All these years, I always thought all self driving cars used LiDAR or something to see in 3D/through fog. How was this allowed on the roads for so long?
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
1663 points (99.2% liked)
Not The Onion
14986 readers
3272 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They do.
But "all self driving cars" are practically only from waymo.
Level 4 Autonomy is the point at which it's not required that a human can intercede at any moment, and as such has to be actively paying attention and be sober.
Tesla is not there yet.
On the other hand, this is an active attack against the technology.
Mirrors or any super-absorber (possibly vantablack or similar) would fuck up LIDAR. Which is a good reason for diversifying the Sensors.
On the other hand I can understand Tesla going "Humans use visible light only, in principle that has to be sufficient for a self driving car as well", because, in principle I agree. In practice... well, while this seems much more click-bait than an actual issue for a self-driving taxi, diversifying your Input chain makes a lot of sense in my book. On the other hand, if it would cost me 20k more down the road, and Cameras would reach the same safety, I'd be a bit pissed.
load more comments
(3 replies)
tesla uses cameras only, i think waymo uses lidar.
Most non Tesla brands that have some sort of self-driving functionality use lidar and/or radar. I've got a BMW iX and as far as I know it uses cameras, radar, lidar, and ultrasonic sensors.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I remember reading that tesla only uses cameras for it's self driving. My 2018 Honda uses radar for the adaptive cruise so the technology exists, musk is just an idiot.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Money.
load more comments
(13 replies)
Honestly all the fails with the kid dummy were a way bigger deal than the wall test. The kid ones will happen a hundred times more than the wall scenario.
Some sort of radar or lidar should 100% be required on autonomous cars.
I think insurances will require that is it comes to self driving at least here in Europe.
EU leading the world in consumer protection laws yet again
I fully agree, but sadly, investors likely care more about their cars hitting walls than hitting kids. Killing a kid or pedestrian in the US is often a very cheap fine. When my uncle was run over on a sidewalk next to his son, the police ruled it an accident and the city refused to do anything. Same thing happened when my friend was ran over in a bike lane.... So killing humans is probably cheaper than hitting a wall.
Interesting that in the most consumerist nation on earth, objects have more value than people.
Yep, I could see someone placing a billboard like that with a cliff behind it.
Anyone with half a brain could tell you plain cameras is a non-starter. This is nearly a Juicero level blunder. Tesla is not a serious car company nor tech company. If markets were rational it would have been the end for Tesla.
Notably, roomba vacuum cleaners use cameras instead of lidar that other robot vacuums use. I bought a high end roomba a couple months ago and it was crap at navigating my home, while my old xiaomi with a lidar works perfectly fine. Needless to say i returned the roomba.
If markets were rational, CEO compensation would never have grown so high, and there'd be no billionaires either.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Suddenly, there are more Yellow Brick Road murals everywhere.
A building owner would not want cars crashing into their property though. Why would they get a mural to intentionally deceive a robot car?
Someone made a mural in Brazil but it was removed for safety.
https://www.jalopnik.com/real-life-wile-e-coyote-drives-fiat-smack-into-paintin-1765745078/
Because its fucking funny.
I love that one of the largest YouTubers is the one that did this. Surely, somebody near our federal government will throw a hissy fit if he hears about this but Mark’s audience is ginormous
Honestly I think Mark should be more scared of Disney coming after him for mapping out their space mountain ride.
He probably just made Disney admissions and security even more annoying for everyone else.
Judging by the fact that he has an imagineer-video out (effectively) at the same time as the space-mountain mapping, I'd expect that Disney was fully aware of what he was doing, and the whole sneaky-thing was just to make it more appealing to viewers.
The rain test was far more concerning because it's much more realistic of a scenario. Both a normal person and the lidar would've seen the kid and stopped, but the cameras and image processing just isn't good enough to make out a person in the rain. That's bad. The test portrays it as a person in the middle of a straight road, but I don't see why the same thing wouldn't happen at a crosswalk or other place where pedestrians are often in the path of a vehicle. If an autonomous system cannot make out pedestrians in the rain reliably, that alone should be enough to prevent these vehicles from being legal.
load more comments
(8 replies)