New Britain herald., 1916-01-26
LASS. REGULATION
 ON AUTO LIGHTS
bzzling Rays Must Not Be More Than 8 t-2 Feet Above Ground
Especial to the HeraldD

"a Especial to the Herald.)
 Boston. Jan. 26.-A great deal or &terest has been aroused by the new &aulation of the Massachusetts High @ay Commission, which prohibits the @e of automobile headlights which Brow out dazzling rays more than Na feet above the ground on a level Fad fifty feet or more ahead of the @ltomobile.
 M At a recent test of more than thir- devices attached to automobile #mps, held in the rooms of the Mass 8husetts Automobile Club of Bos- &n, at which many judges of Mass # #husetts Courts, including Chief Jus #ee Aiken of the Massachusetts Su- #srior Court, were present, it was the a1inion of practically every one pres &,t that not more than four or five # the devices exhibited satisfied the &quirem ents of the rule relating to Ne elimination of the dazzling rays, 8hd at the same time left enough light ! distinguish a substantial object 15O Bet ahead of the automobile.
 Have Test Cases. Officers Blake and Mcguire of the Boston Police Department, realizing
 he difficulties in interpreting the reg Nation, decided to summon to court
 sers of several of the devices for #ne purpose of making test of the easonableness of the regulation, and I securing some form of Judicial ex-
 ression regarding 1t.
 Charles $. Cook, IT., of Newton was @ne first defendent. MT. Cook had E1e lenses of his lamps ground from he top to a point three quarters of An inch below the center. He was epresented by William A. Thibodeau, Senera1 Counsel of the Automobile legal Association. After the officers lad testified that the rays of light fom MT. Cooks lamps were blinding TT. Tribodeau raised the novel point bat the regulation does not prevent he use of lamps which throw out Finding rays, and contended that the ffcers must satisfy the court that he lamps gave out dazzling rays 31s bet above the ground, and the off, ers seemed puzzled as to whether hey had been blinded or dazzled.
 Rays Not Blinding.
 Mir. Tribodeau contended that the l Inference between blinding and a l azzling ray is illustrated by the use | f the common street arc lamp and | he ground glass globe; that the rays rom such a lamp were not dazzling l D the casual observer, but if looked | t long enough might have blind 1g effect, and for that reason street | re lamp globes a few years ago were hanged from plain to ground glass l or the purpose of doing away with l he dazzling effects of plain glass. Judge Palmer of the Roxbury Dis 1 rict Court, who heard the case, after l joking up the definitions in a we'll 1 nown dictionary, adopted the distinc- on raised by counsel and found the efendent not guilty.
 Settles One Point. This decision settles at least one oint, namely, that no dazzling ray an come from ground glass or from snses wholly ground, and is in keep 1g with the opinion of an expert from lew York, who, in addressing those resent at the meeting above re- erred to, said no dazzling ray could ome from ground glass.
 It cannot be said, however, that utomobflists can solve their troubles v using ground glass lenses only, or unless the lamps are powerful the rinding of the lenses will so reduce he light rays that a substantial ob- ect cannot be seen the required 150 eet ahead of the autom obile. Many lave found this difficulty and solved by grinding a little more than the ipper half of the lenses, but it is aid that occasionally there may come ; dazzling ray from the bright sur ace of the parabo1a at the bottom # the lamp, as we'll as from the top 10 that the whole of the lenses must 3e ground, after which, if there is lot enough light to comply with the regulation requiring one to distinguish substantial object 150 feet ahead of he automobile, the deficiency in light