Ford to Citizens: Don’t Drop Dead

Automaker says high-tech gizmos in new cars will save lives — but no one really believes that.

This is a fantasy of what "connected" cars and buses would do. Car makers say new technology will make their vehicles safer. Safety experts are unsure. Photo: National Traffic Highway Safety Administration
This is a fantasy of what "connected" cars and buses would do. Car makers say new technology will make their vehicles safer. Safety experts are unsure. Photo: National Traffic Highway Safety Administration

Ford Motors will adopt a technology that allows similarly equipped cars to communicate with each other and potentially reduce pedestrian and driver deaths, but skeptical safety experts say the system could merely create more distracted drivers and endanger the pedestrians it is designed to help.

The technology, called C-V2X, would allow vehicles to communicate with each other — or with infrastructure and even pedestrians’ cell phones. The goal is to reduce crashes by beaming signals to vehicles and passers-by. But pedestrian safety experts think it could allow drivers to simply become careless.

“You don’t want people thinking they don’t have to look for pedestrians,” said Sally Flocks, executive director of the Atlanta-based advocacy group PEDS.  “I’m not opposed to the technology, I just don’t think it will solve the pedestrian safety problem.”

The biggest problem, Flocks added, is that some pedestrians don’t want to walk around with cell phones so they can be alerted to potentially reckless drivers, who are supposed to be looking out for them. Also, smartphone use is often lower in impoverished communities where a disproportionate number of crashes occur already.

Automobile manufacturers have been promising safer cars since Ralph Nader published “Unsafe at any Speed” in 1965. Cars have since become larger, but pedestrian and driver deaths are up nationwide, possibly due to a false sense of security drivers feel from larger vehicles, plus the dangerous distraction posed by cell phones.

Other experts say that better road design — which is a function of government, not America’s car makers — would benefit pedestrians more than any high-tech gizmos inside today’s cars.

“I would like to see streets that accommodate all users safely, rather than just planning for cars,” said Kate Kraft, Executive Director of the pedestrian advocacy group America Walks. “We know what to do to make roads safer, we’re just not doing it. There’s no political will for it.”

She added that technological advancements cannot be considered a stand-in for better road designs and regulations on driving such as speed control.

Whatever your opinion, Ford says the C-V2X system allows vehicles to communicate with traffic management infrastructure such as stop signs and traffic lights and pedestrians’ cell phones through wireless sensors — similar to the technology self driving cars will use. Cars equipped with C-V2X will only be able to communicate with cars that have the same technology however, and any communication between cars and pedestrians relies on pedestrians to have previously downloaded V2X software onto their phones — and then to have the phones on hand when they are walking. Ford says it will start equipping cars with the technology in 2022.

The C-V2X system is similar to the vehicle communication system DSRC championed by Toyota, which uses WiFi technology. C-V2X uses much of the same technology as DSRC, but the two systems are unable to communicate with each other. Leading automakers are leaning towards adopting C-V2X, according to Forbes, a possible first step towards a single, unifying industry standard.

14 thoughts on Ford to Citizens: Don’t Drop Dead

  1. This is a great idea. How about a phone app that immobilizes motor vehicles when I’m crossing the street, and prevents right or left turns when I’m crossing a parallel street? That would increase safety.

  2. If this actually happens, how long before pedestrians and cyclists are blamed if they’re not carrying a smart phone to let the car know they are there?

  3. right now, I think people would always carry their smartphone except if they are forget or forced to not carry it.

  4. Regarding using “citizen” (a term that used to have a broad inclusive meaning a hundred years ago, but has been made somewhat exclusionary in recent years): a lot of pedestrians in Los Angeles are not citizens… I think it’s better to use a broader, more inclusive description: in this case, maybe pedestrians, people walking, or people on foot.?

  5. I think in this context, it still has a broad meaning. Pedestrians in Los Angeles who are not US citizens are still citizens of Los Angeles.

  6. JoeLinton and com63,
    Using “citizen” in the title of this article is a clever nod to the famous newspaper headline Ford to City: Drop Dead. Look it up, it’s rather fascinating.

  7. Great idea, I love it! And maybe not that far-fetched. Actually I still believe we will get such a situation with self driving cars. It would even work without a phone!

  8. In this context it’s worth mentioning that there is a difference between human rights and civil rights. Foreigners ma not have the right to vote, but the do have the right not to be run over.

    That said the word “citizenry” doesn’t really address your legal status.

  9. The real problem in America is poorly designed streets. This kind of gizmo doesn’t have much chance of fixing anything in the near future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Will US DOT’s Self-Driving Car Rules Make Streets Safe for Walking and Biking?

This week, U.S. DOT released guidelines for self-driving cars, a significant step as regulators prepare for companies to bring this new technology to market. Autonomous vehicles raise all sorts of questions about urban transportation systems. It’s up to advocates to ensure that the technology helps accomplish broader goals like safer streets and more efficient use of urban space, […]