California Wants To Put E-Ads On License Plates

techmuse writes "The San Jose Mercury News reports that the California state legislature wants to put electronic advertising on license plates. The plate would display standard plate information when the car is moving, but would also display ads when the car is stopped for more than 4 seconds (say, at a red light). Not distracting or annoying at all! 'The bill has received no formal opposition. It passed unanimously through the Senate last month and is scheduled to be heard Monday by the Assembly Transportation Committee.'"

Comments

Re:Programmable Number Plates

[Anonymous Coward]

On the flip side, I'd love a "back off" button I could get to make the plate flash a message at the wanker behind me, or even a "turn your lights on".

I think we all would at times. There are some homemade examples of this on youtube. Do note, however, that this is a direct violation of the law in many places and would fall under more general reckless driving laws in the rest.

Rule of thumb: moving/changing signs are not allowed on cars.

Also for those who don't know; The California state legislature throws stupid stuff like this around all the time. It never goes anywhere. They don't do it because they want to pass the law. They do it because there is some wealthy business behind it. This is clearly a crappy ad for some crappy ad manufacturer.

Re:Programmable Number Plates

[rainmouse]

I suppose speed limits of 30 mph in a residential area is purely motivated towards speeding tickets income and nothing to do with the 20% fatality at 30mph vs 40 mph where its 90% fatality rate. Seems like this are speed limits imposed by engineers. Of course now they are pushing for 20mph in residential areas which decreases the chance of death to around 2.5%. Of course you could argue its political when over 3 thousand people in the UK alone are killed on roads each year. You can throw out whatever excuse for driving irresponsibly, but don't think your fooling everyone.

figures from Sunday Times which may or may not be 100% accurate but they paint a decent picture. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3941769.ece

Re:Really?

[vtcodger]

It's way worse than that. The state was New Hampshire and the slogan that was taped over was "LIVE FREE OR DIE".

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15440

Eventually, the case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Unites States. New Hampshire lost 6-3 on First Amendment -- Freedom of Speech grounds. The defendant was eventually awarded legal fees which New Hampshire refused to pay until a marshall walked into a state liquor store with a writ and demanded $21,000.

Re:Really?

[drinkypoo]

The irony of course is that the guy who received the citation still doesn't understand the First Amendment:

His faith causes him to question whether the First Amendment has been extended too far in certain circumstances. He says that the First Amendment should not protect immorality. "I think that freedom should protect the right principles of morality," he says.

"I think the ACLU does a good job for good things and I think they do a good job for bad things, such as protecting pornography and homosexuality -- things that conflict with the teachings of the Bible," Maynard says.

"But they did right by me in my case and I still appreciate that."

Some men you just can't reach...