Text 30376, 94 rader
Skriven 2009-03-28 16:43:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Plates
==============
Hello Roy,

On Thursday March 26 2009 11:26, you wrote to me:

[ front plate or no front plate ]

 RW>>> Sort of did, sort of didn't. It's left up to the local tax
 RW>>> office as to whether they want to issue one plate or two.

 MvdV>> That must be confusing. Not to know what the requirements are.

 RW> It's one of those things where you're supposed to know the law...they
 RW> can't help you if you don't know what to ask for.

Yes, but what IS the law? if it is up to the wim of some civilk servenat at the
local tax office?

 RW>>> If they made it an 'impound' offense, I might think about putting
 RW>>> the front plate on.

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

 RW>>> But since they only issue a ticket, I can pay the fine or show up at
 RW>>> the court and show them the car with the plate on it,

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

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

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

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

 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.

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

Of course one seldom sees cars without a front plate here. Occasionally a plate
is lost or stolen and then one may observe it. Also vehicles that never leave
private property need no plates. at Schiphol Airport you can see cars that are
not registered. They pay no road tax and do not have plates. They just carry a
number issued by the port master. They may not leave the airport.

 MvdV>> If you have the plate, why not just mount it? Nothing wrong
 MvdV>> with front plates.

 RW> All in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed...

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

What if you are reversing away from the LEO?

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

 MvdV>> Of course I am biased, you don't see cars without front plates
 MvdV>> here...

 RW> The only vehicle I own with a front plate is my pickup. It's mounted
 RW> in such a way that it doesn't detract from the looks of the vehicle
 RW> and it's not in the way when I need to check things under the hood. On
 RW> my 56 Chevy, if it had a plate on the front, I would be bumping into
 RW> it every time I open the hood.

Odd. In most parts of the world both front and back plates are required for
cars. TTBOMK the USA is one of the rare exceptions. One would expect even US
car makers to provide for a place to mount the front plate, even if not all
states require it.

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


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)