I really haven’t started noticing this until the past year or so. Any and every time I see a U.S. Postal Service vehicle (typically, the small trucks that the postman drives around, delivering mail locally), the vehicle doesn’t have license plates, front or back! FYI, I’m a California resident so I can’t speak for the 49 States.
Typically, local and state public agency vehicles carry “Exempt” status license plates; so I’m wondering, did the USPS strike a deal with all 50 States to be free and void of having to affix license plates to their vehicles?
The last bank robbery using one of those dinky PO trucks was in 1978. They aren’t considered a flight risk.
I think yes, the gummint markings and vehicle serial number have been judged sufficient as a time- and cost-saving measure. You’ll note that the military trucks and humvees that pass you don’t have plates, either, but go ahead and argue with them if you like.
My USPS associate supervisor husband agrees that the truck number affixed to the top of each vehicle in front and back serves as the vehicle’s unique identifier, and it’s used by police in cases where the vehicle is involved in a traffic accident and so forth. (I suspect this also leads to less confusion/hassle if the vehicles are transferred between offices in different states.) This is a federal government agency that relies on vehicles, so it makes sense.
Other Federal government vehicles will have a Federally-issued license plate (if they have a license plate at all), so it’s not like the USPS has a special deal to let it avoid having to get state-issued plates.
Thank you, Amateur Barbarian, you’re reply is the most logical (and I figured it would be something along those lines). I guess we’d all like to see the Federal Government utilize some more cost-savings measures!
It makes me wonder why state and local police departments are compelled (by the state, presumably) to bother with plates for their squad cars. The same logic (“gummint markings and vehicle serial number”) would seem to apply.
Interesting: When I worked as a fleet manager in the NHS I had a number of assorted vehicles that were classified as “Crown” vehicles. This meant that they did not have to be insured (it’s otherwise compulsory here) and paid no annual licence fee (currently £175 for my car). They did have licence plates, which here, are the only means of identification on a vehicle. Even the armed forces have them.
“Crown” vehicles are owned, essentially, by the Crown, not the Queen, but an organisation directly funded by the government, This does not apply to police cars (owned by the local authority) but it does to ambulances and army vehicles.
To add, that’s sort of standard for the entire Federal government. I can’t recall any G-ride with insurance. It’s cheaper not to insure (unless you’re a civilian… in which case you get fined for doing so… go figure).
The UK government does not insure anything, and I bet it’s the same for most governments. Simply put, the cost of the premiums would have to be greater than the cost of any settlements, and who has more money than the government? If you own a lot of valuable and irreplaceable works of art, it is better to spend money on security and fire safety than insurance.
I remember that a lot of people were surprised at this when Hampton Court Palace caught fire, and when St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle did the same.
