So what's the deal in Dallas?

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Trip

I would gladly hand over my memory cards to him if I was just riding and came across them. I would hand them my license and say you can hold on to that and I will go ride with them and record every single license plate I could and then return for my license.

I would too, but as a matter of law, the cop should have asked for the camera instead of making up some (alleged) bullshit about a license plate.

JC

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

I would too, but as a matter of law, the cop should have asked for the camera instead of making up some (alleged) bullshit about a license plate.

JC

It stinks, but not bullshit. Must be visible and legible from 50 feet, cannot be obstructed from view. This doesn't look like it would be visible from 50 feet. It's from the helmet facing up when the officer had it in his hand.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by azoomm

It stinks, but not bullshit. Must be visible and legible from 50 feet, cannot be obstructed from view. This doesn't look like it would be visible from 50 feet. It's from the helmet facing up when the officer had it in his hand.

I pulled virtually the same shot from the video, to rebut the FTP crowd on a local board. The plate is fully visible if you happen to be a Hobbit, who is standing virtually under the bikes tail. When I made my original comment about the tag charge being trumped-up, I hadn't taken a good look at it.

[RACER X]

Originally Posted by azoomm

It stinks, but not bullshit. Must be visible and legible from 50 feet, cannot be obstructed from view. This doesn't look like it would be visible from 50 feet. It's from the helmet facing up when the officer had it in his hand.

the law is vague in TX, unobstructed and AT THE REAR of the bike, no mention of 50ft...........thats gives the officer alot of discretion

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by RACER X

the law is vague in TX, unobstructed and AT THE REAR of the bike, no mention of 50ft...........thats gives the officer alot of discretion

I just read the statute. Yeah, nothing really in there about distance. It could be that has been determined through case law.

[RACER X]

maybe it's vague for a reason.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by RACER X

the law is vague in TX, unobstructed and AT THE REAR of the bike, no mention of 50ft...........thats gives the officer alot of discretion

It has to be visible. That plate isn't visible.

They have redacted all state law about placement of motor vehicle license plates. It has all been replaced with a statement the "Board" will make rulings on placement. The Board is with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Yaaaaaay

[azoomm]

My original statements come from a few years ago when I was ticketed on the 998. My ticket was dismissed because I have a picture taken following statute 50 feet was the requirement. I believe it is still stated under motorcycle lighting equipment that it must have a little stock OEM light so that it may be visible from 50 feet.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by RACER X

maybe it's vague for a reason.

Probably not a good reason either.

Too many of these laws seem only to exist to give the cops a fishing license.

JC

[RACER X]

Originally Posted by azoomm

My original statements come from a few years ago when I was ticketed on the 998. My ticket was dismissed because I have a picture taken following statute 50 feet was the requirement. I believe it is still stated under motorcycle lighting equipment that it must have a little stock OEM light so that it may be visible from 50 feet.

they don't have to be OE

547.322. TAILLAMPS REQUIRED

A taillamp or a separate lamp shall be constructed and
mounted to emit a white light that:

(1) illuminates the rear license plate; and

(2) makes the plate clearly legible at a distance of 50
feet from the rear.

(g) A taillamp, including a separate lamp used to illuminate
a rear license plate, must emit a light when a headlamp or auxiliary
driving lamp is lighted.