The Washington times., 1916-02-05
WOULDSTANDARIzE
|. LIGHT REGULATIONS
Difference Of Opinion on Proper
Method Of Eliminating. High
Z way Danger Embarrassing.

very automobile owner who has occaG
sion to drive his car from one city or
state to another realizes the Importance
of the movement that has been started
TO standardize the various laws and
ordinances governing the operation of
motor vehicles throughout the country
There is wide and embarrassing di-
vergercy i'm a number of the municipal
ordinances regulating safety devices or
other equipment. This Is particularly
true in the case OF dinners designed 70
eliminate the glare from automobile
headlights.
Realizing the need for a uniform regu-
lation covering the elimination OF the
headlight glare. the Society OF Automo-
bile Engineers has for some time given
this matter consideration and recently
recommended a natural and simple rem
edy. without necessitating any sweeping
changes in the thousands or cars now
owned by private motorists.
How To Remedy 1t
BY properly focusing the electric bulb
and bending the lamp supports In such
a way as to direct the light rays cor
rectly. It is said the average headlights
as supplied on the better grades of cars,
can be rendered practically non-glaring
The s. A. f. recommendation provides
that:
light, when measured seventy-five feet
or more ahead OF the lamps, shall be
over forty-two inches above the level
surface on which the vehicle stands.
such headlights shall also give suffl-
cient side illumination to indicate any
person. vehicle or substantial object
ten feet to the side of said motor We
hicle at point ten feet ahead of the
lamps"
An inquiry recently made by the
Horseless Age. the automobile trade
magazine OF all of the States and many
OF the large cities of the country dis
closes the fact that at the present time
few cities and onlv half dozen States
have any legislation prohibiting the use
of dazzling or Rlaring headlights un-
less dimmed. The States regulating the
use of dazzling headlights are Cali
fornia, District OF Columbia. Massa-
chusetts New Hampshire. New Jersey
and Michigan.
Wide Difference of Opinion.
at needs no argument to establish the
desirability of limiting the use of glar-
inC lights" saws a writer in the Horse
less Age. "but It has been found that
even among cities and States having
this legislation there is a wide differ
sbS9d or oPnS1 tS how s,aS the eT
cities are satisfied by the mere prohibi-
tion of glaring or dazzling lights. leav-
ing to the infinite wisdom of police Of
blCtES VI InB NuRSllOn OF
what is dazzling or Elaring light.
while others supplement this unsatisfac-
tory general prohibition by appointing
certain officials to authorize the use of
ITO the motorist this latter form of
statute is more desirable. as there is
no hard and fast rule to determine what
efrect certain rays of light may have on
the optic nerve or nerves of a police
man. under different conditions.
The legislation on this subject in
New Hampshire and Michigan IL very
limitations is worthy Of especial conn
rnent. In these States an automobilist
iB REQUIRED to dim his headlights only
when they are electric lights and when
approaching other vehicles. There is
the further provision in New Hamp-
shire that dimming is not necessary un-
less there is a reasonable opportunity
TO do so without danger to the driver.
eto.
Leaves a LOophOIe.
"Ie It is the purpose Of laws reduir-
Ing the dimminG Of lights to prevent
RlaranE or dazzling rays from annoying
and confusing persons using the streets.
to recognize the dangers incurred in
binding pedestrians as we'll as oper-
ators OF other vehicles? And to add the
provision that is in the New Hamp-
shire statute limiting its application to
casos whore there Is reasonable op-
portunity to dim the lights without dam
ger leaves such loophole as to render
sSmSS eessp prohibit yiES td4RRSfn PRS nse of the
pH q Use IF % a%bsb1re Tbif5 II abs is
that is' the type operated from the
orlVers seat. evidently with the idea
that such prohibition is the only ef-
iectlve way to insure the absence of
undesirable light. This would seem
10 bar the use of lamps containing
bulbs Of different candle power which
are used by many motorists to COM
ply with dimming laws. One city at
tst: least: Peoria. H.; expressly permits
great convenience to motorists ana
when properly used are unobjectionaple.
Certain legislation seeks to prevent
me dangers OF glartng headlights by
uniformity among such laws as to the
oeSree or elevation desirable, but this
Is a matter which should be easy to
determine and when so determined
make practical basis for anti-gIare
laws. It's desirable features are that
IL is easy to determine whether the
mgnts comply with the law without go
ing 70 court and compliance with the
Jaw Is possible by simply fitting the
amps; while moreover IL one doesn't
wish 10 tit The lamps 1t permits the
use OF any kind OF DINNER: in which
case OF course, there is doubt as 10
compliance with the law, but the High
way commission might pass upon the
9nrna g9imers as certain officials do in New
Jersey, thus avoiding this difficulty
"one thing further should be noted
IN regard to the Massachusetts law.
IT not only limits the use of dazzling
rayE, as do all other dimming laws
but 1t also requires motor vehicles 10
be equipped with lamps of such power
that substantial object may be seen
at specified distances in front of and
at the side OF the car. A majority of
the laws requiring lights for motor
vehicles are based on the theory that
they are cnly for the purpose of peIn,y
nNy n Ip,1
Earily Inadequate and this phase of the
question, that Is, requiring motorists
TO use lights to distinguish objects on
the road should not be overlooked
when endeaVorlng by legislation to
overcome the bad features of dazzling
lights"