Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Wants To Put E-Ads On License Plates

Posted by kdawson on from the distracted-stopping dept.

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.'"

18 of 624 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by an00bis · · Score: 5, Funny

    You stay classy California.

    1. Re:Really? by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Really? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      "OK, the plate seems to be: Victor-India-Alpha-Golf-Romeo-Alpha."

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  2. Programmable Number Plates by Bronster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh goody - programmable number plates. What could possibly go wrong. I can just imagine how happy the jackers are going to be - no need to switch plates, just upload a custom firmware and you're gold.

    1. Re:Programmable Number Plates by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speed and red light cameras become useless too, I can see a huge underground industry built up around this because there's no way in hell what ever "encryption" they use will last.

      Car in motion > 30 mph = some random number.
      Car stopped and < 30 mph = your 'real' number.

      Then ads for being stopped.

    2. Re:Programmable Number Plates by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can see a huge underground industry built up around this because there's no way in hell what ever "encryption" they use will last.

      And then, once the encryption is broken, they can justify passing an even more draconian version of the DMCA that makes breaking encryption a felony with mandatory prison time. Hooray for the future!

    3. Re:Programmable Number Plates by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      I support team goatse.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:Programmable Number Plates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Programmable Number Plates by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'll slow down as soon as the speed limits are set by engineers and not politicians and people with a monetary stake in the revenue from tickets resulting from said limits.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    6. Re:Programmable Number Plates by unkiereamus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about, STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY?

      8 words : Ballot measures making a lot of spending mandatory.

      6 more words : Super-majority required for tax increases.

      People vote for ballot measures for spending, but then vote against the tax increases to pay for it.

      So, 2005 was the last year I could conveniently find (read 10 seconds of googling) numbers for, but according to taxfoundation.org, in 2005, CA sent ~$286,627,000,000 to the Federal Government, on the other hand they received ~$242,023,000,000 dollars worth of federal funding.

      I'd just like to note that this represents a 44.6 billion dollar disparity.

      Of course, the withdrawal of that money from the federal budget would mean the effective collapse of numerous other states (I started to add up the numbers, but frankly, I'm too lazy.)

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    7. Re:Programmable Number Plates by rainmouse · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

  3. Lower fees? by Dr_Banzai · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps accepting the advertising could result in lower license or insurance fees.

  4. How about Tetris? by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think electronic ads would be that interesting on license plates, but how about a game of Tetris? The car behind could honk once to rotate left, and honk twice to rotate right. This could really reduce boredom in traffic jams!

  5. Re:Crashes? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if it gets the Blue Screen of Death?

    Blue screens are almost always a driver problem.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  6. Green technology by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    California is totally into green technology lately. I've got a great idea for them. Normal non-powered license plates. Once created they use no energy and produce no emissions.

  7. Can it say "STOLEN" if somebody steals your car? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That would be cool. Apart from that it's all fail.

    --
    No sig today...
  8. This is a stupid formula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People drive at what *they* perceive a safe speed to be, not what is a safe speed.

    People also drive at a distance behind other cars at which they perceive to be safe.

    How many people stay the requisite 3 seconds behind other cars? (or even longer on wet/icey roads)

    How many people are aware of why that 3 second rule exists and understand it enough to obey it?

    The point here is that people will drive in a manner that is neither safe for themselves or others on the road because they can and because they think it is ok without understanding why it isn't.