So that’s what I’m saying. People are talking past each other, no one is accomplishing anything.

And yes, the lives of my partner and kids is worth more than your inconvenience. I’m sure your partner and kids are worth more than my inconvenience. That’s just how people are. Maybe you don’t have kids, maybe you have elderly parents you care for. Maybe you’re a lone wolf and you don’t have anybody, but surely you recognise that there are other people with people they love and value over the convenience of others, so the point stands.

I don’t like bright lights either. But I’m also not donating to some stranger’s GoFundMe because he hit a deer being a nice guy who put your convenience over his safety, and now he’s got a broken leg, smashed fender, thousands in hospital bills, and hundreds in auto repair bills. I’m a nice guy, but I got needs and I also got wants. Does that make me an arsehole? If so, then so be it. The question is, are you donating? You said “why is that everybody else’s problem” implying it isn’t yours. So you aren’t, either. You put the blame on the guy for not driving slower. You’re saying his safety is his problem. Okay, fine. Now you don’t get to judge how he fixes that problem.

But don’t get me wrong. It’s the Internet, you can say what you want. But talk is cheap. Or as we said in the 1980s, “money talks and bullshit walks.” All we’re doing is walking in circles. I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me. Therefore, the problem will not get solved, at least not between us. The silver lining there is that it is statistically unlikely that we will ever meet face to face, or on the road.

It is interesting, however, that you take the opposite position with ad blocking. True, they are not exactly the same thing, but it is a similar situation. And, like headlights, or slowing down, there are multiple solutions. But you passionately defend both sides of a similar argument when the subject changes. That should at least inform you that you are capable of reason, and that you can see that there are valid arguments on both sides. So, if nothing else, maybe you can at least appreciate that we will solve nothing by talking past each other. We’re tilting at windmills.

There was one moderately useful comment when I made mine: someone mentioned adaptive headlights. What they failed to mention, likely because it would undermine their point, is the cost of adaptive headlights. Ars Technica recently (week or two ago, I’m not gonna go dig for it) had an article about adaptive headlights. They sound great. They sound like they are the solution. In short, you get extremely bright light when you need it. When you have oncoming traffic, you still get stupidly bright light, but a smart array of LEDs makes sure none are pointing at the oncoming driver. Everything around them is lit up like high noon, but the other driver isn’t inconvenienced. That sounds awesome, but it’s also prohibitively expensive. The good thing is, cars will have this standard in a decade or so. Just like things like power windows and locks, power steering, and automatic transmissions became standard, so too will this. Then people will look back and call us savages.