Did you know that 19 states in the US do not require license plates on both the front and back of a vehicle?
Does this make sense at all? I just recently traveled in a state that only requires the back plate and it just seems stupid to me to not have a plate in front (can you tell I am from a state that does require two?).
It drives me nuts if I look back at the car behind me and they don't have a plate. What happens if they are a nut and hit my car, or they're a road rage person, or if they are beating their children and I can see it in my rearview mirror? In most cases, I would not be able to tell the police the make and model of the car as I have only seen it from the front, but if they had a license plate, then I could identify them. Doesn't it make sense that it is a safety issue?
What am I going to say? "Sorry officer, all I know is that it was a tan car with a rebel flag on the front where the LICENSE PLATE should have been."
3 comments:
Yeah, I read on the Internet today when I was trying to find out how many states only require one, the petition to change from two to one, and the arguments were really lame.
Two just seems safer. I don't think our plate cost anymore than anyone else's, we just have two of them.
I lived in Ohio for 4 months, and I remember thinking how strange it was to have two. Not only that, but I thought it made the front of the car look strange.
In Michigan, only one is required, and we like it that way, damnit! :)
Washington is the first state I've lived in that required 2. In CA, you are actually issued 2 but I had a Disney plate on the front of beloved Bronco and so the other was just in my bedroom. Arizona may have changed the law since I've lived there but they used to only require 1. I never really thought about it as a safety issue, though. Just a weird little thing.
Post a Comment