Front license plate

[XXL HEMI]

There is currently legislation trying to make its way to Sacramento to end the ridiculous mandatory front license plate. If you'd like to join in this cause, click here and sign it!

[FloridaRT]

We Floridians have smart people in congress, no ugly front plate for us.

Bob

[Ozzie]

Thanks for bringing that to our attention XXL. Great cause!

[BUTWEET]

Although I hate the front plate laws, I couldn't sign the petition since I'm not a registered Cal voter. I'm all for you guys, but the reasons for the repeal of front plates that the petitioner came up with, is really grasping for straws. Good luck to you. Washington is in the same boat. We usually follow after California. We'll see!

First, eliminating the need for a front license plate will significantly reduce the state costs associated with production, storage, and shipping. Second, a front license plate restricts the performance of passenger vehicles. Modern cars aren't being designed with front plates in mind anymore, because mounting brackets that are necessary to hold the plates interfere with the cars' aerodynamics and often get damaged during the car-washing process. Third, unnecessary damage is sustained from minor bumper-to-bumper collisions, because the front mounting brackets on passenger cars can cause cracks and abrasions to the rear bumpers of the cars that they hit. Finally, police officers will be more productive in stopping dangerous motor vehicle violations such as drunk driving, reckless driving, speeding, etc., because their time won't be compromised by a California motorist who simply didn't have a front license plate on display.

[MartyW]

Washington and California use the front plate law to generate revenue. The bottom line is the money plain and simple.

[ASU_Magnum]

whatta ya think shaggin?

[SmoovC]

Washington and California use the front plate law to generate revenue. The bottom line is the money plain and simple.

Spoken like a man who knows his business!

[DennisG]

I went to sign up but I agree the reasons they gave are really weak. Although I would like to see it pass, IMO it doesn't have a chance.

[ASU_Magnum]

what reasons would you put? that we just dont want one? lol then we really wouldnt have a chance.

[Calabahn]

They could still charge the same fees and have only one plate.

But I think the state wants the front plates for the red light runner camera's. Hard to dispute when they have a picture of you driving and the front plate for identification.

[BUTWEET]

The petition should just be honest and say the front plates are ugly and ruin the looks of the car. Sounds better than the plates ruin the aero-dynamic handling of the car. Pleeeze! What aero-dynamics? It's not like there's an Audobahn for aero-dynamics testing at 150 mph!

[LowGo]

The petition should just be honest and say the front plates are ugly and ruin the looks of the car. Sounds better than the plates ruin the aero-dynamic handling of the car. Pleeeze! What aero-dynamics? It's not like there's an Audobahn for aero-dynamics testing at 150 mph!

I agree with that one. However, I can vouch for the "damage" issue. My wife was rear ended in her Pacifica a while back. The only damage to her Pacifica was 2 small holes in the plastic bumper cover where the other cars front plate bolts hit. Due to the holes, the cover had to be replaced. Would have probably been able to just buff it out otherwise. You can add Oregon to list of states that require a front plate.

[Displaced Hokie]

Agree that the the looks and collision issues should be the main points. Many people are trying to keep insurance rates in check, and this honestly could help. Most license plate screws have agress sharp heads on them.

[hemiwagn]

What about the risk to pedestrians? if a plate is not secure, they can get bent and the edge is like a razor blade in when we ar talking even slow collision velocity.

[DennisG]

what reasons would you put? that we just dont want one? lol then we really wouldnt have a chance.

Well, the way the justification was listed it might as well have said "we just don't want one." The reasons given: The front plate restricts performance from passenger vehicles. And how exactly does a thin piece of metal mounted to a bumper do that?? Aerodynamics?? Blocking airflow to engine? Yeah right. Car wash excuse. That's not justification at all.


I don't buy the "extra damage" either. If you're in a wreck your car is going to be damaged regardless. How is a thin piece of metal going to change any of that, bumper/grill will still need to be replaced and/or repainted when in a collision. Cost will decrease. Doubt it, with all of the taxes California pays I don't think they are worried about plates that are produced by inmates or the "storage and shipping" process.

Police officers more productive?? Give me a break, have they actually done a study? How many car stops for no front plate have led to more serious offenses like DUI, stolen car, Parolees at Large, etc...

And lastly the ol' 20 other states do it with no problems so California should fall in line with them. Everyone who lives in this state knows very well that California has much more STRICT laws when it comes to just about everything IE; SMOG, tinted windows, etc...

Don't take this post as a jab towards you or anyone else on this board. I'm all for the no front plate as I haven't had one on any of my cars for years. The other poster is right. They need the plate for the cameras. The justifications listed will not be enough to over turn the law. That's why I said it doesn't have a chance in passing even if you had 20 million signatures.