5 petitions

Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Jean Shiomoto

Protecting California’s Modded Car Culture

California’s modified car & truck culture scenes are arguably the most trendsetting scenes for modified car & truck culture throughout the world, yet we face laws that are specifically targeted at us purely based on our lifestyle.  We can’t have Cold Air Intakes on our vehicles because...street racing? Really?  We can’t have aftermarket exhaust systems for our vehicles because...noise?  We can’t have our vehicles too low or too high because...happiness?  These 3 laws that we face are a small example of the clear miseducation of our state’s law makers on our culture as well as the functionality of MOST of our modifications.  Cold Air Intakes: increase air flow into the motor thus allowing you to utilize less gasoline when driving normally. Does it increase horsepower? Yes, but by 3-7hp. There is no one buying a cold air intake to go “street racing”.  Aftermarket Exhaust: assists the air flow through the motor thus helping increase gas mileage. Are they typically louder? Sometimes.  But with the current law allowing for tickets to be issued on the sight of aftermarket exhaust, how would you know?  Ride Height Restrictions: lowering a vehicle can increase aerodynamics thus increasing handling as well as gas mileage. Raising a truck’s height can help with clearance in certain conditions.  It is my opinion that these laws aren’t what threatens our culture. It’s our lack of having a unified voice to lobby against these laws is what threatens us. So with this petition, I want us to collect 100,000 signatures of California Modded Car Culture enthusiasts so that we can form our own lobbying power against these laws. 

Taj Turner
9,008 supporters
Started 1 year ago

Petition to United States Department of Transportation, US Congress, European Commission

Increase safety of vehicles by implementing regulation on brake systems, wheels and tires

Road traffic crashes and accidents claim 1.2 million lives and 10 million injuries worldwide every year.  More than a third of these numbers apply to pedestrians.   How many of these fatalities and severe injuries are results of driver error, impaired driving or other unsafe driving practices, and how many are due to inherent vehicle safety, both mechanical and technological elements -- including brake systems, heavy wheels and unsuitable tires? Vehicle safety regulation tends to focus on improving the level of protection a car provides its driver and occupants, but vehicles can also be designed to be safer for pedestrians. Some studies and statistics exist regarding wheel sizing, wheel weight, and the pros and cons of “plus-sizing” (“plus-sizing” refers to, for example, changing a standard 16” diameter wheel for an 18” diameter wheel, which in this case entails a “Plus-2 Fitment”). Although switching to bigger sized wheels, replacing the OE (original equipment) wheels and tires that are specifically designed and tested by car manufacturers is an attractive proposition for many drivers (big wheels can enhance a car’s appearance and handling and performance), it can also be dangerous if not done right --putting the drivers, their passengers and innocent pedestrians at greater risk. A car’s suspension and brake system are engineered to perfectly operate with a certain amount of "unsprung weight" (mass of components not supported by the springs) -- the axles, wheels and tires, brakes, etc. Plus-sizing to heavier wheels puts more strain on the suspension system. That extra mass may cause various side effects for the vehicle, causing potentially longer stopping distance and even issues with steering control. It is possible to avoid most of these consequences with lighter forged wheels, but they are considerably more expensive. In addition to having stringent rules and regulations enacted and enforced pertaining to plus-sizing wheels and tires, cars can be made safer for pedestrians by implementing other measures: o   designing a vehicle’s front end, in terms of shape and structural stiffness, so that pedestrians and other road users are less likely to be injured if they at impact. According to the UK’s The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), “the changes in the shape of many modern vehicle fronts, compared to older vehicles, has been influenced by pedestrian protection.” Design modifications can include increasing the crush depth between the outer surface of the vehicle and hard objects underneath (such as engine parts); o   testing with crash dummies that replicate real-life pedestrian crashes, and involve vehicle deceleration and stopping distance rates, and force measurements; testing that includes factors like bumper heights and energy absorption, and front end spaces between the hood and engine components underneath; o   shortening braking distance by way of a more robust high performance brake-system being installed at OEM level, and also reducing the weight of wheels, one of the advantages that forged wheels provide. The world is becoming increasingly mobile. Autonomous vehicles are being developed. Many places are seeing populations aging. Governments must heed the technological advancements improving mechanisms that increase control over a vehicle and maximize braking capabilities to shorten the stopping distance. Even a small improvement can save numerous lives. Both the U.S. and the EU should lead in funding of continuous, extensive in-depth research aimed at enhancing the safety of vehicles. Upgrading automotive safety equipment and respective standards should be a prioritized reality. It is imperative that governing bodies enact and enforce the regulation upon manufacturers, as well as tuners, facilitating the safest possible vehicles to the motorists – thus ensuring greater safety for pedestrians.  

Eleonora Pole
59 supporters
Update posted 2 years ago

Petition to NJ Legislature

No longer require front license plates in NJ

NJ currently requires two license plates on each registered vehicle. Absent this regulation, motorists would no longer be required to drill into their bumpers and would ultimately save the state money on production costs -- even factoring in the $100 fine currently in place for those who do not follow the law. Proposed content for the bill — admittedly I had trouble locating the law for displaying both plates: (1) Vehicles registered in NJ are required to display a single plate on the rear of the vehicle in a manner where it is clearly visible and in its manufacturer designated location. (1)(a) Should the vehicle not have a designated location, the owner must display the plate prominently without obstructing his rearward visibility and the plate must be lit by license plate specific lighting.(2) Where a vehicle is registered at the MVC, the recipient will receive a license plate designated for the rear but may request a second license plate for the sole purpose of displaying it on the front of the vehicle for an additional cost to be determined by the state legislature.(2)(a) Personalized plates are to be provided by the state as a single plate designated for the rear of the vehicle, but the registrant may request an additional plate with the cost to be determined by the legislature.(3) Failure to properly display either plate will result in a mandatory fine of (TBD). The only law I could locate for displaying plates was the following code:39:3-33. Markers; requirements concerning; display of fictitious or wrong numbers, etc.; punishment Here are a few reasons why this would be beneficial: Cost: The cost of producing and distributing 2 license plates to each driver would be saved, according to, the cost varies state to state, but the estimates are between $.50-$5.50 per set. As of December 2011, there were a total of 6,628,080 registered vehicles in NJ ( If we are to assume that costs would be halved, that would be a total savings of at least $1,657,020 and as much as $18,227,220. It’s also worth noting that charging the same amount for a vanity plate would likely be feasible, while still cutting costs in half — this ultimately means expanding state revenue over the current setup. Revenue?:On the topic of revenue, I understand that this is a source of revenue for the state in so far as violations are concerned, however the benefits may outweigh the stream of revenue. On average, the hourly salary of state police officers is $31.83 ( The current fine for not having a front plate is $100 and according to, in 2014, of the 87,591 written violations, 72,188 plead guilty. ( Whats worth noting is that this included violations that carried the much higher $500 fine for displaying fictitious plates, so the numbers are actually a bit higher than what is relevant here. Using come simple math, we can calculate how much the state makes against how much it costs to issue a violation for not displaying a front license plate. * For the purpose of this calculation, I am assuming that the average stop is about 15 minutes * First we calculate the number of stops against the cost for the officer’s time; we calculate this by multiplying the average hourly wage by .25 and multiplying it by the total number of stops. We find that the state spends $7.96 to the officer for the 15 minutes and $697,005.38 for the total stops in a given year. Second, we calculate the revenue the state draws in from the violators that plead guilty. Here we do so by simply multiplying 100 X 72,188 = $7,218,800 Third, we deduct costs from the revenue to find that $7,218,800 - $697,005.38 = $6,521,794.62 Lastly, we deduct revenue generated from violations from the potential savings from manufacture(I’m assuming we fall somewhere in the middle of cost per plate, so roughly $2.75 per plate): $9,113,610 (savings) - $6,521,794.62 (revenue) = + $2,591,815.38 <— the state would profit by getting rid of front license plates. If our plates cost more than ~$2 to manufacture, we would save money by not requiring the front plate at all. It’s also worth considering that the courts would be less crowded and public perception of license plate regulations would be minimized. Environment:Simply put, manufacturing plates requires resources and resources are sparse. Reducing our consumption reduces waste and reduces pollution. Additionally, auto manufacturers work very hard to design cars to be as aerodynamic as possible; front license plates add drag which also increases fuel consumption — admittedly this is minimal. If possible, I would be interested in the state exploring a more sustainable method of producing license plates via recycling. Aesthetic:Many drivers agree that front license plates are hideous. Requiring drivers to drill into their brand new or used car is a painful experience and many car owners prefer to not do so, which ultimately results in civil disobedience but without redress. Alternatives:On the off chance that an officer cannot look at the rear plate, the officer may look towards the VIN on the windshield should it be necessary. This, however, is a highly unlikely scenario since officers often pull cars over from behind and traffic cameras are positioned to view the rear plate. Further, the rear plate is the only lit plate on the car, and when a person purchases a new car, the temporary plate is only a single plate hung in the rear. Why should we have to display a front plate if the only one that is actually used is the rear one? Public Perception:While only 19 states currently do not require front license plates, NJ could be the 20th and would be viewed favorably among the auto enthusiasts for doing so. ( Additionally, many citizens who do not care either way may still be able to request a second plate (another potential source of revenue), though it is unlikely they’d do so. Given the affluence in NJ, car collectors are likely to rejoice in the deregulation and would be enthusiastic towards it. Further, it's simple and easy to pass with support across aisles and across the board.  

Ilan Danon
9,571 supporters