To give you an example, this[1] commercially available sensor head can give great resolution stereo depth at around 10m but the included LIDAR unit is good out to around 30m.
LIDAR also has the advantage of operating on a different portion of the EM spectrum. It can sometimes be more well behaved in situations where there might be interference on the visible light wavelengths but not on the LIDAR wavelengths which is typically IR (e.g. extremely bright sunny days).
I think that there's a place for both in vehicles as a sort of redundancy. While they both mostly do the same things, they do them in different ways, and if LIDAR can be made cost effective then having both is a huge gain.
I'm with the grandparent: I genuinely don't understand the obsession with LIDAR in this space. It's complicated and fiddly, and seems to be competing with an "obvious" solution involving $3 camera parts.
Again, I think they both have their uses. If LIDAR can be made not so complicated and fiddly, I think it brings a lot to the table.
I don't doubt that LIDAR can work with some development. I'm just shocked that it seems to be the default position in the industry and want someone to explain this to me in a way that makes sense.
would be _awesome_ today, depending on which person we're comparing it to anyways... :)
And if in 15 years it could do much better, great.
Even if AI gets it (mostly) right, getting a second input that verifies your path is clear seems like a good idea.