Yes. And given the latency of cameras (or even humans) not being able to see around objects and that dogs and kids and move fast from hidden areas into the path, driving really slow next to large obstacles until able to see behind them becomes more important.
One of the prime directives of driving for humans and FAD systems must be "never drive faster than brakes can stop in visible areas". This must account for such scenarios as obstacles stopped or possible coming the wrong way around a mountain turn.
> never drive faster than brakes can stop in visible areas
Here in the UK, that's phrased in the Highway Code as "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear". It's such a basic tenet of safety as you never know if there's a fallen tree just round the next blind corner etc. However, it doesn't strictly apply to peds running out from behind an obstruction as your way ahead can be clear, until suddenly it isn't - sometimes you have to slow just for a possible hazard.
And that should be a case where automated systems can easily beat people. It's "just" math, there's no interpretation, no reasoning, no reading signs, no predicting other drivers, just crunching the numbers based on stopping distance and field of view. If they can't even do this, what are they for?
One of the prime directives of driving for humans and FAD systems must be "never drive faster than brakes can stop in visible areas". This must account for such scenarios as obstacles stopped or possible coming the wrong way around a mountain turn.