150x150.png)
Across the UK and Europe, intelligent transport systems (ITS) are advancing at speed. Connected infrastructure, AI-driven traffic management, automation and data-led decision-making are no longer future concepts; they are becoming embedded in everyday transport operations. Pilots are delivered, awards are won, and innovation strategies continue to evolve. Yet alongside this progress sits a quieter but more persistent challenge: public trust.
As Paula Claytonsmith has observed, “the future of intelligent systems is not about how clever the systems are. It is about whether people trust them.” This trust deficit is not a marginal issue. It directly affects safety outcomes, resilience, political support and the long-term viability of intelligent systems at scale.
Many intelligent transport projects perform well in trials but struggle when it comes to wider deployment. The reasons are often framed as technical, regulatory or financial. While these factors are real, they can obscure a more fundamental issue: people are being asked to share space with systems they do not fully understand, cannot easily question and may not feel protected by.
When systems feel opaque or unpredictable, they do not feel safe, regardless of their technical sophistication. This is particularly important in transport, where users interact with systems in real time, often under pressure, and where failure can have immediate physical consequences.
Public perception does not simply follow policy decisions; it actively shapes them. If communities are uneasy about how intelligent systems behave or how decisions are made, that discomfort influences political confidence, regulatory appetite and ultimately whether innovation is allowed to scale.
A common assumption in technology deployment is that trust can be addressed later, through better messaging or public engagement once systems are already live. Experience across transport and other safety-critical sectors suggests this approach is flawed.
Trust is not something that can be retrofitted. It must be designed into systems from the outset, through regulation, procurement and governance, and then maintained over time. As Claytonsmith notes, “trust must be built in from the very beginning”, not treated as a bolt-on once deployment is underway.
This means going beyond tick-box compliance and asking harder questions. Can system decisions be explained in clear, human terms? Is accountability visible and credible? Are failure modes discussed openly, rather than buried in technical documentation?
As AI and automation increasingly influence traffic management and safety decisions, explainability becomes critical. Authorities need to be able to articulate not only what decisions are made, but why. This applies equally when systems perform well and when they fail.
Black-box systems raise difficult questions about responsibility and liability. These concerns do not remain theoretical for long; they affect insurers, regulators and public confidence. Without predictable oversight and transparent governance, even highly capable systems can struggle to gain acceptance.
Predictive safety, one of the most powerful promises of intelligent systems, depends on predictable oversight. People are more willing to trust systems when they understand how risks are identified, how interventions are triggered and who is accountable when outcomes fall short.
Too many intelligent transport systems are designed with vehicles at the centre, rather than people. Yet modern transport policy increasingly prioritises walking, cycling and inclusive mobility. Vulnerable road users, including children, older people and people with disabilities, must be considered as primary users, not edge cases.
If smart mobility solutions only work well for those with the newest vehicles or devices, trust will erode quickly. Inclusive design is not just a social good; it is a practical requirement for widespread adoption.
Local and municipal authorities play a crucial role here. By demanding realistic testing, inclusive design standards and performance in messy, everyday conditions, they can help ensure that systems work where it matters most, not just in controlled environments.
The UK and Europe are often described as cautious when it comes to automated vehicles and systems. This caution reflects a deeper truth: people want reassurance, not hype. For the foreseeable future, automated systems will share roads with human drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
In this mixed environment, behaviour matters as much as technical performance. Systems must act in ways that people find predictable and reasonable. Automation that surprises users can damage trust far faster than a visible, well-managed failure.
Overpromising in marketing or public communications is particularly risky. Clear explanations of what systems can and cannot do, how they behave in different conditions and what happens when limits are reached are essential for building long-term confidence.
In connected transport ecosystems, cybersecurity is not an IT issue alone; it is a public safety and resilience concern. A single weak component can have cascading effects across networks and borders.
Building resilient intelligent systems requires ongoing monitoring, information sharing and collaboration, even when it is uncomfortable. Treating safety, cybersecurity and human factors as obstacles to innovation undermines trust and weakens system resilience.
People trust systems that fail safely, recover quickly and are supported by institutions that communicate clearly when things go wrong. Extreme weather, infrastructure failures and major incidents are no longer rare. How systems perform under pressure, and how quickly they recover, plays a decisive role in public confidence.
The challenge facing intelligent transport systems is not simply technological. As Claytonsmith argues, “we do not need to win a technology race, we need to win an ongoing trust race.”
This means embedding trust into funding decisions, policy frameworks and system design. It means prioritising transparency, inclusion and accountability alongside performance metrics. It also means recognising that trust is continually tested, not granted once and secured forever.
The future of intelligent systems and mobility will undoubtedly be smart. But only the systems that people believe in, understand and feel protected by will succeed at scale. In an era where individual voices can carry as much weight as institutions, trust has become not just a social issue, but a core component of safety and resilience.