[throwaway0a5e]

>This is _complete_ nonsense. I'm going to guess that you are an American living somewhere with probably quite wide and straight roads.

I'd wager it's more likely he drives hazardously slow so the extra couple seconds viewing distance don't help him personally or there's always street lighting where he drives.

Edit: based on his commentary elsewhere it's almost certainly the former.

[bena]

I drive to the conditions of the road. If the road is potentially hazardous, you should slow down. How is 50mph "hazardously slow" when speed limits on these sorts of roads are around 55mph?

And I only chose 50 because it is definitely within the full stopping distance.

[throwaway0a5e]

I'm not saying this as someone who drives particularly fast. I'm saying this as someone who drives agricultural equipment that literally can't go prevailing traffic speeds. There becomes a point where you are the hazard, not them.

50 in a 55 is probably fine but "I never feel the need to use my high beams despite living somewhere rural" (I'm paraphrasing here) raises massive flags for "grandma, maybe you need to stop driving at night" type behavior and if you don't see this then that is an ever bigger red flag.

[bena]

Like I already said, I picked a speed that completely falls within the stopping distance. So people couldn't claim they need it because they need to see an extra 200 feet to make up for the 25 or so in stopping distance.

Also, wouldn't the opposite be true? If I feel fine driving with my lows on all the time because I can see fine, then my vision is still acceptable. Whereas if one needs 50,000 lumen ultra-high intensity high beams to travel down a well-lit boulevard, maybe those people shouldn't be driving at night.