>> The thing about eye contact is usually a false assumption. He might be looking at you, past you,
>> or in your direction, but you're assuming that it's personal eye contact when sometimes it isn't.
>> SMIDSYs happen most commonly when the driver "looked but did not see", and that includes cases
>> where the victim thought he'd had eye contact.
>Agreed up to a point. However, being able to see the motorist's eyes establishes beyond doubt
>that you are not in his blind spot at that moment. We are a predatory animal and proper eye to
>eye contact is fairly hard to mistake. Ever noticed how often someone you are staring at
>suddenly becomes aware of you doing it and instantly returns the stare, causing you immediately
>to look away?
All true, but it's very hard to separate the assumption of eye contact from the reality of eye
contact. For this reason alone the belief has the potential to cause considerable danger and is not
to be trusted.
>Quite often a motorist makes eye contact and uses it to try to dominate the cyclist, deliberately
>moving into his path. Of course, after the crash he will say that he didn't see him. I've found
>that by avoiding eye contact once I am sure that the motorist has seen me, by looking over my
>shoulder for example, I get cut up far less often.
There are so many accidents where road users fail to see one another that it's usually claimed
truthfully. It's also a seriously **** excuse as it usually amounts to an admission of carelessness
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives