More People Should Sign This

[camzaro28]

does anyone know the real reason for them being on the front?
i have yet to think of a logical reason

[ichibankilla]

Century Code 39-04-11
Click Here
It just said that the plates have to be dispayed in an upright position on the front and the back of the vehicle. Which is a very broad description, so technically in your windshield, as long as it's displayed properly there, should be legal. But then again we all know how some cops seem to make up the laws as they go.

[Guest]

laying it on your dash is not upright. and unless you are driving a bus, the windshield is in the middle of the car typically.

And the being grandfathered in thing? Every vehicle by law is required to have seat belts, there is no grandfathering. I checked into it and ran the risk of getting the tickets. I don't have front seatbelts in my car.(Put them in to go thru a dui checkpoint a few weeks ago, not using them, taking them out again this weekend)

Logical reason: Identification. three firebirds white, same years, styles, conditions. 2 leave parking lot nicely, one does something stupid. which one? no one knows! someone may need to get the idiot off the street. (Note: Woulda used brians camaro color but I don't know what it is.)

[camzaro28]

so 1 of the 3 didnt have front plate? still not a reason

[jct_4628]

camzaro28 wrote:
does anyone know the real reason for them being on the front?
i have yet to think of a logical reason

I know and use a reason every day Im at work. Drive off prevention. I check out the licence # on the cars that start pumping gas all the time. If there wasnt one on the front, I wouldnt see most cars plates.

[torbs]

94NDTA wrote:
Still not putting a front plate on. Havn't been harassed in 4 years, and I don't think I will.

that's because you have a V8 and somthing domestic....duh

[94NDTA]

torbs wrote:
that's because you have a V8 and somthing domestic....duh

Yeah, thats the exact reason why.

Some of you guys are getting pretty uptight about this. This is suprising comming from a board that advocates having illgeal parts on your car (engine mods, suspension mods, lowering, illegal lighting, illegal exhaust, etc etc.)

[camzaro28]

Quote:
Originally Posted by camzaro28
does anyone know the real reason for them being on the front?
i have yet to think of a logical reason

I know and use a reason every day Im at work. Drive off prevention. I check out the licence # on the cars that start pumping gas all the time. If there wasnt one on the front, I wouldnt see most cars plates.

very good reason, that didnt come to mind. but dont most gas stations have cameras? most i do see, say on the pump that u are being videotaped

[Guest]

camzaro28 wrote:
so 1 of the 3 didnt have front plate? still not a reason

No one did genious. hence the reason for identification. Wow, I thought a camaro driver would be a little smarter.

[TDuck]

To me, by placing your plate on your dash so it shows through the windshield says that you know better and are trying to get around a law.

15 years ago I had a 1984 Thunderbird. For the first couple of years I had a front plate, then I bought a full bra for it. I removed the plate. I never had a single problem with not having a front plate. I never had it on my dash so it showed through the windshield. No tickets and I screwed around A LOT.

I was not aware back then that by not having a front plate was illegal but never had any issues either.

[Guest]

94NDTA wrote:
Thats pretty much how it works.

BULLSHIT

[Guest]

ichibankilla wrote:
Century Code 39-04-11
Click Here
It just said that the plates have to be dispayed in an upright position on the front and the back of the vehicle. Which is a very broad description, so technically in your windshield, as long as it's displayed properly there, should be legal. But then again we all know how some cops seem to make up the laws as they go.

for those too lazy to look it up:

NDDOT wrote:
39-04-11. Display of number plates and tabs. Except as otherwise specifically
provided, a person may not operate or drive a vehicle on the public highways of this state unless
the vehicle has a distinctive number assigned to it by the department, and two number plates,
bearing the distinctive number conspicuously displayed, horizontally and in an upright position,
one on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle, each securely fastened, except number
plates assigned to a motorcycle, trailer, or housetrailer must be attached to the rear thereof.
When only one number plate is furnished for an apportioned vehicle licensed under the
international registration plan as authorized in section 39-19-04, truck tractor, or semitrailer, the
plate must be attached to the front of the apportioned vehicle or truck tractor and the rear of the
semitrailer. The bottom of each number plate must be at a height of not less than twelve inches
[30.48 centimeters] above the level surface upon which the vehicle stands. Each plate must be
mounted in a manner that does not cover any words, letter, or number on the plate. As far as is
reasonably possible, the plates must at all times be kept free and clear of mud, ice, or snow so
as to be clearly visible and all number plates, markers, or evidence of registration or licensing
except for the current year must be removed from the vehicle. All vehicle license plates issued
by the department continue to be the property of the state of North Dakota for the period for
which the plates are valid. An annual registration tab or sticker for the current registration year
must be displayed on each number plate, in the area designated by the department for the tab or
sticker, in those years for which tabs or stickers are issued in lieu of number plates.

[94NDTA]

tjamz wrote:
BULLSHIT
Your sarcasm detector must be busted.

[Guest]

Yup...it is.

[94NDTA]

tjamz wrote:
Yup...it is.
IT's ok. I will adjust my posts for you.

[24valvenotak]

CCr wrote:
And the being grandfathered in thing? Every vehicle by law is required to have seat belts, there is no grandfathering. I checked into it and ran the risk of getting the tickets.

I have never heard a model A or T owner ect tell me to look at their snazzy new seatbelts? I have sat in a couple kit cars that dont have them either? I dont mean to push this thread off topic or anything.. but wouldnt that mean that you need an air bag too? if nothing is grandfathered in then id like to see the mint 1932 fords that were crashed to make sure they are safe for our public streets.

seatbelts were only an OPTION from the factory in the 50s..

[torbs]

well said mitch

[Guest]

92BlackTT wrote:
I have never heard a model A or T owner ect tell me to look at their snazzy new seatbelts? I have sat in a couple kit cars that dont have them either? I dont mean to push this thread off topic or anything.. but wouldnt that mean that you need an air bag too? if nothing is grandfathered in then id like to see the mint 1932 fords that were crashed to make sure they are safe for our public streets.

seatbelts were only an OPTION from the factory in the 50s..

They were actuall an option up until 1965 when federal law mandated their placement. about %25 of 65 mustangs, and a very small percentage of 66 mustangs were made without them. old guys with Model t's, Of course they never brag about it? Why would they? They don't want to install them. Neither do I. As far as air bags, air bags are not required by law to be on the vehicle when it is on the streets. They are mandated from the factories I believe.

I'm not rereading my old post, but if I said that nothing is ever grandfathered I know that's wrong. I was speaking specifically of seat belts not being grandfathered.

[Guest]

-> CCr wrote:

And the being grandfathered in thing? Every vehicle by law is required to have seat belts, there is no grandfathering. I checked into it and ran the risk of getting the tickets. I don't have front seatbelts in my car.(Put them in to go thru a dui checkpoint a few weeks ago, not using them, taking them out again this weekend)

Wrong again Pete!

ND Century Code 39-21-41.1 wrote:
**39-21-41.1. Safety belts.

**1. Every passenger car manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1965, must be

equipped with lapbelt assemblies for use in the driver's and one other front seating

position.

2. All motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968, must be equipped with any

lapbelt or shoulder belt required at the time the vehicle was manufactured by

standards of the United States department of transportation. Nothing in this

subsection affects the requirement in subsection 1 for a lapbelt in the driver's seating

position.

3. The department may except specified types of motor vehicles or seating positions

within any motor vehicle from the requirements imposed by subsections 1 and 2

when compliance would be impractical.

4. No person may install, distribute, have for sale, offer for sale, or sell any belt for use

in motor vehicles unless it meets current minimum standards and specifications of

the United States department of transportation.

5. Every owner shall maintain belts and assemblies required by this section in proper

condition and in a manner that will enable occupants to use them.

[Guest]

tjamz wrote:

Wrong again Pete!

[/left]
[/size][/font]

Well, I'll be. I was gonna ask you to look it up too. I'd like to thank 3 police officers and a judge for making me look like a complete retard today(most other days it's my own fault).

and what else was I wrong about? I forgot.

Edit:Police Chief Magnus
"The N.D. Century Code requires drivers and front seat passengers of vehicles to wear a "properly adjusted and fastened safety belt."

That is from the 11/9 chat with the chief. How does that affect my arguement? It mandates wearing a seatbelt. To wear a seat belt, the vehicle must be equipped. Therefore all vehicles must be equipped. Help me on this Chuck. Is that accurate?