What makes it right for the plate to be mounted under the vehicle where it is not clearly viewable and a frame the makes to hard to read the state. When I mounted a plate on the airdam, underr the car, you couldn't see the top of the plate. Unless I am thinking of the wrong place. If that is the place, then what makes this more legal than the dash or visor?

 

And on the radar beam. The beam width is going to be larger than that little dot. Se even if you are aiming at the hood, you are probably gettting a reflection from the front of the car or the cowl and wipers. Basically any edge the has a surface to bounce straight back, not the hood or windshield. It doesn't have to be shiney and reflective. The Radar cross section of a car is actually very large, so a front plate isn't actually needed for a radar gun or laser gun to work.

 

ROFL. Your patrol car has the plate mounted in the provided space by the manufacture. But yet you mount it in the wrong place in ur personal car? :rolleyes@suposedrollmodel:

And besides. They can/will still stop for the air dam location. They will say they cant see it and its not mounted on the forward most location of the car.

 

The pic may be taken from the front...but the airdam is physically located underneath the car.

My other point is that not everyone wants to go waste a day at the courthouse to get in front of the judge and learn about the 'good 'ole boy' network the hard way. Depending on what part of the state you happen to be in, whether or not they have a case might not matter. The only thing that does matter is what mood the judge is in, and how the defendant presents himself and his case.

Looks like we will all just have to agree to disagree here...(how typical of my dealings with law enforcement)

 

jeeez...woulndt have thought that this topic would carry on for almost a month......well ive taken the plate off and i havent been pulled over yet... knock on da wood!!! well n e waysz...thanks for all the input and if i do get puled over ill put the plate on the air dam which will prob scrap a lot..but o well!! il see sparks!! hehe.....take it easy guys! specially the POPO on this site!!!
randy

 

please tell me where it says this? i'd really like to know where the defense for your argument comes from. i also expect to see the words "forward most" as quoted in texas law. :rolleyes@pooruninformedmotoristwhohasnoargumentan dsoundsreallystupid:

here, i'll save you the trouble of making yourself look like an idiot.

i guess the legislators forgot your "forward most" comment. maybe you should let them know.

another goofy quirk in the law. i can put a license plate on a recessed area of a rear bumper, completely cover it with trailer hitches, but i can't have a frame on it that covers the lettering. go figure. the law doesn't say it has to be "clearly viewable" from any location. it just says you must have two, one displayed at the front and one at the rear. inside the car is illegal because now you have a covering over it that distorts angular visibility. the law only covers attachments or covers over the plate. it doesn't cover stuff in front of it. this has been upheld in appellate courts. the "new law" regarding license plate frames was actually intended in the old law. it said you couldn't have an insignia on the plate that covered the letters. a trooper stopped a van because the license plate frame covered the state. a subsequent drug violation led to the texas court of criminal appeals where they ruled that the license plate frame could not be defined as insignia so the case was thrown out. the law's intent did not change, but the wording was changed to better address what was originally meant to be covered.

it's legal to drive around with a broken tail light, but if you put brake light tape over the broken portion, you make it illegal. on the other hand, you won't pass inspection with a broken tail light. if you can make sense of any of that, you need to run for congress. it's kind of like the new racing law. in an attempt to make one law better, they eliminated exhibition of acceleration as a state offense.

there are a huge number of things that are unclear in texas law. it doesn't mean they aren't enforceable, it just means there isn't a clear interpretation on the law. until it's challenged, there won't be.

 

Doesn't the bumper distort angular visibility if the plate is under the vehicle? What is defined as a cover?

You thought the new law about covers was a good idea and agreed with it, and the the plate shouldn't be obscured, but now you are sayong that it doesn't really matter since you can cover it up with something else and that it's perfectly fine to, basically, hide the front one since it doesn't matter? So does that mean that if I wanted to, I could mount the rear plate on my diff cover? It's a recessed location?

 

technically, you could put it on the diff cover as long as you have a white license plate light that shines on it at night and doesn't emit a glare. motorcycles put it in the fenderwell, and even though it's obscured by the back tire, it is legal as long as it's lit up at night; most of them don't though.

legislators usually take a few years before they actually get a law right, but they have to juggle it around a few sessions. there have been plenty of laws where they try and make them better, but they just don't work. it is a step in the right direction. even though i can tuck my LP on my air dam, it's the front license plate; a law that i don't particularly care for in the first place and apparently neither do the legislators because you don't have to have that one lit up at night. as far as rear license plates go, yes, i think those should be clear and free from all obstructions, including trailer hitches.

the bumper wouldn't be a coating, covering, or protective material would it? as far as the definition of "cover," the courts may end up with that one one day. i don't see how the bumper, not being attached to the plate, could be considered a covering.

if they just left out that part in bold, then you could never tuck it under anything. since they added that, then it has to be the blurring or reflective matter that doesn't make it plainly visible. nothing else applies. they could also eliminate the whole part about adding a frame to it. blurring matter is commonly referred to as dirt. i don't know if many of our legislators can read.

 

The Windshield is no more a coating, covering or protective material for a plate than the bumper then. You also didn't cover how a windshield create angular distortion and the bumper doesn't?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the front plate had to be placed in the stock location?

 

you are just wrong, but i dont know how to prove it.

 

you don't have to, the state does and they can't prove that.

 

Well I got a stupid speeding ticket today, first in over 15 yrs, I thought the limit on this rural rd in Ft Worth was 40, it was 30, I was going 43, anyway he walks up front to see my plate, it's on the air dam, I start thinking, crap he's going for the gusto on me, then he got the plate number from the back and said NOTHING
about the front plate.

Now what to do? Is deffered disposition the way to go or driving school? They told me on phone school would be $85 court cost plus $40 for school, OUCH , MAN, OUCH? What does deffered usually run?

ADam

 

aight someone may have said this already but yeah..........i just took the plate and put it underneith the the front end if the car in the front air dam...........it looks tough......i've had mine like this for the past 3 years and no crap from the cops

 

Half the blue letters on my LP aren't even there for some reason,
just the imprint.