4 ms·

You say that, but I was once driving on a dark, national limit road through the forest one night - and had turned off my full beams because I'd just passed a ru

You say that, but I was once driving on a dark, national limit road through the forest one night - and had turned off my full beams because I'd just passed a run of cars coming the other way. I caught a glimpse of a pedestrian and instinctively turned them back on just to catch a glimpse of a (complete f'king moronic) person in full black pushing his bike (with no reflectors) in the road talking to the pedestrian. After that, as a pedestrian I'd rather have a full beam to the face than think a car might not have seen me, even if I'm safely on the pavement.

Avamander 6y ago
People not wearing reflectors while wearing black is so silly.
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
>as a pedestrian I'd rather have a full beam to the face than think a car might not have seen me, even if I'm safely on the pavement. This sounds suspiciously like "There Are No Bad Safety Measures" How are you at risk from a driver not seeing you, if you aren't anywhere near the road? If a driver has to travel that far off the roadway to reach you, that driver's issue isn't low visibility.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  PSA: A situation is what it is, not what it could be. Another term for "What It Could Be" is "What It Isn't".
  - wastedhours 6y ago
    We have a number of tools at our disposal as drivers to minimise bad situations. Personally I think overuse of high-beams is more valid than under-use in quite a number of circumstances (and exceptionally bad in others). Your comment implied that drivers who instinctively switch on their high beams to get a sense of a situation where they need more visual input are "jackwads" which I tried to highlight isn't the reason they're doing it. Wanting to see more when you're driving a massive piece of machinery at decent speeds isn't something that makes you an outright asshole.
    - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
      Those points weigh in favor of someone who thoughtlessly high-beam'd a pedestrian, for the first time - which is reasonable. Also reasonable is considering their actions and realizing they gained no meaningful amount of safety by blinding a pedestrian. If they've blinded countless pedestrians over an extended period, then they aren't considering anything. Inconsiderate people are jackwads.
- wastedhours 6y ago
  I misworded my point on that bit, I more meant I'd rather take a full-beam to the face when I'm on the pavement if it means the driver is aware of the hazards around them. Occasionally (and in my experience it is only a handful of poor actors compared with the number of cars on the road), I'd take getting intense glare as a pedestrian if it works in everyone's safety. Appreciate it's a different call for cyclists etc, but as a pedestrian I'd welcome the trade off more than drivers not using their full beams when they deem it neccessary.

Avamander 6y ago

People not wearing reflectors while wearing black is so silly.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

>as a pedestrian I'd rather have a full beam to the face than think a car might not have seen me, even if I'm safely on the pavement. This sounds suspiciously like "There Are No Bad Safety Measures" How are you at risk from a driver not seeing you, if you aren't anywhere near the road? If a driver has to travel that far off the roadway to reach you, that driver's issue isn't low visibility.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
PSA: A situation is what it is, not what it could be. Another term for "What It Could Be" is "What It Isn't".
- wastedhours 6y ago
  We have a number of tools at our disposal as drivers to minimise bad situations. Personally I think overuse of high-beams is more valid than under-use in quite a number of circumstances (and exceptionally bad in others). Your comment implied that drivers who instinctively switch on their high beams to get a sense of a situation where they need more visual input are "jackwads" which I tried to highlight isn't the reason they're doing it. Wanting to see more when you're driving a massive piece of machinery at decent speeds isn't something that makes you an outright asshole.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    Those points weigh in favor of someone who thoughtlessly high-beam'd a pedestrian, for the first time - which is reasonable. Also reasonable is considering their actions and realizing they gained no meaningful amount of safety by blinding a pedestrian. If they've blinded countless pedestrians over an extended period, then they aren't considering anything. Inconsiderate people are jackwads.
wastedhours 6y ago
I misworded my point on that bit, I more meant I'd rather take a full-beam to the face when I'm on the pavement if it means the driver is aware of the hazards around them. Occasionally (and in my experience it is only a handful of poor actors compared with the number of cars on the road), I'd take getting intense glare as a pedestrian if it works in everyone's safety. Appreciate it's a different call for cyclists etc, but as a pedestrian I'd welcome the trade off more than drivers not using their full beams when they deem it neccessary.