Yes, the story on EE Times Europe says "To detect an approaching pedestrian, the driver needs to be warned or the emergency brake has to be triggered even before the pedestrian steps onto the roadway. At the same time, the likelihood of an unnecessary full braking must be kept extremely low to allow car drivers to find the system reliable enough to use it." A good test would be tagging deer with transponders and seeing if the system is fast enough to brake the car before a deer collides with it, without causing problems for the car and other cars around it. The only thing -- isn't it better defensive driving to just hit the deer than try to brake at the last second? (Not an option with pedestrians, but they hopefully aren't moving as fast as a deer might be.) The system is probably completely useless when the car goes beyond a certain speed.
The picture shown is an obvious jaywalking situation. The pedestrians are at fault. Of course, if we can increase safety by adding functionality to the vehicles, we can save these law breaking pedestrians. It's a good idea, but the pedestrians should pay for the upgrade instead of the driver.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.