mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Cop vs. LBC's

To: Bob Howard <mgbob@juno.com>, ROLindsay@Emeraldgrc.com
Subject: Re: Cop vs. LBC's
From: Barrie Robinson <barrier@bconnex.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:18:26 -0400
It seems rather obvious that a car should be identifiable from the front as 
well as the back.  Cars are not always rushing on ahead - they sometimes 
park, back into spots, etc.

At 02:33 PM 8/19/02 -0400, Bob Howard wrote:
>    Has anyone ever figured out the purpose of the front plates aside from
>the recent installation of cameras?  Front plates were used in some
>states years before anyone even thought of the cameras.
>    I have never read of anyone backing away from a crime scene, nor of
>escaping a pursuing officer by driving backwards on the highway.
>    Actually, there is one use for them, though it may not be approved in
>California.  Here in CT, those who do not have registered vehicles, or
>whose insurance is unpaid hence vehicles become unregistered, frequently
>clip the lower right corner of the CT rear plate where a stick-on
>validation sticker is placed, then glue this to their rear plate.    To
>protect themselves against that, some owners mount the un-stickered front
>plate at the back of the car and place the be-stickered rear plate in the
>rear window.
>Bob
>
>
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:56:50 -0500 "Rick Lindsay"
><ROLindsay@Emeraldgrc.com> writes:
> >    Same with my Ferrari friends in Texas.  All but none of them
> > install the front plates choosing instead to accept the fines when
> > stopped, as part of the cost of ownership.
> >
> > Rick
>

Regards
Barrie

Barrie Robinson - barrier@bconnex.net

///  or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>