what the hell do any vehicles need a front plate for? Revenue generating, that's the only reason they were ever required.
A front plate does nothing for safer operation of a vehicle, and proof that a car should not be required to have one? The states that require front plates on cars and truck do not require a front plate on a motorcycle.
So, if you can motor along on a Harley with only a back plate, then why require a Ford to have front plate?
Enthusiasts have claimed for years that the front plate requirement is bogus. It blocks airflow or looks bad. Other states don't require front plates. Producing two license plates is a waste of state funds.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/34548/great-news-ohio-ditches-front-license-plates
A front plate does nothing for safer operation of a vehicle, and proof that a car should not be required to have one? The states that require front plates on cars and truck do not require a front plate on a motorcycle.
So, if you can motor along on a Harley with only a back plate, then why require a Ford to have front plate?
Enthusiasts have claimed for years that the front plate requirement is bogus. It blocks airflow or looks bad. Other states don't require front plates. Producing two license plates is a waste of state funds.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/34548/great-news-ohio-ditches-front-license-plates
To be identified from front and back, when car is immobile and mobile and to provide that this specific car is admitted to traffic in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.
ReplyDeleteI speak from position of regulations in Poland, first regulations had been implemented in 1922 and from start they follow the same rules as create Paris Police for license plates in 1893. Two, one front, one back. Cost of license plate was rather small part of overall registration papers. Today those rules stay almost identical... if something work good, why to change that? And if you buy car from your own county you don't need to pay for new numbers, so 0 for plates. You need to change them if you buy car outside your county or import it from other country, but then you need to create new car papers. They are helpful now of course when speed cameras or CCTV can track car better.
But I see also problem with lack of front plate in such situation... cameras are mostly immobile looking at one point, without front plates they would need to lock not only in front to check speed but also back to make picture of speeding car. So they will cost more... if they cost more, someone will need to pay more... that person is always the ordinary taxpayer. So what will be cheaper in long run, paying for "two eyes" cameras, new ways to photo speeding car or leave that front plate where it is? Oh and maybe... I know, I know... but think about doing what we do, make them shorter and wider, they fit better into bumpers.
But I presume that "front plate problem" is US thing.
Bikes and mopeds start to get front plates too, Vietnam with his huge population of two wheels implement that regulation.
it is a USA thing, there are many of the 50 states that only require one plate in back. So, since those can easily be driven into the states where both plates are a requirement for it's residents, but in all states it's legal to drive anything that's been legal in the state it resides in. Just like it's legal to drive into the USA from Mexico or Canada without doing anything to conform to USA laws about engine exhaust emissions pollution levels.
DeleteTo me, its an area of law which wasn't thought about early in the days of cars, because there was no registration of horses and carriages or wagons when they used roads, so, no national legal policy was used to register cars that could drive only short distances before roads were paved.
As far as that goes, I'm against registering cars anyway. Police can't do anything with a vehicle, they can only interact with people, so, people should be registered drivers, and licensed once they pass a test of driving skills and information. Lets acknowledge that few people can pass a decent test on those issues anyway, especially here in the USA where a 50 question test of the usual nonsense is too easy to pass.
Registation is an obvious money grab from the state, and here in California, it's a couple hundred dollars, and the state does NOTHING to "re-register" the car annually except send a postage stamp sized sticker to put only on the back plate.
Since the state computer handles the entire process, there are no humans doing work to maintain a database of keeping up registrations. So it seems to me that we are being ripped off with these hundreds of dollars fees for a postage stamp sized sticker.
It's an obvious lie that we're paying to re-register our vehicles.
It would be simple to say we are being taxed annually to be able to drive on public roads.
Wait... re-register annually? The same car you own?
DeleteYes. Every year, every car, no matter how old. My 1969 Dodge costs me about 100, and my 2015 Hyundai commuter costs me about 300.
DeleteThat's ridiculous, what is a reason behind such bollocks?
DeleteWe register car only once, you buy car, go to local public administration body and register that car as your own. Pay for certificate, get license plates and legalization sticker and done. They even start to implement new regulations that if you buy used car you can with permission of former owner stay with the old license plates without changing them. Cost of registration (if you use a simple 100 $ = 100 zł without exchange rate ect.) in 2020 is no higher than 180,50. So imagine that you would pay 180 dollars and 50 cents ONE time for ONE car. Not a bad deal, huh?
The only thing we pay annually is liability insurance (OC) that is demanded by law and voluntary Autocasco.
Re-register annually... yeah I see now why you call it a money grab, this is a bloody as we call, robbery in broad daylight.
I saw one Ohio county Sheriff on the news saying that he was against the change because it would be harder for witnesses to get a license number to report a crime. I don't really buy that reason, since one would have to be close and have a good view of either plate to get the plate number anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think all of the states around Ohio only require a rear plate. We've been driving our Durango since 2015 without a front plate, because it was previously owned in Michigan and I didn't want to put the front plate on it. I'll probably just leave the front plates on my other 2 cars until I have a reason to take them off.
Shas - I agree that the vehicle licensing is mainly a way for the state to tax the vehicle use. Each state sets their own rules for the costs and requirements. In some states (and countries - See UK), the license plate number stays with the vehicle. In others, like Ohio, the license number can be transferred to a different vehicle when you buy or sell. Ohio is cheap, because it is a flat fee. I only paid about $35 per car for the renewal stickers. If you want to get a new plate it costs more. In Michigan, the registration is based on the original price of the car, so it can be more expensive. But in Michigan, you can pay for a permanent registration for a trailer. I know of people who have "sold" their trailer to someone in Michigan so they don't have to pay for it every year.
At least here in Ohio, there isn't any safety inspection required to renew your registration. There are many rusted out or crashed and unrepaired vehicles on the roads that don't look very safe to me. Some cities have emissions testing, but that is all I know of. I think some other states do have inspections, though.
I lived in several states when I was in the Navy, due to the usual getting stationed here and there over the course of a decade, and CT had safety inspections prior to registration, Hawaii did too, and that was why I had to sell my 1971 Challenger - or I would still have it, as the windshield wiper motor failed and that, was the one thing that they were very stuck on, because of the daily rainstorm. I don't recall if Florida did, but California does not have a safety inspection, just smog once a car is 10 years old or something like that, but the classic muscle cars are exempt, but I licked out there.
DeleteWhen I moved to California in 1995, the law was that cars older than 1964 or 65, I can't recall exactly, were exempt from smog testing, BUT, I had a 1969 Super Bee, and so long as I was in the military, it was legal to keep it licensed in Michigan. That thing about being active duty and staying a resident of the state you came from when enlisting, which also kept me paying very cheap full coverage insurance based on Michigan rates.
And when I got out of the Navy, I suddenly learned that California wanted 4 times as much for insurance.
That was also the year that California finally changed the year for smogging old cars to 1972 or something like that, so, I got very lucky, as I'm certain that my Super Bee was not going to pass smog due to worn down piston rings and lack of catalytic converters.