[8ytecoder]

That's not true. Human brain has evolved to pick up subtle things that even our conscious brains don't recognize. An eye-contact is a reaffirmation that the driver has seen me (and vice-versa) and notices my intent. Of course, people can misread. But in my experience riding a bicycle or crossing a sidewalk a simple eye-contact and a head nod goes a long way in resolving a conflict on who goes first or if it's ok to cross.

[nystorm]

In the Illinois Motorcycle handbook it definitely states that just because you and another driver make eye contact, that doesn't mean they actually see you. Either way, as a motorcyclist, I'm not gonna count on eye contact to make sure of my safety. I ride and drive defensively at all times. I assume the worst in most situations.

[robotresearcher]

> I assume the worst in most situations.

If that was really true you would never ride a motorcycle.

Eyeballing the other guy is no guarantee of anything, but it provides quite a lot of information about the risk you face in the interaction. I think we would miss it when dealing with fully autonomous vehicles, and that the vehicles might add something to tell you they see you. I've done some work on this idea in the lab with mobile robots.

[Ntrails]

> If that was really true you would never ride a motorcycle.

This is such a garbage statement. We check our parachutes twice before jumping, and whilst not jumping is inherently safer - having decided to jump you can still protect yourself from risks inherent in the activity.

[robotresearcher]

If you assume the worst, there'd be no point checking the parachute. You assume it will fail.

Since this is not how people really behave, we are very rarely actually assuming the worst.