Originally Posted by _STEVEO_01

Please explain this statement, as it makes no sense... "Finally, police officers will be more productive in stopping dangerous motor vehicle violations such as drunk driving, reckless driving, speeding, etc., because their time won't be compromised by a California motorist who simply didn't have a front license plate on display." Time would be compromised, it's one less piece of identification, especially if that vehicle just happens to be missing the rear plate as well by chance. Honestly, if this petition is going to hold any type of weight, the justification provided isn't good enough in my opinion and is merely going to get laughed at and tossed. MOST new vehicles do come with front plates attached, after all, it is the law here in California. The state legislators could really care less about modern designed cars' aerodynamics and the possibility of a lack of performance in that vehicle due to a fixed front license plate. This would truely have minimal affects on any vehicle unless it was covering a front mount intercooler, and seriously, would you ever really be able to tell if aerodynamics were compromised just by mounting a front plate as opposed to un-mounting the plate?

If anything, the front plate is a nuisance on the eyes for show vehicles, and a pain in the azz for those turbocharged vehicles. It just looks plain ugly and get's in the way. I for one am against front plates, not to mention it would save taxpayers a considerable amount to cut plates, in all states, in half... However, the point I am trying to make is I just don't believe the justification provided is going to be enough to sway these guys decisions in changing the law anytime soon.