Quad round jeadlights
Manufacturers planned for them in 57 thence the large space for the 57 headlights but not all states changed their regulations in time. You could get the quads in 57 from Chrysker Corp cars if you lived in a state that permitted them…
It was definitely the 1963 model year. I remember because my father’s new '63 Plymouth came with the new mandatory amber front turn signals, but the previous year’s Plymouth didn’t have them.
This requirement helped to create a small new industry of companies making thin plastic amber inserts that you could install underneath the turn signal lens. JC Whitney–and others–probably sold a lot of these aftermarket accessories.
My father in laws 1963 Plymputh Savoy came with clear lenses and amber bulbs. It may have been produced in 62 and in our area most of the Mopars and Fords were made in Canada
+1
And, if someone was wealthy enough (and eccentric enough), they might have paid someone to alter their car in order to accomodate quad headlights. IMHO, the Lincoln Mk II was one of the most beautiful car designs… ever, but Texas oilman J.C. Daniels must have felt differently because he paid a couple of expert body guys to convert his 1957 Mk II.
Here’s some citations:
Most, if not all, light bars have disclaimers they are for off road use only. However, there are always buffoons driving around with auxiliary lights that do not meet these regulations. I guess the cops would have to catch them in the act. Hard to believe that doesn’t happen because it is blinding to any oncoming vehicle…
My '69 vette has some of the brightest high beam lamps I have ever seen to this day. They seem like aircraft landing lights but as far as I know, they are original equipment. One time, I had some fool driving close behind me with their brights on for miles. They could easily pass by. After a few miles of this, I pulled over so they would get ahead, then turned on those brights. You could see everyone and everything in their car plain as daylight (bunch of younger kids) and I could tell by the reactions, they got the message.
The backup light switch on my POS Volvo failed when the car was ~3 years old. My mechanic said that the labor involved in replacing that switch would be extensive, so he suggested that I simply have him install a toggle switch for the backup lights.
Not only did this give me the opportunity for better illumination when I was unpacking the trunk, but it also gave me a… unique… way of informing drivers in back of me that they had their high beams on.
It’s amazing how hard people apply their brakes when they think that the car in front of them is going to back up. 
Just think, somebody, somewhere earned a pretty penny, paid by the taxpayers, for composing that prose … lol …
My old rule. Work expands to equal the time allotted. Less time, less prose.
Parkinson’s Law, I first heard of it in a management class while in a branch of the DoD.
From Wikipedia, some other examples:
The first-referenced meaning of the law – “Work complicates to fill the available time” – has dominated, and sprouted several corollaries, the best known being the stock-standard corollary to Parkinson’s law:
If you wait until the last minute, it only takes a minute to do.[6]
Other corollaries include Horstman’s corollary to Parkinson’s law, coined by Mark Horstman of website manager-tools.com:[7]
Work contracts to fit in the time we give it.[8]
the Asimov corollary to Parkinson’s law:
In ten hours a day you have time to fall twice as far behind your commitments as in five hours a day.[9]
as well as corollaries relating to computers, such as:
Data expands to fill the space available for storage.[10]
At least they are understandable. The issue becomes; write something simple that most people would understand and abide by the intention, or write something much more verbose that tries to eliminate all of the wiggle room used to evade the intention of the law…
“Officer, those are not headlamps…”
Not likely. Those regulations were proposed by the state legislature. Average annual salary was $52,705 and median salary was $51,846. I doubt that the legislators live on that salary alone.
Nature abhors a vacuum of any kind 
I believe New Hampshire only pays its state representatives and senators $100/year.
Here’s my source. I don’t live there or nearby and depend on publicly available sources like this one.
https://govsalaries.com/salaries/NH/new-hampshire-legislative-branch
Here’s one that quotes the same salary that you provided.
jtsanders;
I believe the difference in the salaries is the former describes the salaries for all those employed in the New Hampshire Legislative Branch. While the latter ($100/year) is for the elected state reps and senators.
Both links and numbers are valid.
Well don’t worry too much about legislators being over worked. They don’t write the stuff. They have staff and agency staff that do that for them.
The state reps and senators salary is only $100 plus travel expenses. NH is the 3rd largest governing body in the world. The salaries of other State employees are a lot higher, but still low considering we have a high cost of living (ranked 14th) - and that’s without having an income or sales tax.
Wow, interesting factoid.
We need an income tax sharing scheme with MA. MA is consistently running a surplus and no surprise if considering how many people commute from bordering states to work there. NH should get some of that money… It was nice to get a kickback from MA last year. I did a double take when I saw an unsolicited deposit from MA, not realizing it was a “rebate” from their surplus…
It’s called taxation without representation. I’ve been paying MA income tax for decades. I do get some of it back. MA has a reciprocal tax with other states that do have an income tax - like NY.
ME is the worse. They base their tax rate on what you filed in Fed. So if your spouse works in ME with a low paying retail job, and you work as an engineer in NH paying 6 figures. You joint income tax rate will put you in a higher tax bracket compared to what your spouse would be in if she filed separately.
