Text 30447, 287 rader
Skriven 2009-03-29 21:55:06 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 30410 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Plates
==============
29 Mar 09 00:48, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV>>> Yes, but what IS the law? if it is up to the whim of some civil
 MvdV>>> servant at the local tax office?

 RW>> Texas law is that the local tax office issues two plates.

 MvdV> Clear enough, two plates it is. So if you have no front plate, you
 MvdV> are in violation of the law.

Yes, that's why I can be stopped for not having one.

 RW>> Of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, only 31 states require two plates
 RW>> for each vehicle, one for the front and one for the back. The
 RW>> remaining jurisdictions only require a rear plate.

 MvdV> So the majority requires two plates.

Yes, but you must keep in mind that states do not do things because other
states do them. Each one has it's own legislative body and each one of
those has it's own agenda. i.e. the cost of making duplicate plates may
outweigh the benifits of having two plates on each car.

 RW>> The trend, however, may move to one plate only because of the cost
 RW>> of manufacture.

 MvdV> Cost? Ow c'mon.. What is the cost of that second plate compared to
 MvdV> the cost of the car. Peanuts.

That's what you would think, but that isn't the case. It costs more to
make those aluminum plates with the bonded plastic coating, inking a
design on it and then covering it with the relector material. In the days
when they made steel plates and painted them, it was much cheaper.

 MvdV> Other than that: Most of the rest of the world requires two plates.
 MvdV> So figure it out...

They're wasting materials that could be used for something more important
and productive.

 MvdV>>> Here it depends. Officially one are is not allowed to drive if
 MvdV>>> one of the plates is missing. But if you have a credible story
 MvdV>>> on how you just lost it and are on your way to get it fixed,
 MvdV>>> the LEO may look the other way and let you get away with it.

 RW>> Sure. That's at the descretion of the LEO.

 MvdV> Yep...

 RW>> Way back, I put a set of headers on my Corvette, in my garage.
 RW>> Rather than go thru the expense of trailering it, or towing it, I
 RW>> drove it to the muffler shop to have the exhaust hooked up to the
 RW>> headers.

 MvdV> [..]

 RW>> keys in the drop box, he was going to cite me. When I explained what
 RW>> was going on, he changed his mind and thanked me for not making a
 RW>> racket with the car.

 MvdV> Something similar happened with my Porsche. I had a broken exhaust
 MvdV> and when to an exhaust shop for a replacement. They did not have it
 MvdV> is stock and not being a cuurnet item, did not want to order it
 MvdV> until I put up a down payment. I got a receipt for the down
 MvdV> payment.

 MvdV> Next day I was stopped and the LEO wanted to give me a ticket for
 MvdV> the broken exhaust. I told him I had ordered en new one and showed
 MvdV> him the receipt for the down payment. That was accepted and I could
 MvdV> move on. Provided I took it easy on the pedal...

Cool cop... :o)

 MvdV>>> That won't fly in a Dutch court. The judge may commend you on
 MvdV>>> having corrected the situation, but you will still have't pay
 MvdV>>> the fine if it is on record that when the LEO challenged you,
 MvdV>>> there was only one plate. The only way to satisfy the court
 MvdV>>> would be hard evidence or at least two witnesses to prove that
 MvdV>>> the LEO was wrong and that you DID have a front plate when the
 MvdV>>> LEO challanged you.

 RW>> I can say it got lost, go to the tax collector and ask for a new set
 RW>> of plates. That's complying with the law and will be dismissed out
 RW>> of hand.

 MvdV> If they believe you, that may work. But the judge may ask why you
 MvdV> did not tell that story to the LEO right away.

Of course that would require the LEO to make a note on the ticket to that
point. He might do so, but I had not planned on leaving him without such
an explanation when he stops me.

 RW>> The law also says that the front plae must be 'forward' facing, but
 RW>> it doesn't say how it should be mounted, other than it has to be in
 RW>> a place where it can be seen from the front.

 MvdV> Makes sense....

Which makes all those people who put their front plate on the dash
illegal. One cop said it has to face forward, not up.

 RW>> So, if I have to, I can mount it under the front facia. I've seen
 RW>> this done on other Camaros and the driver has access to a cable (on
 RW>> the same order as a choke cable) which can raise and lower the plate
 RW>> in/out of view.

 MvdV> How childish...

Yeup...that's why I don't have one on the front at all.

 MvdV>>> Taken such a relatively small offence to court when you know
 MvdV>>> you will lose, is not wise here. The fine imposed by the court
 MvdV>>> will be substantially higher than what was imposed by the LEO.
 MvdV>>> Better pay right away or be sure you can prove innocent.

 RW>> The courts here don't seem to be as strict as they are where you
 RW>> live.

 MvdV> Courts here are not unreasonable. They are willing to listen if you
 MvdV> have a good excuse and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Which they do most of the time, especially a grey haired elderly person.

 MvdV> But they do not have patience with people who are waisting their
 MvdV> time and who do not WANT to obey the law. Which in your case seems
 MvdV> pretty clear. You know thate law requires two plates, You *have*
 MvdV> two plates. You just refuse to mount the front plate because you
 MvdV> find it doesn't look good. IOW you value your taste above the law.
 MvdV> That would not look good here in court.

The best part about that is; I'm not alone in that thinking. In May of
2006, a bill was introduced in the Texas legislature that said only one
plate is required on a vehicle. It even had a date of implimentation of
Sept of the same year. It didn't pass, but that doesn't mean it won't show
up again.

Another bill I'm for is one that allows motorcycle riders to pass between
cars, or to the right on the shoulder, at intersections and on freeways
when the traffic is at a stop. Almost everyone does it now and so the
motorists who witness it have gotten over their 'mad' by now...

 RW>>>>>>  then take it off again when I get home.

 MvdV>>> If that is discovered it may be seen as contempt of court. Nort
 MvdV>>> a smart move...

 RW>> I doubt it. The only way it can be a contempt charge is if I were
 RW>> 'ordered' by the court to put a plate on the front of the car and I
 RW>> fail to do that. Otherwise it's less of an offense than a
 RW>> misdemeanor.

 MvdV> The very fact that you are convicted for not carrying a front plate
 MvdV> is an implicit order to correct the situation is it not?

Of course, but that doesn't mean it has to be permanant.

I don't know about here, but in California, if you got an equipment
violation, you could fix it and then present the vehicle to a LEO for
inspection of that violation and he'd take the ticket and cancel it.

One time I was in the California desert and went thru a Border Patrol
alien check point. A state tropper was also there and he saw that my
registration had expired. He followed me and gave me a ticket for that.

The law said you have to take it straight home and park it. After I signed
the ticket, I went on my way. Along came the cop again and he gave me
another ticket for the same thing. I asked him if he was going to follow
me all the way home and give me a ticket every mile. He got the picture.

Later, I registered the car and presented the car and registration to a
local cop in San Diego. He wrote both of them off, shaking his head (not
at me) all the while. (today that state trooper would have a field day, as
he now has the power to impound a car that isn't registered - California
has become a socialist state and the cops act like Nazi' - when before
they acted almost human)

 MvdV>>>>> I wonder why you are making such an issue out of it.

 RW>>>> Number one is that a front plate looks ugly to me.

 MvdV>>> Ah, a matter of taste again. To me a car without a front plate
 MvdV>>> looks... eh .. incomplete...

 RW>> Yes sir. Too me, a car with something like a license plate on it
 RW>> that wasn't intended to be there by the designer, are as ugly as
 RW>> they can be.

 MvdV> How can you say it was not intended by the designer if only 19 out
 MvdV> of 50 states do not require a front plate?

In fact, Chevrolet doesn't provide a front license plate bracket to
dealers in states that don't require a front plate. In those states that
do require a front plate, the bracket comes in the trunk and is dealer
mounted. That's why I can say the car wasn't designed to have a front
plate, since mounting one seems to be an after-thought.

 RW>>>> I think they detract from the looks of the car. The plate is
 RW>>>> there for LEO to identify the car. If they can't wait until I
 RW>>>> pass by and get a look at the back plate, oh well.

 MvdV>>> What if you are reversing away from the LEO?

 RW>> He'll probably look at the registration in the windshield, before he
 RW>> bothers looking for the plate. That and the safety inspection
 RW>> sticker.

 MvdV> If you are more than a few meters away, he can not see that.

He can. I'm not all that familiar with how they identify the sticker to
know it's not expired, but they do it. I have noticed that the sticker
is a different color each year, but there's not much color on the sticker
to tell from a long distance.

 RW>> And frankly, I don't know how they can make them out, since I can't
 RW>> even see the numbers on the sticker on a car coming at me at 30mph.
 RW>> I guess the color is his first clue.

 MvdV> Indeed...

I'll betcha his eyes are lot better than mine too.

 MvdV>>> Anywwy, here you would not get away with that kind of
 MvdV>>> reasoning. Front and back plates give the LEO two chances. And
 MvdV>>> if that is the law, that is the law.

 RW>> Sort of an unnesessary law if there's nothing happening where he
 RW>> ignores the car completely.

 MvdV> The law is the law. Two plates you said.

I choose not to have two plates on my car. A LEO may choose to enforce the
law or not. I'm not afraid of the consequences if he so chooses.

 MvdV>>> BTW, did you know that The Netherlands was the first country in
 MvdV>>> the world requiring cars to be registered and carry plates?

 RW>> No, I didn't. But research shows that they began issuing what they
 RW>> termed as a 'driving permit' which was displayed like a license
 RW>> plate in 1898.

 MvdV> The Dutch word is "Rijvergunning". "driving permit" is a
 MvdV> sufficiently accurate approximation.

It will have to do, as I got that from some license plate information site
on the internet. (verifying your statement)

 RW>> Conflicting information says that New York was the first to issue a
 RW>> license plate in 1901, but the person issued the plate had to make
 RW>> his own, since the state didn't actually make them.

 MvdV> Here the state never made the plates. The state just laid down the
 MvdV> specifications. it always was up to the car owner to obtain a plate
 MvdV> matching the specifications.

At one point they must have decided that they should make the plates,
because everyone else's interpretation probably didn't match what they
thought they should look like.

 RW>> Alabama was the first state that did issue plates and they were
 RW>> sheet metal covered with porcelan in 1903.

 MvdV> Ah, "emaille" yes we had those too in the early days...

They're rare plates these days, as the coating didn't last very long.

 RW>> Something else interesting was that Arizona's plates were made out
 RW>> of copper.

 MvdV> Why not? Sheet copper is easy to process.

Arizona happens to have the biggest copper mines in the country. Perhaps
the world. It might have been common place for them, but I find it
strange that they'd do that when steel has always been cheap. Today you
dare not leave any scrap copper laying around or someone will steal it for
the scrap money.

                R\%/itt

PS - There is a commercial antenna manufacturer in Atlanta, GA that uses
copper in it's repeater antenna tuning cavities and they supply Motorola
with those systems. They used to be silver plated copper, but these days I
think they're silver plated tin. I had 4 of those cavities in silver
plated copper in my UHF repeater.


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)