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.

PSA: A situation is what it is, not what it could be.

Another term for "What It Could Be" is "What It Isn't".

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.

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.