Thursday, May 16, 2019

California insists on being one of the 31 states that requires a front and back license plate... so, why don't motorcycles have to display one in front? Since they don't, why do cars and trucks?

Your front license plate can be anywhere on the front of your car, or truck, as long as it's between 12 and 60 inches off the ground, on the front of your car. Facing forward, and not on top of the hood, or under the car, or on the sides, or in the passenger compartment.

Yeah, it's a 200 dollar fine minimum for believing that the cops won't mind so long as it's on the dash. That's not the front of the car, and they are easily upset by minor details like that.

Anyway... so, with all the words in the article 9, since 1959, California CVC, 5200-5206, why is it never mentioned that motorcycle are passenger vehicles, have a front, but are not issued front plates and therefore are exempt from displaying a front license plate?

Just curious

9 comments:

  1. Because motorcycles won't try to run you down? So you don't need to see their license plate when they are coming at you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can't comment about the States, but in Britain front numberplates were actually banned in the early 70s (or thereabouts). They were originally mounted sideways on top of the mudguard matching the curve of the mudguard, with the number painted (or stick on letters) on both sides. They were referred to as Bacon Slicers...If you hit a pedestrian it caused a spectacular amount of damage.This is why you no longer require a front plate in Britain. There really isn't much frontal area on a motorbike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stupid idea to have them mounted inline instead of perpendicular to the length of the bike was someone elses bad idea, not mine.
      Putting them on the front fender makes no sense... that's as ridiculous as having a car license plate, or taxi sign, used as a hood ornament in line with the length of the car, not as you notice all signage on cars, prependicular... parallel to the bumper.
      After all, the back plate on a bike is mounted perpendicular to the length, mount the front plate the same,
      or,
      admit a car doesn't need a front plate. 19 of the 50 states agree with me.
      No front plate is needed

      Delete
    2. Also, the point of this post was that cars and trucks have no reason to have a front plate.
      As to the frontal area on a motor bike, that's all relative to the variety of bikes, but, the size of a front, or set of, motorbike plates has no reason to be the size of the car plates.
      They used to be quite small... 3x5 inches or less, maybe 2x4.
      Any way, no one addressed the other points I brought up... just how a bike had a plate on the front fender like a fin
      So, can you comment on why a car needs a front plate when a bike does NOT?

      Delete
  3. We Used to have front plates on Bikes in the UK back as late as the 50's and possibly 60's. Yhey were mounted sideways on the front mudguard (not sure what you call it in the US). I don't know why we stopped using them but it probably was some kind of health and safety thing. You should be able to find pictures on the web.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From a practical point of view little is gained with a front license plate om a motorcycle. A front license plate can be used for catching speeders on camera, and may come in handy if you can't get a look at an illegally parked car's rear plate, but that's about it.

    Decades ago motorcycles had front license plates in many European countries, but I guess that was dropped for reason of practicality or aesthetics. Or safety, as the fender mounted ones were known as 'ball-slicers'. Remember that over here there are more accidents involving pedestrians.

    The only place I know of that at some point brought back front license plates on motorcycles, was in Australia. Apparently a good number of blokes got the habit of wheelying past speed cameras at 100+ mph, front wheel in the air and giving the one-finger salute. I imagine the authorities got fed up after seeing image # 3,500 of this....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Than, from a practical point of view, little is gained from a car having a front plate, which was my point.
      The speeding camera scenario is just as valid with a photo of the back of a car as it is from the front.
      Yes, sure, bikes used to, I've posted many photos over the past 12 years of front plates on motorbikes, and the stupid idea to have them mounted inline instead of perpendicular to the length of the bike was someone elses bad idea, not mine.
      Putting them on the front fender makes no sense... that's as ridiculous as having a car license plate, or taxi sign, used as a hood ornament in line with the length of the car, not as you notice all signage on cars, prependicular... parallel to the bumper.
      After all, the back plate on a bike is mounted perpendicular to the length, mount the front plate the same,
      or,
      admit a car doesn't need a front plate. 19 of the 50 states agree with me.
      No front plate is needed

      Delete
  5. 19 states and at least one Dane.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ohio just changed the law so that we don't have to have a front license plate. I think one of the biggest reasons for the front plate was as a nice target for radar and laser speed guns. My Durango was owned by someone in Michigan before us, so it didn't have a front bracket. We (mostly my wife) have been driving it for 4 years now without the front plate, with no problems.

    ReplyDelete