[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

I was just going to make a post asking why, but I realized the privacy benefit that might result with a certain piece of invasive tracking technology that is assaulting our personal liberties.

NY State V&T Law Section 402 makes no mention of mounting orientation, but does specify "conspicuously displayed" in text. Further sections go on to prohibit artificial obstructions such as clear covers, specify the minimum/maximum heights (used against lifted 4x4 pickups here), etc.

The online published legal opinions hint that the freedom of speech argument (flying flag upside-down in protest) do not apply to license plates.

My favorite rule in this vein is from the Formula SAE rulebook back in the day, where they had to spell out that all race car numbers had to be non-zero positive integers. I can only imagine working timing/scoring and having to enter Pi as a car number. Who would have thought that engineers would be so creative?

I've seen some cars from the Asian car show scene with diagonal license plates on the rear, with lots of body work to make it look factory. I wonder if there is a diagonal angle that would work enough to confuse the tracking technology without becoming probable cause?

With toll-by-mail being implemented all over the northeast, I suspect that one probably could not get away with upside-down plates for long anyway.....

Our ASAP-equipped units probably can't read the plate mounted diagonally, but I could be wrong. I stay away from ASAP-equipped cars because it's more work than it's worth.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by 2000cs

Which is why I've favored a requirement that all laws sunset after 20 years (maximum), and must be individually voted to reinstate at that time (no omnibus). Would hopefully force state/federal legislators to actually consider what laws are needed, and let the rest go.

Enforcement of petty stuff, while "the law", is very annoying and frankly intrusive to people who are mostly law abiding (like minor speeders). I really don't like police using those laws, and check points, to try to get the baddies. To me is it harassing and intimidating 99 to catch 1, and contributes to ill feeling toward both police and the law.

Nobody is being harassed. Normal people almost never get pulled over nor cited for some obscure violation of law. There's nothing illegal or inherently wrong about a check point either. They are designed to saturate and show law enforcement visibility/presence.

[Sedan_Clan]

During the checkpoint Friday night, there was one motorist, in particular, who almost received some extra attention from me. He pulls up to me and I generate some cordial conversation advising why we were there and what we were looking for (...generally speaking: impaired and/or unlicensed drivers). I didn't smell alcohol or marijuana in the vehicle, but I did ask if he had a valid driver's license. He replies, "Why?"....as if I'm somehow out of line for asking and implying that my question has no merit. At this point I'm already beginning to get annoyed. He presents a driver's license, but won't hand it to me. I demanded that he give me the license so that I may inspect it. He goes, "Why are you asking? Your partner up there isn't asking." .....not that he even knew what my partner was asking because he was too far up ahead to hear AND my partner was leaned into the car. This motorist hands me the license while uttering nonsense under his breath. He's lucky the checkpoint was backing up, otherwise I would have really inconvenienced him. I saw three violations I could've written him for.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Nobody is being harassed. Normal people almost never get pulled over nor cited for some obscure violation of law. There's nothing illegal or inherently wrong about a check point either. They are designed to saturate and show law enforcement visibility/presence.

Should have said “feels like harassment”, sorry. I understand that police are implementing the law. I don’t like the law. Same with the check point. Irritating delay (I’m on the road to get somewhere, not to chat with you), and the law be damned, it feels like an over-reach and illegal search. Again, feeds an attitude toward policing and the law which contributes to where we are today. - and I support the police, am friendly with them when stopped.

There are corrupt police traffic scams (revenue raisers) as well. Some speed traps are set up this way (having nothing to do with public safety), and I’ve seen the “impeding the flow” scam in Taylor, MI in person. That shit has to stop.

As a somewhat normal person (my wife’s opinion notwithstanding), I have been stopped for petty stuff several times in my life. Tail light out, “what’s in the trunk?” Never cited for any of it which makes me think it was an excuse to fish. I always knew about it before being stopped, too, once I was on my way to buy the bulb.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

During the checkpoint Friday night, there was one motorist, in particular, who almost received some extra attention from me. He pulls up to me and I generate some cordial conversation advising why we were there and what we were looking for (...generally speaking: impaired and/or unlicensed drivers). I didn't smell alcohol or marijuana in the vehicle, but I did ask if he had a valid driver's license. He replies, "Why?"....as if I'm somehow out of line for asking and implying that my question has no merit. At this point I'm already beginning to get annoyed. He presents a driver's license, but won't hand it to me. I demanded that he give me the license so that I may inspect it. He goes, "Why are you asking? Your partner up there isn't asking." .....not that he even knew what my partner was asking because he was too far up ahead to hear AND my partner was leaned into the car. This motorist hands me the license while uttering nonsense under his breath. He's lucky the checkpoint was backing up, otherwise I would have really inconvenienced him. I saw three violations I could've written him for.

Plenty of YouTube videos suggesting this behavior, which is bad advice for several reasons including the variation in laws from state to state.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by 2000cs

Should have said “feels like harassment”, sorry. I understand that police are implementing the law. I don’t like the law. Same with the check point. Irritating delay (I’m on the road to get somewhere, not to chat with you), and the law be damned, it feels like an over-reach and illegal search. Again, feeds an attitude toward policing and the law which contributes to where we are today. - and I support the police, am friendly with them when stopped.

There are corrupt police traffic scams (revenue raisers) as well. Some speed traps are set up this way (having nothing to do with public safety), and I’ve seen the “impeding the flow” scam in Taylor, MI in person. That shit has to stop.

As a somewhat normal person (my wife’s opinion notwithstanding), I have been stopped for petty stuff several times in my life. Tail light out, “what’s in the trunk?” Never cited for any of it which makes me think it was an excuse to fish. I always knew about it before being stopped, too, once I was on my way to buy the bulb.

So what you call "petty stuff", like a burnt out tail light might be a minor equipment infraction. But it is grounds for a stop, perhaps the officer stopped you to advise you so that you could get it fixed. There could be other underlying problems that led to it that should be addressed. If someone rear ended you because of that burnt out tall light it might not seem so "petty". The fact that he told you and let you go likely goes to the fact I have mentioned and that you indicated that you are always "friendly with them" when you are stopped.

I agree some places need to take old laws off the books. It's still an offence to drag a dead horse through Toronto.....

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Murf993

So what you call "petty stuff", like a burnt out tail light might be a minor equipment infraction. But it is grounds for a stop, perhaps the officer stopped you to advise you so that you could get it fixed. There could be other underlying problems that let to it that should be addressed. If someone rear ended you because of that burnt out tall light it might not seem so "petty". The fact that he told you and let you go likely goes to the fact I have mentioned and that you indicated that you are always "friendly with them" when you are stopped.

I agree some places need to take old laws off the books. It's still an offence to drag a dead horse through Toronto.....

To piggyback off of this, these things always seem petty to people.......until they are negatively impacted by somebody else's actions. It may seem petty that we pull someone over for not having a plate on their vehicle, but if they are involved in a hit & run with a vehicle with no plate - thus, leaving us with a generic vehicle description - all of a sudden they understand. It may seem petty that someone is pulled over for a tail light that's not in good working order.....until they rear-end someone who has an inoperable tail light, causing damage to their vehicle.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

It may seem petty that we pull someone over for not having a plate on their vehicle, but if they are involved in a hit & run with a vehicle with no plate - thus, leaving us with a generic vehicle description - all of a sudden they understand.

In the more "urbanized" areas in these parts, it is not uncommon to see cars driving around without front license plates. Trivial offense on the surface, but the odds are that another unregistered/uninsured car is illegally on the road with that missing front plate mounted on its rear. Hope you are carrying the maximum uninsured motorist coverage if you happen to meet one of them by accident.....

[Buug959]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

In the more "urbanized" areas in these parts, it is not uncommon to see cars driving around without front license plates. Trivial offense on the surface, but the odds are that another unregistered/uninsured car is illegally on the road with that missing front plate mounted on its rear. Hope you are carrying the maximum uninsured motorist coverage if you happen to meet one of them by accident.....

We are only issued one plate for each vehicle and it is mounted on the rear except for commercial (semi tractor, dump truck etc.) where it may be obscured by the load. This is one way to eliminate two vehicles on the same plate. Cars look better without a front plate as well.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by LemansE90335xi

We are only issued one plate for each vehicle and it is mounted on the rear except for commercial (semi tractor, dump truck etc.) where it may be obscured by the load. This is one way to eliminate two vehicles on the same plate. Cars look better without a front plate as well.

Nova Scotia and Quebec are the only two provinces that do that. I would often stop cars only displaying one marker. Usually a nice car and the guy usually had it in the trunk or on the floor. Then came the excuse that it fell off in the car wash or the honest ones would say I don't like the way it looks. I might give a caution, especially if the guy lived in the area I regularly patrolled because I knew I'd see them again. One guy took about 5 summonses before he got the message.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Murf993

Nova Scotia and Quebec are the only two provinces that do that.

To my knowledge, Ontario, British Columbia and Manitoba are the only provinces left in Canada that continue to require drivers to have license plates on the front and back of their vehicles.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

To piggyback off of this, these things always seem petty to people.......until they are negatively impacted by somebody else's actions. It may seem petty that we pull someone over for not having a plate on their vehicle, but if they are involved in a hit & run with a vehicle with no plate - thus, leaving us with a generic vehicle description - all of a sudden they understand. It may seem petty that someone is pulled over for a tail light that's not in good working order.....until they rear-end someone who has an inoperable tail light, causing damage to their vehicle.

I understand pulling someone over for a missing plate, and an obviously unsafe vehicle condition, and really unsafe driving (weaving in and out, excessive speed differential, etc). But with technology today everything else can be an email or mail notification or citation.

Sometimes it feels like the traffic police are an HOA on wheels.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by LemansE90335xi

We are only issued one plate for each vehicle and it is mounted on the rear except for commercial (semi tractor, dump truck etc.) where it may be obscured by the load. This is one way to eliminate two vehicles on the same plate.

With toll-by-mail (and soon congestion pricing in NYC) becoming prevalent in the northeast, having two plates doubles their chances of getting a good read.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the UK found a solution for using one set of plates on two different cars. They made all of their front plates a different color, so they can easily be spotted when they are on the back of another vehicle.....

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by 2000cs

I understand pulling someone over for a missing plate, and an obviously unsafe vehicle condition, and really unsafe driving (weaving in and out, excessive speed differential, etc). But with technology today everything else can be an email or mail notification or citation.

Sometimes it feels like the traffic police are an HOA on wheels.

You assume everyone has email, or that the police will have your email. The fact is that many equipment violations lead the police to other more serious offences and investigations. Also, the operator may not be the owner and often times the offence goes to the driver not just the owner. For example, we had many offences that could go to both. Operate unsafe vehicle and Permit the operation of an unsafe vehicle.

It's clear that you don't like the intrusion or inconvenience of being stopped and there is a solution really. Don't commit any violations.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Murf993

You assume everyone has email, or that the police will have your email. The fact is that many equipment violations lead the police to other more serious offences and investigations. Also, the operator may not be the owner and often times the offence goes to the driver not just the owner. For example, we had many offences that could go to both. Operate unsafe vehicle and Permit the operation of an unsafe vehicle.

It's clear that you don't like the intrusion or inconvenience of being stopped and there is a solution really. Don't commit any violations.

You took the word(s) right out of my mouth. Imagine if the registered owner were responsible for every citation issued regarding the vehicle. What he suggested would put the R/O at fault probably 100% of the time. That would piss a lot of people off.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You took the word(s) right out of my mouth. Imagine if the registered owner were responsible for every citation issued regarding the vehicle. What he suggested would put the R/O at fault probably 100% of the time. That would piss a lot of people off.

Isn't this what happens with all camera tickets? Speeding, stop lights....

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Isn't this what happens with all camera tickets?

When my son was about 17 (33 now), he was caught going through an intersection just as the light turned red. A photo was taken and it was sent to my wife because she co-signed for his car, even though the pic was obviously of a male. lol

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Isn't this what happens with all camera tickets? Speeding, stop lights....

Originally Posted by Esteban

When my son was about 17 (33 now), he was caught going through an intersection just as the light turned red. A photo was taken and it was sent to my wife because she co-signed for his car, even though the pic was obviously of a male. lol

All she had to do was show the court she wasn't driving and they would've happily passed that fine over to the son.

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

All she had to do was show the court she wasn't driving and they would've happily passed that fine over to the son.

She didn't want the ticket to affect his insurance.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

All she had to do was show the court she wasn't driving and they would've happily passed that fine over to the son.

In NYC they take a photo of your plate, and the owner is liable for a 'reduced' fine. But the owner is liable.
How else is it done?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

In NYC they take a photo of your plate, and the owner is liable for a 'reduced' fine. But the owner is liable.
How else is it done?

If the registered owner can prove they weren't driving at the time of the infraction, they aren't liable for the point. We don't really use red light cameras much in California anymore though.

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

If the registered owner can prove they weren't driving at the time of the infraction, they aren't liable for the point. We don't really use red light cameras much in California anymore though.

I didn't think they were used at all out here anymore. They are still used in California at some locations?