Automatic braking actually is going to be required on all new cars soon, so yes I take issue with charging extra for a feature like that when the hardware is built in.
Maybe a decade ago when the hardware was more expensive and less common it would be totally reasonable to charge to have it added to the car, but I take issue with charging for software enables for hardware that you own.
If the software really does change the product (like theoretically an update enabling self driving), that might be different but I think this case is clear.
If the software has serious levels of thought and effort to do something significantly meaningful, then the software IS the engineering - and hence is worth something.
That would make the base model more expensive and remove options for people who are price sensitive.
Realistically what I can see is that BMW would make it standard on all models and the price would be slightly higher. So arguably yes you would be paying for it, but you wouldn't have a choice.
The point I was trying to make originally was that as new safety developments are made you will always be able to make the argument that "They're making me pay xxx to be safer". Now I appreciate that there is a balance, but saying that a company is making you pay extra not to blind people is nonsense.
Though having unused hardware built into your car sucks, I can imagine buying features and receiving them with an Over The Air update effortlessly is compelling for many people.
How about cars where automatic braking is an option in higher models, am I therefore having to pay for my car to stop?
At the end of the day, car companies create a market where you need to pay for better features and we're moving into a world where some of these features are simply disabled on the vehicle. The writer needs to move on and remember they can also dim their headlights on their own.