• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Front license plates - do we really need 'em?

Should front license plates be a requirement on vehicles?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 17.1%

  • No

    Votes: 41 58.6%

  • Bacon

    Votes: 17 24.3%
  • Total voters
    70
Climber said:
Saw this...

A major change is coming to San Francisco's parking rules

I see the value in providing more visibility for both crosswalks and drivers trying to pull out, but the part about not repainting the curb is something that some cities will likely exploit if history has a say in things like this.
Click to expand...
I believe this is a statewide measure. Going to be a LOT of warnings between now and 1-Jan and then LOTS of tickets.
 
Last edited:
I’ve known this /stop sign -20 foot no parking: long time. I thought was statewide. But it’s new to San Francisco.
 
Yeah since when has it been legal to obstruct a sidewalk? The whole "unmarked" part is the problem AFAIC. What the hell is an unmarked crosswalk anyway? How is it a crosswalk if it's not marked? Isn't it then just a street then? :dunno
 
The problem is that they're not going to be required to paint the border red where you can't park, they're going to leave it looking like you can park there.

I don't understand this problem of not being able to paint it red, how long does it take to do that and why can't you get that accomplished in a year?

I understand why they're want to do it, and I'd actually liike to see it taken further to prevent box trucks and other vehicles the you can't see through from parking anywhere near an intersection.
 
Climber said:
The problem is that they're not going to be required to paint the border red where you can't park, they're going to leave it looking like you can park there.

I don't understand this problem of not being able to paint it red, how long does it take to do that and why can't you get that accomplished in a year?

I understand why they're want to do it, and I'd actually liike to see it taken further to prevent box trucks and other vehicles the you can't see through from parking anywhere near an intersection.
Click to expand...
The crews that fix the roads are going to take care or painting red...let me know how that works out LOL
 
littlebeast said:
may have been said already, but if front plates are so all-important, why aren’t they required on motos?
Click to expand...
They want them for red light cameras, the license plate along with the picture of the drivers face gives them the information they need to issue a ticket.

Motorcycle riders have their faces obscured with their helmet, so there's really no point.
 
quick search - front plates have been required in california since 1911. red light cameras went into effect in 2014. got another theory?
 
Front plates were around on motorcycles from the early days so no, it has nothing to do with red-light cameras. One of the main reasons they aren't there on motorcycles anymore is there isn't a common design feature to mount them up there like there used to be...the front fender design. They could also be mounted across the forks but again, that won't work with most motorcycles on the market today due to design limitations.

1731416365166.png
 
Not to mention that the technology behind red-light camera systems already permits a front photo to be taken with a clear view of the vehicle operator after the vehicle passes the trigger point of the red-light camera and the rear picture captures the license plate anyway. They don't need the front plate to make it work correctly. Plenty of states without front plates already employ these systems without that issue.
 
Enchanter said:
It is my understanding that fix-it tickets ($25 last time I got one) are being issued differently than they were many years ago. I’ve been told by a few cops that intentional violations are being written as ‘non-correctable’. No front plate, tinted windows, and loud exhausts were the examples given as intentional violations. IOW, you’re required to correct the problem AND you pay the entire fine. Having a light out is an example of an unintentional violation.
Click to expand...
The ability for an officer to make a mechanical violation correctable or not isn't anything new. Over my whole career there have been 'yes' 'no' correctable boxes to check on the Cite.

I've only rarely ever checked non correctable on a fix it ticket. The officer can check whatever they want, but I've seen traffic court commissioners make it correctable anyways, so they can override the will of the officer.
Butch said:
Hi, am really curious about the cost of fix it tickets. Have they really gone up from the 10 bucks so they went to you after they used to be free? I have some Internet searching to do before I bug you guys
Click to expand...
Did they uses to be free if corrected?

They were $10 if corrected at the start of my career, and that counted for all of them. If there were multiple fix it items corrected on one ticket, it used to be only $10.

The state changed this years ago. Now corrected violations are $25 each. So if you got 3, that would be $75 if they were all corrected, and, of course, a lot more if they weren't.
 
Kornholio said:
The plate doesn't identify the driver at all.
Click to expand...
Maybe not directly, but it sure goes a long way compared to not having a plate.
 
littlebeast said:
quick search - front plates have been required in california since 1911. red light cameras went into effect in 2014. got another theory?
Click to expand...
My theory is that front license plates, along with the overall size of the plates, are the better default for quickly and accurately being able to identify a vehicle. Motorcycles don't have front plates and have much smaller rear plates. This is far from ideal in being able to identify them, but it was the reasonable compromise based on the physical specs that are a motorcycle.
 
bojangle said:
Maybe not directly, but it sure goes a long way compared to not having a plate.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I was referring specifically to red-light camera systems. Regardless, there are many vehicles on the road that have commercial registrations and the plate isn't going to do anything to identify them. Only 29 states require them and I'm certain the vast majority of the remaining 21 states have no issues with running police operations nor with the operation of their red-light camera systems with the front plate missing from the motor vehicle. :dunno
 
littlebeast said:
quick search - front plates have been required in california since 1911. red light cameras went into effect in 2014. got another theory?
Click to expand...
Granted, but it would explain the new emphasis on them wanting to have them.
Or, it could just simply be a money grab by the cities with front plate being an excuse.

As to red light runners, if I was designing the system, I'd much prefer to get the plate and the drivers face than depend on getting the rear plate and synched up with the front picture of the red light runner, the logistics of getting the rear plate would complicate everything by an order of magnitude.
 
If all you have is a hammer (ticket book), everything looks like a nail (violation).

I think Hanlon's Razor applies here.
 
Climber said:
Granted, but it would explain the new emphasis on them wanting to have them.
Or, it could just simply be a money grab by the cities with front plate being an excuse.
Click to expand...
What new emphasis? Anecdotal data suggesting that just because one hadn't received a ticket for not having a front plate in the past doesn't actually prove that there is now a new emphasis on the issue simply because they recently got a ticket for it. An LEO exercising discretion is not evidence of some sort of money grab conspiracy.
Climber said:
As to red light runners, if I was designing the system, I'd much prefer to get the plate and the drivers face than depend on getting the rear plate and synched up with the front picture of the red light runner, the logistics of getting the rear plate would complicate everything by an order of magnitude.
Click to expand...
Why? There's no responsibility for the ticketing agency to demonstrate who the driver was when the violation occurred. The photo of the violation occurring along with the picture of the plate is all that's required to demonstrate the burden of proof. The driver is immaterial and quite frankly if it's not the registered owner (which is the case frequently in the commercial world), it's not the agency nor the court's problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top