Hey all, I'm not just a member of the forums here, but I'm also a criminology student at the University of Texas. I'm working on a paper right now, and I wanted to get the input of anyone I can

The requirement of two plates on a car by most states:
To what extent do you think this law is necessary? What real justification do you believe there is for it (not all states require it)? What, if anything, do you disagree with about these laws?

I'd appreciate any and all input, thanks so much.

 

lets say i live in a state that doesn't require front plates, someone steals my car, all they gotta do is back it in in a parking lot situation, thus defeating those camera computer checker things cops are now coming out with... sure real thieves would change the plates but~ their are idiots...

 

most stolen cars go straight into chop shops directly.

to me, the whole idea of having both plates is definitely convenience. obviously it makes things easier for law enforcement to identify a vehicle, i can understand that part

 

I am so happy we dont need front plates where I live. Its easy to see that the front plates are there to aid in quick identification of a vehicle .What I dont like is the clear aesthetic loss . It looks crappy imho

 

I think most states that require a car to have front and rear plates is because two plates were issued to the car. Kind of a catch 22: we gave you two plates so mount two plates. I know some states only issue one plate (for the rear).

Being in law enforcement myself, it certainly is helpful to identify cars with both front/rear plates mounted.

 

Rear only is better for looks,

But I can see how it's better for law enforcement to have 2 plates.

I think you know which side I'd be biased too

 

Great points everyone, but doesn't anyone have any opposing views on the subject?

 

Front plates are often (but not always) more easily bent or damaged by spinning car-wash-brushes than rear plates. I keep my front plate under a very lightly-tinted, almost-clear plastic cover, which protects it....the rear one is more protected by the bodywork. (VA requires front/rear plates and outlaws dark-tinted plate-covers)

Of course, once every year or two, you have to unscrew the cover so you can replace the little sticker-update for the year on the upper-right corner.

 

I agree that front-plates take away from the car's looks, but, in general, stick is correct......two plates are better than one.

 

I see the reason for it. I'm generally fine with it except for ONE thing.

TOO MANY DAMN CARS CAME FROM THE FACTORY WITHOUT A PLATE HOLDER ON THE FRONT!

My last car (1989 Pontiac Firebird) came with no holder. I got stopped once for it and i asked the cop if he really expected me to drill holes in my bumper and make it look ugly as hell. I already had the plate propped up on my dash in the windshield.

Also: Has anybody besides me actually ever been stopped/penalized for not having a front plate?

 

well, i don't like it of course, thinking it totally breaks the look on the car. and part of me think this has a lot to do with red light cameras (revenue). however, from a legal / safety point of view, i have to say i understand why they require that

 

I'm probably alone on this, but I like having the front plate. Since new, my front license plate frame has gained two gouges and one ding in it. That means some tick turds backed into my front bumper while trying to park. Without all this "junk" on upfront, my bumper would have gotten damaged.

 

I don't like front plates simply because it doesn't look good. Otherwise the benefits to law enforcement and ease of identification of the vehicle outweigh aesthetics IMHO. I wouldn't mind only having a front plate, but I wont go out of my way to try and get the law repealed. If/When I run without a front plate I know I'm doing it at my own risk and I'm okay with that.

I have had a ticket for no front plate before. I just paid the fine, then put the front plate back on. Now I take it off for special occasions like cars shows, or picture taking. Too me, when I'm, driving I don't really care how the front of the car looks as I'm inside the car and can't see the plate anyway. I don't really care what other people think about my car since I bought it and mod it for my own pleasure.

 

Living in NYC, having had the two plate requirement for as long as I can remember, to me a car without a front plate looks naked, LOL. Of course with a Lamborghini or a Ferrari it is different, but most cars look better to me with a front plate. Also, it protects the front bumper. I don't know how many times I've had to replace my front license plate frame but no scratches on the bumper! Also much better in terms of law enforcement/legal/safety aspect. Easier to identify the vehicle.

The only downside in NYC is that they don't allow any kind of cover over the plates, not even a clear one. I hate scraping bug juice from the plates. Ugh.

 

question for u guys with the two plates... this would be the only reason other then looks i would be against it, but do u have to pay for both plates? example... when u buy a car here in florida and u do registration u have to purchse a plate which is like$ 250... so do u guys pay 500. because then for sure im totally against it from a financial aspect.