• 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
Kornholio said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Two issues here. A number of the cities in the East Bay started writing their own violations similar to the state codes because when it's a local ordinance, then the money goes to the city, otherwise city cops are writing tickets that generate money for the state.

Perhaps the LEO's on here can pipe in, but last I knew you had to have positive identification in order to issue a moving violation to the operator of a vehicle, they couldn't just ticket the owner of the vehicle with the moving violation.
 
Climber said:
Two issues here. A number of the cities in the East Bay started writing their own violations similar to the state codes because when it's a local ordinance, then the money goes to the city, otherwise city cops are writing tickets that generate money for the state.
Click to expand...
I'm still not sure how that's the case. I've never paid fines to the state when I've got a ticket. Not to my knowledge anyway.
Climber said:
Perhaps the LEO's on here can pipe in, but last I knew you had to have positive identification in order to issue a moving violation to the operator of a vehicle, they couldn't just ticket the owner of the vehicle with the moving violation.
Click to expand...
As someone that's managed commercial fleets, with a lot of trucks that are without logos, I can assure you 100% that you do not have to identify the operator of the vehicle to receive the ticket in California. We got them when our drivers blew red lights on a regular basis.
 
Kornholio said:
As someone that's managed commercial fleets, with a lot of trucks that are without logos, I can assure you 100% that you do not have to identify the operator of the vehicle to receive the ticket in California. We got them when our drivers blew red lights on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
Commercial vehicles might operate under different laws where the company is fined because it's their drivers who are driving for them as employees.
 
Oh FFS Brett, no they do not. But by all means, wait for an LEO to chime in if it makes you feel better. Commercial registrations aren't treated any different when it comes to red-light camera violations.
 
Climber said:
Two issues here. A number of the cities in the East Bay started writing their own violations similar to the state codes because when it's a local ordinance, then the money goes to the city, otherwise city cops are writing tickets that generate money for the state.

Perhaps the LEO's on here can pipe in, but last I knew you had to have positive identification in order to issue a moving violation to the operator of a vehicle, they couldn't just ticket the owner of the vehicle with the moving violation.
Click to expand...
I had heard about some cities trying to do that traffic violation muni code thing something like 25 years ago in an effort to collect fees locally. I'm pretty sure that somehow shot down way back then and not allowed. As far as I know, this isn't happening anywhere.

I think with automated red light camera tickets, they differ from regular red light tickets by being charged as a civil fine, instead of criminal. That way, the registered owner(s) are on the hook for the civil fine, which can be sent to collections, unless they identify the driver as someone else so that driver can be charged. Regular red light tickets issued by an officer are criminal, not civil.
 
Kornholio said:
I'm still not sure how that's the case. I've never paid fines to the state when I've got a ticket. Not to my knowledge anyway.

As someone that's managed commercial fleets, with a lot of trucks that are without logos, I can assure you 100% that you do not have to identify the operator of the vehicle to receive the ticket in California. We got them when our drivers blew red lights on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
I suppose it could vary by state, but in California, traffic citation fines are paid to the courts, which are run by the state. The court very well might be called the Santa Clara County Superior Court, for example, but it is really a State of California Court.
 
bojangle said:
I had heard about some cities trying to do that traffic violation muni code thing something like 25 years ago in an effort to collect fees locally. I'm pretty sure that somehow shot down way back then and not allowed. As far as I know, this isn't happening anywhere.

I think with automated red light camera tickets, they differ from regular red light tickets by being charged as a civil fine, instead of criminal. That way, the registered owner(s) are on the hook for the civil fine, which can be sent to collections, unless they identify the driver as someone else so that driver can be charged. Regular red light tickets issued by an officer are criminal, not civil.
Click to expand...
I believe you are thinking of Alameda County Sheriff's Office, they pioneered the civil rather than criminal channel. Same fine as I recall, but no points and DMV isn't even notified. Its the courts that suffered the revenue loss.
 
True, the state gets the moving violations
bojangle said:
I had heard about some cities trying to do that traffic violation muni code thing something like 25 years ago in an effort to collect fees locally. I'm pretty sure that somehow shot down way back then and not allowed. As far as I know, this isn't happening anywhere.

I think with automated red light camera tickets, they differ from regular red light tickets by being charged as a civil fine, instead of criminal. That way, the registered owner(s) are on the hook for the civil fine, which can be sent to collections, unless they identify the driver as someone else so that driver can be charged. Regular red light tickets issued by an officer are criminal, not civil.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying the details of red light camera tickets!

I guess I was both right and wrong in my understanding of it, I was right in that you have to identify the driver in a moving violation when it's a criminal charge, but the way the cities implemented it as a civil charge it's really a monetary charge so they don't have to positively identify the actual driver, just charge the owner and collect their money. There is a certain cunning, in a very underhanded way, in their approach.
 
Before the pandemic I did not run a front plate because of aesthetics. Then, I received a citation from the BART police for not displaying such at the Union City overflow lot. The car was parked head-in, very close to bushes. I have to imagine they were looking for violators.

I recall having to pay a fine and demonstrating to my local police department that the violation was corrected.

Now, because of rampant theft, about 35 cars per week in my city, I keep the front plate on. I no longer care about the aesthetics.
 
NorCalBusa said:
I believe you are thinking of Alameda County Sheriff's Office, they pioneered the civil rather than criminal channel. Same fine as I recall, but no points and DMV isn't even notified. Its the courts that suffered the revenue loss.
Click to expand...
The island of Alameda was notorious for this, combined with its random and confusing speed limits. I got my fist ever ticket driving a slow ass VW van to NAS Alameda back in the 90's and passed by a hidden 25MPH sign (at 30) and the City LEO, waiting beside it.
 
Hasn't the city of Alameda always had a 25MPH speed limit for the whole city? There's signs at the city limits saying this as you enter. They've been there as long as I can remember.
 
A few years ago I got pulled over for doing 70 on 280 (BS in its own right, but it was misting so I guess I get it). I had recently had my car detailed and had removed the front plate and hadn’t put it back on. She gave me a fix-it for the front plate and let me off for the speed. So in that case, having no front plate saved me a trip to traffic school.
 
some info
legalclarity.org

California Front License Plate Laws: Rules and Compliance

Understand California’s front license plate laws, compliance requirements, penalties, and exceptions for informed vehicle registration.
legalclarity.org legalclarity.org

I gotta put my new vinyl one on still. How small can I cut it down to?
 
That website provides inaccurate / incorrect information. Best to go to a .gov website. The CA vehicle code is 5200.

Altering license plates (cutting them) is illegal.
 
You can’t cut it down much without cutting the number. I wouldn’t bother. And there’s plenty of room on the plate for it.
 
thanks...

I have considered for years making my front plate more "Euro" but have not yet. With the vinyl plate it is easy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top