And I could equally argue that you driving ahead of me in heavy rain with a rear fog light on was causing me discomfort. See you in court.
If ,with my 20/20 vision,and windows properly clear of mist etc I couldnt see more than 100 metres at the time, then I could quite legitimately have rear fogs on. I'd say if you are blinded by them you are too close for the conditions. - or I have swept away some of the fog/spray for you. . I prefer to follow someone in fog as you know you can see the vehicle in front. As the 'pathfinder' into the unknown a poorly lit vehicle might suddenly appear.
But you do make a good point. If there is a vehicle behind you that can clearly see you, and probably wondering why you are driving so slow, then there is no longer a need to have your rear fogs on. . You would now be contravening the " used so as to cause undue dazzle..... " prohibition.
One for the lawyers in silly wigs perhaps.
I'd just let you overtake, then follow you, and see how you like pathfinding into the unknown.
And leave my rear fogs on while I am still 'tail end charlie'.
I sometimes put my hazards on if traffic is coming to an unexpected halt. As soon as the car behind me responds to the warning I turn them off.
We could become like the Wagatha Christie trial and sell the rights to Hollywood for a film version. The most suitable actors to play me might be too busy as the new James Bond. What actor would you have playing your part?