Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Unspec7 t1_jbg4emw wrote

Reply to comment by FinalIntern8888 in So now we're not even bothering with the fake paper plates huh? by 101ina45

99% of cops don't pull people over for just lack of front plate. I have not run one for the last 4 years and never had an issue.

−5

samwiseganja96 t1_jbg61m8 wrote

I've had friends pulled over for it so it depends on the cop.

It is the law in New Jersey and you should definitely put on on the front of your car.

5

Unspec7 t1_jbg7u41 wrote

Typically if you get pulled over for it, it's because they were going to pull you over for any reason. If you had a front plate, they'd pull you over for something else. It's not really specifically for the plate. The plate just gives them a reason.

−7

samwiseganja96 t1_jbg8qlh wrote

Yeah you should definitely still have both plates on. No matter if you think the person pulling you 9ver for not having a plate would have pulled you over even if you had a plate.

6

Unspec7 t1_jbg8vwu wrote

Eh. I'll keep mine off. Front plates serve no purpose.

−12

samwiseganja96 t1_jbg9ld2 wrote

The purpose is to make your car identifiable from both sides. It is useful when you experience a hit and run. It also gives you two points to identify cars in videos specifically dash cams. It also helps police identify cars. Although I don't care about that. The biggest thing is If you hit my car and I only get a view of the front of your car I have the opportunity to identify you.

8

Unspec7 t1_jbga67l wrote

The following states don't require front plates:

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Michigan
  • Mississippi
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Pennsylvania
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee
  • West Virginia

Do you have evidence showing that hit and run identification rates are significantly different between NJ and these sates?

−3

samwiseganja96 t1_jbgbf8q wrote

I mean considering that ~50% of hit and runs aren't identified nationally I'd prefer to have anything that can increase the possibility of identification.

Considering that 5 of the states you listed also have the highest occurrence of hit and runs I'd hypothesize that not having a front plate could potentially embolden people to comit hit and runs.

Give me some time I could probably find the data for which states have the most identified hit and runs.

6

Unspec7 t1_jbggndq wrote

>potentially embolden people to comit hit and runs.

Oh come on. For the vast majority of people, the primary decision between running and stay isn't because of a fear of being caught after the fact. People are generally good people and want to do the right thing.

1

RebeccaLoneBrook29 t1_jbgkr97 wrote

I agree that they want to do the right thing, unfortunately, most people are not in a situation to stay and pay for their misdeeds.

3

samwiseganja96 t1_jbgky53 wrote

Yes fear of being caught. Less of a chance to be caught with 1 location on a vehicle that has a unique identifier as opposed to 2 locations with a unique identifier. Less of a chance to be caught doing something means that more people are going to do something right.

It's okay if this is a hard concept for you to understand.

3

Unspec7 t1_jbgxyo8 wrote

>Yes fear of being caught

Oh, I didn't realize the main reason I don't go out and rob a bank is because I'm scared of being caught.

You're basically implying that humans are nothing more than animals and the main thing separating us from animals is the law. We all know that's not true.

2

samwiseganja96 t1_jbgyrk8 wrote

You seem to be under the impression that I said fear of being caught is the only reason for not commiting crimes. There's a whole host of contributing factors to why people do or do not commit crime. One of those factors is how easy the person commiting or not commiting crimes can be caught. This is the main reason why cameras are put on stores. Some stores even put fake cameras.

Again I understand if you're having a hard time understanding these concepts as you seem to be having a hard time understanding what I am saying. You seem to cherry pick certain words I use and argue against those instead of arguing against the logical statements I'm making.

3

Unspec7 t1_jbh7ty0 wrote

>You seem to be under the impression that I said fear of being caught is the only reason
>
>Considering that 5 of the states you listed also have the highest occurrence of hit and runs I'd hypothesize that not having a front plate could potentially embolden people to comit hit and runs.

This necessarily implied that the main reason people don't commit hit and runs is because they fear being caught. You're the one who used the term embolden. Further, I never said ONLY. You're the one who seems to be reading "only" from "main".

Let's be realistic now. We both understand that most people won't suddenly feel more inclined to commit a hit and run simply because front plates aren't required anymore. I get that you're trying to obfuscate how people actually behave so you can support your argument, but we both understand that people aren't primarily motivated by the legality of crimes when they consider committing a crime. In fact, when there is a hit and run, I doubt there's any consideration of the legality of running away. Most people are decent people and understand that they should stay because it's the morally right thing to do.

>logical statements I'm making.

What logical statements? You threw out some random statistics that have no correlation to each other. They weren't even correct stats - for example, the top 5 states in hit and runs is Wyoming, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, and Virginia. In that list of 5, only 1 is a no front plate state (Michigan). Even in the top 10, only 4 of the 10 are no front plate states (Michigan, Ohio, Kansas, West Virginia)

Quit clutching at your pearls, front plates don't do jack shit.

2

samwiseganja96 t1_jbhjk20 wrote

I encourage you to reread my comments so you can fully understand the words I'm saying in their entirety.

I hope your StANcEd beamer doesn't get totalled by a jackass without the proper license plates.

Typical stanced beamer owner behavior.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbhjuy0 wrote

>I encourage you to reread my comments so you can fully understand the words I'm saying in their entirety.

"I have no idea how to come up with a proper response and had my ass handed to me in the logic department so will just regurgitate the same shit over and over again". Nice. You haven't addressed ANY of my points about your "facts", so... yea you're just arguing in bad faith at this point.

Don't worry, I actually PrEpARE and have a front and rear facing dash cam. Wow, it's like we have technology.

1

samwiseganja96 t1_jbhkihx wrote

Nah m8 I laid out my points. I don't need to argue anymore you just have to do the reading.

P.s. put a plate on m8

1

Unspec7 t1_jbhko0t wrote

Glad to see you finally saw sense and conceded that you lost.

Nah, I'll never be putting a plate on ever again. NJ will be dropping the front plate law probably in the next decade or so anyhow.

1

samwiseganja96 t1_jbhksjg wrote

Typical stanced beamer driver.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbhlc4p wrote

Typical MFA user

Maybe if you spent as much time in vocal lessons rather than being a contrarian on the internet, you'd be able to sing.

1

samwiseganja96 t1_jbhl5pq wrote

Too bad that rear facing camera won't do shit when someone hits you without a front plate 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

1

Unspec7 t1_jbhlgme wrote

You do understand that to run away from me, they need to either A) turn around or B) go past me, right? Either way I'll get a nice shot of their rear plate

Are you stupid or just a contrarian?

Edit: Given that you failed out of college, definitely the former.

1

samwiseganja96 t1_jbhmfod wrote

I have a degree lol. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

There are ways to not get the rear plate after someone has hit you. C) their plate is blocked by another car as they pass d) various rear plate covers use your fucking brain.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbhmt1h wrote

C) Sure, but the chances of that are so low that I'd rather just pay my insurance premiums than get front plates. D) Which is illegal. Are you just contradicting yourself at this point? What stops them from running both plates and having covers on BOTH, you donut?

True, I guess a GED kind of counts as a "degree". It does, after all, get referred to as the "Good Enough Degree".

1

samwiseganja96 t1_jbhobpi wrote

This comment is the epitome of "I haven't understood a word I read" it's like you can only hold on to a portion of this conversation. I write something and you only comprehend 1/10th of it.

Of course I'm not so daft that I think someone can run both plates with covers. I thought we were listing possible reasons you couldn't capture a plate on your front camera. was I wrong in thinking that? From your comment you made it seem like there were only 2 ways they could avoid the camera. In reality there's a multitude.

That does not take away the fact that when you have 2 plates on a car. There's 2 locations on that car with a visible unique identifier. This will absolutely make it easier to identify a car in the event of literally ANYTHING. That means accidents, robberies, kidnappings, etc it is a valuable tool. Grow up dude.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbhojb2 wrote

Nope, no metal plate will ever adorn the front of my car. I don't plan on using my car for criminal purposes anyhow, so idk why you even give so much of a shit. Goody two toes much.

1

[deleted] t1_jbinbcs wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjg5fq wrote

Bank robbery is not a victimless crime. First, there's the people you need to threaten with grave bodily harm to coerce them to give you the money, which can inflict emotional trauma. Second, FDIC insurance funds isn't just some monopoly money that comes out of thin air. It is effectively funded by tax payers, and so the entire nation becomes your victim.

0

[deleted] t1_jbjhwz4 wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjiiuo wrote

>oh you're the guy who refuses to use a front plate because your car looks so cool without it,

Yep, fuck front plates. Cars in general look so much better without them, they're useless pieces of metal anyhow. Unsure how that affects the rationale of THIS discussion though, but I guess ya'll really like to resort to ad hominem attacks when you realize you're in an untenable position.

And based on your rational for robbing banks: you're not nearly as good a person as you think you are.

0

samwiseganja96 t1_jbgl6rw wrote

It's okay if you want to latch on to my hypothesis while ignoring the factual statements I made.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbgxr53 wrote

Sure, you gave me factual statements, but there was no inferences to be drawn so I ignored it. How do you know that the 5 states with the highest rate of hit and runs aren't also the states with the highest rate of identification? You only gave me a national statistic for identification, not a state-by-state break down.

1

[deleted] t1_jbin4o2 wrote

[deleted]

2

Unspec7 t1_jbjj5n1 wrote

Front plate laws just don't require a front plate. They don't ban it. There's no reason the Uber's can't just still put on a front plate. Sounds more like Ubers not realizing the problem rather than a problem with the law itself.

0

[deleted] t1_jbjk36p wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjkd6y wrote

Well, except you're now forcing people to damage their cars for no reason.

Not all problems need to be solved by legislation. Some can be solved by common sense.

0

[deleted] t1_jbjkp8u wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjl1ix wrote

You mean taking a drill bit and drilling into the plastic for no reason other than to affix a useless plate of metal ISN'T damage?

0

[deleted] t1_jbjlfh1 wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjmp0l wrote

I mean, I guess you could just be an animal and not pre-drill your holes and just directly screw into the bumper. I guess if we're already fucking up the bumper, who cares about doing it the right way anyhow.

0

[deleted] t1_jbjms0i wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjmyh5 wrote

Me personally? 2015 BMW 535i xDrive.

0

[deleted] t1_jbjnqhr wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjo006 wrote

Ugh, so fucking ugly. No thanks. Almost as bad as drilling into the front bumper.

I'll get one if you pony up the money for the mount, though.

Edit: Make sure to get me one that doesn't interfere with my parking sensors, since there's one right by the tow hook, thanks.

0

[deleted] t1_jbjouxl wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjpame wrote

Did you forget this question you posited me?

You asked me why I didn't want to run one. I told you it's primarily for aesthetics from the get go, which includes position of the plate and not having gaping holes in my bumper if I DO move the front plate to the tow hook. See how those interact?

Also, not all cars have a tow hook you welt.

I do enjoy your ad hominem attacks though, really backs up your argument.

0

[deleted] t1_jbjq0jq wrote

[deleted]

0

Unspec7 t1_jbju5zc wrote

>Lol TIL I'm a welt

I mean, when you keep insisting on using irrelevant personal attacks in a lame attempt to back up your argument, you're a welt, yes.

>law went to damaging your car

That's because you misunderstood the argument. I never made the claim about damaging MY car. I've always stated from the get-go that my reason is aesthetics. My "damaging bumpers" argument arose from when you said you can solve the uber front plate issue by requiring front plates. That is when I made the argument that you would be forcing people to drill into their bumpers, as not all cars have factory tow hook mounts. The "damage" argument was meant to apply to the population as a whole, not me personally.

I hope that clears it up for you. I'm not sure where you're getting this whole "the man can't tell me what to do" bit, so I can't really help you there. It seems like you're just trying to build me up in your mind to be an objectively bad person so you can justify your unwarranted vitriol.

1

spypol t1_jbgbk2c wrote

Do you have evidence that they are the same?

(we don't work for you for free)

1

Unspec7 t1_jbgfnry wrote

Sure. Car insurance rates will give us a rough idea, since premiums go up if hit and run identifications go down, as insurance companies wouldn't be able to recover costs from the runner.

Data source

Average insurance premium for states that do not require a front plate: $2215.29

Average insurance premium for states that do require a front plate: $2047.38

An 8% difference, and that's assuming the only reason for the difference is hit and run rates, which is obviously not true. Given that even assuming a worst case and unrealistic scenario only results in a 8% difference, I think it's safe to say that there is no practical difference between the two groups.

1

spypol t1_jbglcpd wrote

Thanks for doing the research. I disagree with your conclusion. I would probably say that we don’t have enough evidence at this point (or at least it is too tenuous) to conclude anything.

2

Unspec7 t1_jbgxeo9 wrote

>I would probably say that we don’t have enough evidence at this point (or at least it is too tenuous) to conclude anything.

I agree. Insurance rates are a pretty tenuous connection as we all know how complicated premium calculations can be. A dog barks in Ohio and rates go up in Mississippi. I figured it might be somewhat illustrative, but it's still only a potential correlation, and not a causation.

1

Knobbies4Ever t1_jbgo8f3 wrote

Very interesting that the difference in insurance costs is $170/year between states that require a front plate, and those that don't. OK, "only" 8%, but $170 is a decent chunk of change.

What's really weird is that many of the "no front plate" states are low cost-of-living states. Seems like that would help push insurance rates down, right?

Team Front Plate has NJ, NY, CA, MA - all of New England and the west coast - notoriously high COL parts of the country - lots of bureaucracy, regulations etc. Yet the average insurance premiums are $170/year less among this cohort.

Honestly I was surprised by this data. What do you think explains it?

1

Unspec7 t1_jbgx7uj wrote

>Honestly I was surprised by this data. What do you think explains it?

There's a lot of factors that go into insurance premium calculation. For example, for states that don't require vehicle inspections, insurance might be higher due to a higher risk of injury due to potentially unsafe vehicles. No fault states might see higher premiums due to being unable to recover from the other side. Etc.

1

Knobbies4Ever t1_jbi000j wrote

My guess was states with higher-cost insurance would have more / higher-cost claims to pay out... or a regulatory environment that allows insurance companies to gouge their customers to increase profits.

I'm not in that business, but know money talks, bullshit walks.

Glad NJ has front plates... our car insurance is expensive enough already!

1

myguy34 t1_jbhyjdw wrote

my front plate must’ve fell off a while back and i never got a replacement. this was 4 years ago still never been pulled over either 🤷🏽‍♂️

2

FinalIntern8888 t1_jbg904i wrote

New Jersey law says you need to have a front and back plate

3