this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
563 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
85540 readers
3712 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes it is a questionable decision. But I think it wasn't just being cheap. I think it's because of liability for errors; when it comes to placing fault on a car in the legal system, a judge / jury is only going to look at video captures. They won't understand the lidar data. So if the car makes a bad decision based on lidar when there's a conflict with visual queues, it will be deemed that it made a mistake. So there's not really any point to trying to work with the lidar data.
I don’t know if what you’re saying is true but refusing to use technology that would prevent accidents because it will be more difficult to explain the cause of the remaining accidents is a crazy take. And the other self driving car companies use lidar so the NTSB isn’t unfamiliar with the technology.