The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1928. MOTOR HEADLIGHTS

Southland Times, Issue 20463, 16 April 1928, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1928. MOTOR HEADLIGHTS

Experience of the new Motor Regulations suggests the possibility that quite a number of interesting puzzles will be discovered for car drivers. Already the rules governing lighting have raised doubts about the wishes and the consistency of the drafter of the regulations. In the effort to cure glare and to prohibit dimming, the regulations seem to impose conditions which will demand alterations to every car in the Dominion. If this is so the Government has been extremely careless of motorists’ convenience and unreasonable, because if extensive changes are necessary the motor industry will not be able to carry through the alterations in the time left at its disposal. Motorists who have tried to obey the regulations, we arc told, have discovered that a pair of efficient lamps could not satisfy two clauses iff the regulations, one demanding effective illumination at 50 yards and the- other insisting that the main beam of the light shall not project above the horizontal level of the lamp, and 75 feet away shall not project above 3ft 6ins. from the ground. It was discovered that to keep the main beam of light down low enough to satisfy these requirements, the lamp had to be tilted down to its extreme, range, and the illuminating power was reduced 50 per cent. This is an important matter because it Involves such a large number of people, who are already taxed heavily and pursued by regulations and by-laws varied and tangled enough to fill their live# with anxiety. Then, we are told, the clause dealing with illuminating power renders dipping illegal, although the opinion formed of the clause doing away with dimming was that dipping was sanctioned. It is true that dipping does not alter the brilliance of the light given by the lamp, but if the dipping leads to the lamp’s failure to illuminate sufficiently a figure 50 yards distant, then dipping cannot be resorted to. Of course, there

is a loophole £or the authorities in the wording of the clause dealing with illuminafing power. This clause says the head Hights must be:

of sufficient power to enable substantial objects and the nature of the roadsurface to be clearly visible under normal atmosphere conditions by a driver of normal vision at a distance of at least 15Q feet directly in front of the driver.

Here there is a fair amount of latitude in the phrase ‘‘to be clearly visible,” but that margin is for the pleasure of the authorities

only, because no motorist for himself caninterpret what “clearly visible” means, and he will not be safe in doing so when he is making alterations in the lighting equipment of his car. It looks as if the regulations have not been given sufficient consideration, and that the effect of them was not fully studied before they went into effect. We have no doubt that other troublesome flaws will be discovered later, but in the meantime there is enough uncertainty in connection with the headlight provisions to worry motorists.