u. been tested and proven. matbe u should re-do the myth using UK plates
September 11, 2007 at 3:01 PMSure, there’s no jet cars on the road. How about the Bugatti Veyron though. They’re out there on the roads all over the world and it will do 240mph without issue.
September 12, 2007 at 2:15 PMReference Pommy newspaper “Weekly Telegraph” September 11th page 15
“Driver banned for using laser to block speed gun”
” A laser transmitter designed to open gates or garage doors automatically also
blocks police speed guns it emerged last week”
” A Businessman…nine points…perverting
course of justice…using TargetLT(laser
track) 400.
“Police aimed laser speed gun at RangeRover….gun showed error message….
redpigg
September 17, 2007 at 6:07 AMi went past a speed camera at 200mph in my ford never got a ticket
September 17, 2007 at 6:08 AMhave a look a the photo with the bird covering up the front of the car as the photo was taken.
September 17, 2007 at 7:31 AMhttp://www.policespeedcameras.info/photo.html
Beating the speed camera.
Now my suggestion will only work after dark. So will not be a practical method to beat the speed camera around the clock.
So at night a speed camera will require a reasonable flash in order to expose the speeding car. even at an ISO of 400 – 500 ISO, and a maximun flash sync shutter speed of 250/ sec as per the Nikon D2Xs which you used in you tests. Your going to need at least T 2.8 using a pro lens, which in terms of light value, would be some where in the figure of around about 9 EV, at the car and your going to have at least a 30′ – 40′ through from the flash to the car. Taking in to account parking on the side of the road and shooting at 45 degrees to the plate. So as we saw in your tests, you used a block flash with a fairly spotted bowl. But even with that sort of flash, your not going to get a shooting stop of much higher than 5.6 or 8 at the car.
So my way to beat the speed camera is to get a good quality Flash slave to be triggered by the speed cameras Flash. And this slave flash fires the flash directly on to your number plate. making the number plate well off the scale for exposure latitude for even the best DSLR. A reasonable hotshoe flash should be capable of giving an incident value of well more that T 90 (at 400 ISO) at just a foot from the flash. thats got to be well more than 7 or 8 stops above the highest average exposure achievable with even a 1200 watt second flash at that distance and ISO. And even if you shot in RAW and tried running the RAW image through a RAW process and draging the Brightness and Exposure sliders way down to try and read in to the highlights. You still wont have an image.
Try it. I’d love to see if my estimates were close. And Love the show.
Cheers…
Andrew
October 13, 2007 at 9:08 AMi know that here in australia we had a problem with number plate covers the popular opion at the time was to do with polarization between the camera lens and number plate cover. if one of them was horizontally Polarized and the other vertically Polarized then you would end up with a black where the number plate cover was…
October 18, 2007 at 8:53 AMYou can beat a speed camera. It happened on an episode of (What Happens Next?). It was a show on Win Tv, Channel Nine, Victoria, Australia. What happened was you put a giant mirror on the back on a ute. The amount of reflection and glare, blinded the camera and you don’t get your photo taken.
October 29, 2007 at 3:49 AMHey Andrew!
November 15, 2007 at 5:23 PMI’ve heard of your suggested method too, but the flash is pointed towards where the speed camera would be to ‘blind’ it, rather than try to out shine the number plate!
“Defibrillators can cause medical nitroglycerin chest patches to explode.
…the body”
The body?
Don’t they mean dummy or carcass?
LOL.
December 16, 2007 at 8:10 AMGlyceryl trinitrate patch vs defibrillator
March 8, 2008 at 3:06 AMWhere did this myth originate
How do you test empirical science, through peer review. Well, Jamie and Adam’s peers in Denver BUSTED the Mythbusters. Photo Blocker Spray does work and Fox TV 31 in Denver, CO proves it’s effectiveness in “real world” tests using the Denver PD’s photo radar van. Kinda makes you wonder how “real world” the Mythbusters tests really are…???
April 1, 2008 at 2:40 PMIf you the lenticular lens plate cover mounted with the passengers mounting screw’s about 1/2-3/4 inch’s off it’s vehicle mount so it’s at a bit of an angle the camera can’t read it but if mounted completely flat it is then readable .
June 15, 2008 at 10:51 PMIf you have a “illegal” device that was mounted on the front of your vehicle that shoot’s some sort of paint ball object or smaller projectile ahead of your vehicle which would trigger the camera and render there camera as defective because the device can’t be seen by the camera and you could beat the charges on there camera shooting randomly at nothing ?
June 15, 2008 at 10:58 PMPhoto Blocker Spray is bunk. I had it on my plate and still got a ticket. Don’t waste your money.
August 29, 2008 at 7:18 PMRe: “you could beat the charges on there camera shooting randomly at nothing?”
I can hear that defense in court now… “Your Honor, my precognitive abilities told me that the camera went off randomly a tenth of a second before it took a picture of my car.”
November 20, 2008 at 10:47 AMSourBEAR, did you get your ticket in the day time? or night time?
December 1, 2008 at 1:42 PMIn the 2005 CPR Guidelines build-up, there was retrospective studies about nitro patches & defibs: However, they don’t blow up… The nitro in question is a hydrocarbon base gel applied to a patch, not the patch you guys used.This stuff comes in a toothpaste style tube. What happens is that when we need to apply hands-free pads or the paddles, we remove the patch, wipe the chest, and then spark the patient. The pads have to be securely stuck on the chest with no wrinkles or air bubbles. The paddles must have 25lbs pressure applied to the chest. If the gel is not wiped off & the electrodes (pads or paddles) are not secure, an air gap exists which causes an arc. I’m also a firefighter, so the fire-triangle best explains what has happened: Hydrocarbon based gel + heat (arcing) + oxygen = fire. Nothing has blown up, but there have been isolated cases where medical goofs have set patients on fire… The best one was in an ICU with a patient on a ventilator (using 100% O2). They disconnected the vent & laid the vent circuit across the patient’s chest (instead of removing it completely), which was still flowing 100% O2 @10 breaths per minute right where the paddles were, didn’t wipe nitro paste off & defibbed him. So 6-10 milliseconds later the patient was on fire. It was a case study we had to present during the 2005 Guidelines Roll-Outs. Nitro patches don’t blow-up, the gel can ignite if not properly wiped off prior to using the defib.
December 13, 2008 at 11:28 PMEpisode 73: Beating the Speed Camera
May 9, 2009 at 7:33 PMTop gear did infact try the samething and they were able to beat the speed camera without it even noticing the car going by…of course you need over 170 mph. check out this video and it will show you how they did it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph-qv4gYAE8
What I am looking for is a radar homing laser CANNON that would fire a laser beam to FRY the radar!!
May 30, 2009 at 7:21 PM