Well, if you can't make a car that behaves like a good human driver, then maybe you shouldn't be making driverless cars? Otherwise, instead of reducing accidents, you might increase them (at least initially, before humans adapt). Self driving cars that can't interoperate with humans using existing infrastructure are basically useless - infrastructure lifetimes are orders of magnitude longer than technology life cycles. Re-planning cities for driverless cars now will make you regret it when the technology matures.
Also, while centralized planning might fly in current day '1984' London, I sure hope this fails at least in EU, where they claim to value privacy. Nothing about self driving cars requires either centralized reporting or even V2V - if you can detect a pedestrian behind a tree, you sure as hell can measure the speed of the car ahead.
You don't. What you do is avoid the problem by defining protocols and regulations. Then by updating the infrastructure to allow the vehicles to operate in sync but also out of the way. Self driving cars, at least the first generation or two, will require their own environment. Due to the multitude of variables to handle. Insurance, public awareness and education, safety, etc.
In the same way that dumb old cars required (and still do!) new regulations, protocols, and infrastructure amongst other things.
In terms of technology, how do you coordinate all of this cars? Well, that's one of the things I'm trying to find out. There are many, many papers out there that have been attacking the problem for decades and the small subset that I have managed to read agree on one thing: The infrastructure needs to be updated for self driving cars to operate. Not only roads, but pretty much all city planning aspects. Now, you think San Francisco is making a fuss about not building new housing. Imagine how it will respond to redoing everything. Now imagine that at a state level.
It's not a problem solved purely by technology, but through consistent trial and error of multiple moving parts.
Something like "Stopping" or "Everyone Stop, accident" need to hit the wire as quickly as possible. Maybe order the message to the Emergency Stop hits the wire first and any further message information after. That way the message can bypass most of the communications stack in the receiving cars.
Less important information like "Deer on shoulder of road" can use much slower and more latent communications.
Distance is also going to play a part in how the cars communicate. If the car can see tons of low latency high priority messages then it will be more problematic to develop. If the low latency physical layer can only see maybe 100 ft around its self because it is low strength radio or IR based, then all the better. Loud wide area communications can go through a far more latent filtering system.
All of this also doesn't take into account that these systems should degrade gracefully. If the low latency portion fails, the high latency system should still see something and react.