Text 30410, 185 rader
Skriven 2009-03-29 00:48:54 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Plates
==============
Hello Roy,

On Saturday March 28 2009 15:24, you wrote to me:

 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.

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

 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.

So the majority requires two plates.

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

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

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

 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.

Yep...

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

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

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

 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 of
 RW> hand.

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

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

Makes sense....

 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.

How childish...

 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 live.

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

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


 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 misdemeanor.

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

 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 that
 RW> wasn't intended to be there by the designer, are as ugly as they can
 RW> be.

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

 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 sticker.

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

 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. I
 RW> guess the color is his first clue.

Indeed...

 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.

The law is the law. Two plates you said.


 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 plate
 RW> in 1898.

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

 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 his
 RW> own, since the state didn't actually make them.

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

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

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

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

Why not? Sheet copper is easy to process.


Cheers, Michiel

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