From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!rabbit!jj
Newsgroups: net.auto
Title: Re: Restrictive Headlight Laws
Article-I.D.: rabbit.721
Posted: Fri Aug 20 15:49:42 1982
Received: Sat Aug 21 05:45:59 1982
References: mcnc.1287

	This article on "Restrictive Headlight Laws" is one
of the most blatant attempts at misdirection that I have
ever had the opportunity to see.  

1).	The premise fails on a night with overcast sky's, for example.
Are you responsible enough to stay off the roads them.

2)  	Are you willing to assume the responsibility if someone
hits you while you are driving around in the dark?  It IS your
responsibitily to be seen as well as see. (Check it out, that's
absolutely right.)  Such a person might be turning on the road that
you are driving down in absolute darkness and get hit, and quite justifiably
argue that:
"HE (I am presuming gender for linguistic reasons.) WAS ATTEMPTING TO
BE INVISIBLE, AND HE SUCCEEDED, I HIT HIM.  IT'S HIS FAULT"

This is a clearcut case when the person without headlights forces
the other person to make a mistake. (i.e. entrapment of a sort)
While this arguement can be extended to extremes, and result in
the current legal system the
ability to entrap a person must be limited in some way.

As one may notice, I have not even commented on the need for headlights.
I will leave attacking absurdity to the  rest of the net.
Cherio
rabbit!jj