1. General requirements
2. Glaring or dazzling lights
3. Miscellaneous
1. General requirements
This section requires a driving light sufficient to render a pedestrian two hundred feet away clearly discernible. Beck v. Trustin, 177 Neb. 788, 131 N.W.2d 425 (1964).
Motorist has duty to have headlights throwing a beam at least two hundred feet ahead. Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563, 74 N.W.2d 344 (1956).
The standard for a lawful headlight, and, by extension, a lawful auxiliary driving light, is found in this section. State v. Carnicle, 18 Neb. App. 761, 792 N.W.2d 893 (2010).
The terms of section 60-6,225(2) require reference to this section, which provides that headlights shall produce a driving light sufficient to render clearly discernible a person 200 feet ahead, but the headlights shall not project a glaring or dazzling light to persons in front of such headlights. State v. Carnicle, 18 Neb. App. 761, 792 N.W.2d 893 (2010).
2. Glaring or dazzling lights
Where a headlight or auxiliary driving light is so glaring or dazzling that an officer reasonably believes the light violates this section, such subjective belief could provide probable cause for a traffic stop. State v. Carnicle, 18 Neb. App. 761, 792 N.W.2d 893 (2010).
Whether a vehicle's front lights are unlawfully glaring or dazzling requires, at least for a conviction of the associated crime, an objective measurement under subsection (2) of this section. State v. Carnicle, 18 Neb. App. 761, 792 N.W.2d 893 (2010).
3. Miscellaneous
Instruction on particular requirements of this section was not required. Segebart v. Gregory, 160 Neb. 64, 69 N.W.2d 315 (1955).
If truck had no lights burning, it violated this section. Davis v. Spindler, 156 Neb. 276, 56 N.W.2d 107 (1952).
Where headlights substantially fail to conform to requirements of this section, the presence of the vehicle on highway is unlawful. Nichols v. Havlat, 140 Neb. 723, 1 N.W.2d 829 (1942), reversed on rehearing, 142 Neb. 534, 7 N.W.2d 84 (1942).
Where driver's lights are on high beam as he approaches an unlighted truck with bulk of its body above the high beam, the failure of driver to see the truck does not necessarily constitute gross negligence. Holberg v. McDonald, 137 Neb. 405, 289 N.W. 542 (1940).
Failure to have head lamps complying with this section is evidence of negligence, but does not necessarily preclude recovery by guest riding in car having defective lights. Gleason v. Baack, 137 Neb. 272, 289 N.W. 349 (1939).
A red rear light or tail light formed no part of equipment prescribed by statute. McGaffey v. Blosser, 129 Neb. 371, 261 N.W. 565 (1935).
Auxiliary driving lights are defined by section 60-6,225(2), and under that subsection, if they do not meet the criteria for headlights set forth in this section, it is a Class III misdemeanor under section 60-6,222. State v. Carnicle, 18 Neb. App. 761, 792 N.W.2d 893 (2010).