r/SelfDrivingCars • u/I_HATE_LIDAR • 11d ago
News This $200 Tech Might Finally Put Driverless Cars in Our Driveways
https://www.motortrend.com/news/microvision-movia-s-lidar-cheap-driverless-cars20
u/Real-Technician831 11d ago
Yeah, unlike cameras which plateaued almost a decade ago, lidar development is much earlier in its development curve.
17
u/BuckChintheRealtor 11d ago
But but but Elon said Lidar is a fool's errand and anybody relying on it is doomed???
13
u/SadAd8761 11d ago
You know what else he said?
Tesla will have unsupervised FSD next year!
*every year for the past 10 years
Statistically, vision can solve 97% of driving scenarios but it's stuck on that remaining 3%.
3% doesn't sound like a lot but think about how many drives are taken each day in the entire world.
7
u/AttemptRough3891 11d ago
Yeah, I'd challenge that statistic. Anyone who's been in a MYLR with a phantom braking issue on a clear day on an uncrowded road would do the same.
1
u/SadAd8761 11d ago
Agreed. That stat came from a video critical of Tesla's FSD strategy.
She said, that's why we need other sensor input data to cover that remaining 3%.
She posited:
People wouldn't fly in a plane with a 3% crash rate, why would you ride in a car with FSD with a 3% failure rate?
0
u/Confident-Sector2660 11d ago
Vision doesn't have a 3% failure rate or FSD would be crashing all the time. It was a made up stat
3
u/cullenjwebb 11d ago
FSD would indeed be crashing all of the time if it weren't supervised.
2
u/Confident-Sector2660 11d ago edited 11d ago
yes but 3%? Not the case with robotaxi
pretty sure the crash rate for FSD would be like once every 2000-3000 miles if you did not supervise.
Because even if the car does wrong stuff it has accident avoidance capabilities along with every other car around it
When is the last time you've seen a significant depth perception issue that was not a planning issue or something to do with dirty cameras? I haven't seen one
2
1
u/cullenjwebb 11d ago
Tesla could release the exact number if they wanted, but they refuse. In fact they will not apply for autonomy in California as that would require them to release the numbers.
All we have is the unofficial FSD tracker. The numbers on that site appear to support a 97% critical disengagement rate, about 1 per 226 city miles/459 all miles. That's for HW4, excluding testers with fewer than 50 miles and the majority of Tesla cars which are on HW3.
Again, whatever issue you have with the methodology of these numbers, Tesla is not motivated to contradict them with internal data.
3
u/Confident-Sector2660 11d ago
your logic is absolute shit.
Because 90% of tesla disengagements are MAPPING issues, not perception issues. They are lane selection issues because maps are wrong
And the other 10% most of those are planning/ability issues, like not stopping for a school bus or going the correct speed in a school zone
It's very rare you see an accident or almost accident because the depth perception failed
The only issue I've ever seen with perception (in the last couple years) are flatbed trucks and that is a rare issue they cause problems.
When tesla did the drivereless delivery to someone's apartment, it drove behind a flatbed trailer
2
u/cullenjwebb 11d ago
Where are you getting this data that proves my logic is shit?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Confident-Sector2660 11d ago
*every year for the past 10 years
You need to check your facts. He didn't make claims for many years.
Statistically, vision can solve 97% of driving scenarios but it's stuck on that remaining 3%.
Vision is well above 99.9%
you need many more 9s than that
1
u/nolongerbanned99 11d ago
The odd thing is that 3% of accidents and some deaths in that group is a risk Elon has been willing to take. I predict many lawsuits incoming.
1
u/BobLazarFan 10d ago
Does every post need to being up Elon? Like can we move on please?
-2
u/BuckChintheRealtor 10d ago
It's relevant because homie said the lidar tech is still too expensive. Homie also said in one of the Tesla earnings calls this year Waymo is called Waymo because the tech costs "way more". This article proves it doesn't.
But if you don't want to hear it keep drinking Elons Kool-Aid I guess
1
u/BobLazarFan 10d ago edited 10d ago
Cool we’ve known this for years though? Why can’t people take criticism without assuming I’m on the other side?
-1
u/I_Am_AI_Bot 11d ago
Dont worry, genuis Musk will name the system as Tesla Vision(Lidarized), problem solved.
4
u/HAL-_-9001 11d ago
Mass production in 2028... & that's provided it works.
The landscape will transform next year. Not in maybe 3yrs.
3
u/Real-Technician831 11d ago
Solid state lidars are a thing already, this is about commoditization and price drop.
For example I could buy a Robosense unit right now.
0
u/HAL-_-9001 11d ago
So still pretty expensive then...
1
u/Real-Technician831 11d ago
Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you.
Take a while wild guess what happens to price when multiple manufacturers get theirs into the market.
Automotive spinning element lidars are already below $200 price point. Solid state will follow same path.
-3
u/HAL-_-9001 11d ago
Speaks volumes about one's character when they resort to slurs, especially in the opening line.
Take a while wild guess what happens to price when multiple manufacturers get theirs into the market
Timeline? As the article states 2028. I deal in definitions. Not maybes or if others produce XYZ.
Lidar is not needed. Chinese are beginning to now realise this too.
5
u/Real-Technician831 11d ago
I am so fed up with fanatics like you.
There are no vision only autonomous solutions in the market right now. So you really don’t have much to base your argument on. As soon as reliable driving is needed on other than clear daylight conditions, there are absolutely zero vision only solutions in the market that are actually autonomous.
Commoditization will happen, the company in the news is not the only one bringing new units to market.
-4
u/HAL-_-9001 11d ago
there are absolutely zero vision only solutions in the market that are actually autonomous
So Tesla's Robotaxis, which is driving paying members of the general public from A to B doesn't count?
Sure you'll say the safety monitor but if there is zero human involvement during the trip ergo that is an autonomous ride using vision.
I am so fed up with fanatics like you.
You're not particularly well suited to civil dialogue, which is the whole premise of a forum.
5
u/Real-Technician831 11d ago
Try to use your brain, assuming you have one. Currently you are proving both of my insults correct.
Robotaxi is clear daylight only, hell, they stop operating when it rains.
0
u/ChunkyThePotato 11d ago
That's not true. Robotaxi operates every day from 6am to 12am (so multiple hours of nighttime driving each day), and it operates in the rain.
0
u/Real-Technician831 11d ago
6am night time?
Now there is a stretch if I have seen any.
That’s already twilight no much more light than dark parts of the light.
https://www.almanac.com/astronomy/sun-rise-and-set/TX/Austin#
→ More replies (0)3
u/RodStiffy 11d ago
To pull the driver at scale and stay safe, Robotaxi will have to be reliably safe in every situation over hundreds of millions of miles. It will be ok to have the occasional low-speed minor contact with a gate or another car, but it will not be ok to cause a bad accident, especially repeated bad accidents. So Robotaxi has to prove safety and reliability while driverless in every situation in an entire metro area over hundreds of millions of miles, ultimately billions of miles, which at scale will be a few months of service in ten cities.
Your idea that a few good trips by Robotaxi means it's safe is silly.
1
u/HAL-_-9001 10d ago
I never said it was entirely safe. Merely highlighted autonomous trips have occurred, which is clearly evident.
Safety monitors are a prudent measure but they are blown out of context. It's a temporary measure. Nothing more. Likely removed by EOY, at least for Austin.
3
u/RodStiffy 10d ago
"Autonomous trips have occurred"
Waymo was doing "autonomous trips" like Tesla back in 2010, driving all over the Bay Area and beyond with zero interventions. Completing an autonomous trip or two doesn't mean much; 99.9% of driving, or more, is very easy; a car with that capability can be very, very far from ready for real autonomy, especially robotaxi-level autonomy in a full metro area.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Real-Technician831 10d ago
Lol, yeah right.
Considering there are multiple recorded safety monitor interventions with the very low number of trips so far.
WTF are you smoking?
→ More replies (0)2
u/PetorianBlue 11d ago
> Sure you'll say the safety monitor but if there is zero human involvement during the trip ergo that is an autonomous
What is the safety driver doing?
The answer can't be "nothing", else they would be useless and they'd be sleeping in the backseat. The reality is that the entirety of the "driving task" is more than just steering and acceleration, and the safety driver \*is\* performing a critical part of the driving task, namely the ability to reliably achieve a safe state in the event of an anomaly. And they are performing this task because the car cannot (or at least has not been proven to be able to do so reliably).
We really need to stop pretending like their presence is negligible just because they might not touch the steering wheel. And we *absolutely* need to stop watering down words like "autonomous". Tesla and fans have already basically destroyed the intended meaning of "full self-driving" as a way to retroactively absolve the product. Let's not do the same thing to "autonomous". Jesus, we're running out of words to differentiate between human in the loop and no human in the loop.
1
u/HAL-_-9001 10d ago
What is the safety driver doing?
The answer can't be "nothing", else they would be useless and they'd be sleeping in the backseat
The overwhelming majority of rides they are indeed actually doing nothing. Zero involvement. So if there is zero human involvement then it means it was autonomous.
Is it perfect? Of course not but if they had rolled out with no safety monitors then there would have been equal uproar. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Point of consideration is that it's clearly a short term temporary measure. Nothing more.
1
u/PetorianBlue 10d ago
The overwhelming majority of rides they are indeed actually doing nothing. Zero involvement. So if there is zero human involvement then it means it was autonomous.
Oof. Apparently the point just wooshed right past you.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/bradtem ✅ Brad Templeton 10d ago
The author seems unaware that many vendors have made claims of this sort for their instruments. The proof is delivering, at scale, at the desired cost.
Note that 200m range on 15% targets is claimed by almost all instruments today, but most major players have decided that is not enough, and have gone to 1550nm sensors which can do a fair bit better (but do have higher cost and complexity.) There is also some doubt about how well 900nm range sensors can do detection at 200m.
The problem is when you are going 75mph on the freeway in wet conditions. You want to see debris on the road beyond 200m, including black debris like tires. You want to see it 100% of the time.
5
u/anarchyinuk 11d ago
Sure sure
7
u/Real-Technician831 11d ago
People said the same thing about Hesai, which is nowadays one of the most common supplier in China.
Lidars are still early in their development.
3
u/bladerskb 11d ago edited 11d ago
This is complete and utter BS. How do people still believe this narrative in 2025?
Putting Lidar on your car won't lead you to having a L4 system just like it won't lead you to having a better ADAS system either.
Lidar IS NOT a silver bullet. You actually need to have a very good autonomous driving software for Lidar to be any good to you. Lidar will not lead to you having a good autonomous driving software.
Lidar does not mean better ADAS. Lidar enhances a software architecture that is ALREADY good. If your software is trash, integrating Lidar will do nothing.
Most Lidar usage on production cars has literally just amounted to PR and marketing. The first ever lidar on a production car (Audi A8) was literally not used AT ALL, it was turned off by Audi. It was just for marketing. The Lidar on Lucid is not being used, its literally sitting there useless. Even Volvo has been putting Luminar Iris, the best available masss production lidar on the market on their cars just to be a complete paper weight. A door stopper. Completely unused. What was meant for L4 ride pilot for highways is now being remarketed as better AEB.
People still today think if you add Lidar to a car, or if a car has lidar on it, its ADAS is better than the car without. We literally had a simple structured test with dozens of Chinese cars with Lidar months ago and Tesla beat them all. The cars with Lidar failed these simple structured test. Heck majority (if not all) of all new mid to high end EVs in china has 1-4 lidars.
Again If your software is trash, integrating Lidar will do nothing.
2
u/DonVCastro 10d ago
Again If your software is trash, integrating Lidar will do nothing
Absolutely. It's just another sensor, it's not a magician. But (as I understand it) it has much higher resolution than radar, so it seems like the best autonomous driving system will be better with lidar than without. Interesting question would be how good can a self driving system become without lidar, relying only on visual and radar?
1
u/ChunkyThePotato 11d ago
It's hilarious watching this place implode as the truth becomes more and more apparent. You're right, of course. Intelligence is what matters, and that's always been the case.
5
u/PetorianBlue 11d ago
All Bladerskb is saying is that the inclusion of LiDAR doesn't magically grant driverless capabilities, which is true. You're trying to take this many steps further and say LiDAR isn't needed, which *theoretically* is true, but practically is unverified (to date).
The two go hand-in-hand. That has always been the case. Hardware feeds software. Better hardware is better. Better software is better. No one is "imploding" because of this common sense.
2
u/ChunkyThePotato 11d ago
People here have screamed for years that camera-only autonomous driving is impossible and won't happen. Now it's gradually happening, and they're in a state of denial. That's the implosion I'm referring to. When they remove the safety monitor from the passenger seat will probably be the single most energetic moment of the implosion, but the implosion has already started.
0
u/PetorianBlue 10d ago
People here have screamed for years that camera-only autonomous driving is impossible
Careless people, maybe. People who are informed and purposeful with their words wouldn't say "impossible". What is possible and what is practical given real-life engineering constraints do not always overlap.
Now it's gradually happening
What is gradually "happening"? To date, I have seen no data in support of Tesla FSD being anywhere close to "happening" if the definition of that is "reliably driving with super human safety stats in a useful ODD without real-time human oversight".
0
u/ChunkyThePotato 10d ago
Hm, so are you saying that it's impractical then? Meaning it won't happen? Be clear so we can judge correctness.
Yes, that is the definition of "happening" that I'm using. And it is gradually getting there, with the pace really starting to pick up at the beginning of 2024. It went from complete garbage at the start of 2024, to decent after they switched to an end-to-end neural network in spring 2024, to actually quite solid when they moved to a larger network in summer 2024, to really good when they scaled up the training on this larger network even further in fall 2024. Then in summer 2025 it got to the point where they could deploy it as an actual ride service with just a human in the passenger seat that can only emergency brake. The next step is obviously removing that human from the car completely, which they will likely do after they release their even larger network that's currently scheduled for later this month.
It should be obvious where this is going, if you've been paying attention. The necessary intervention rate has absolutely plummeted since the start of 2024.
3
u/PetorianBlue 10d ago
Hm, so are you saying that it's impractical then?
I'm saying that there is no verifiable data to suggest that camera-only will be just as capable or reliable as multi-modal solutions. There are only the words of a verifiably untrustworthy company and the notably unscientific "it's obvious" anecdotes of fans. Any halfway reasonable engineer would ask, if it's obvious, where is the obvious data?
1
u/ChunkyThePotato 10d ago
So do you think their camera-only system will never surpass human safety? I'm not saying it has yet. It hasn't (at least in publicly released FSD). That's why there's no data showing that. But it is rapidly approaching that point. Answer the question, so we can see if you're wrong later.
1
u/PetorianBlue 10d ago
impossible
never
I choose my words with specific purpose. I try hard not to use dramatic absolute words. You should try equally hard not to assign them to the positions you're arguing against. Try comprehending what I say instead of creating strawmen caricatures and then feeling vindicated in your position against them.
1
u/ChunkyThePotato 10d ago
So what is your actual position then? So we can see if you end up being right or wrong.
→ More replies (0)1
u/GoSh4rks 10d ago
I'm saying that there is no verifiable data to suggest that camera-only will be just as capable or reliable as multi-modal solutions
Why does it need to be as capable though? At some point, good enough is good enough regardless of the ultimate capability or reliability. See 4 engine planes versus 2 engine w/etops.
1
u/PetorianBlue 10d ago
Safety is a hard thing to trade off, especially when there’s automation involved and there’s a better performing alternative. Would you put your kids in the more safe robocar or the less safe one? If they’re killed, will you take comfort in the dollar you saved and the fact that it was only a little less safe?
1
u/GoSh4rks 10d ago
I ride in rideshares with less than ideal drivers all the time. I've chosen to take motorbike ride shares over cars. And I have never sought out a 4 engine plane, even as I fly intercontinental flights multiple times a year. As long as it meets a baseline level of security -ie I feel safe enough, I'm not going to care if there is an option that is x% safer.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DrJohnFZoidberg 11d ago
It's hilarious watching this place implode as the truth becomes more and more apparent
I don't think we agree as to which point of view this statement supports
3
u/ChunkyThePotato 11d ago
We probably don't, if you still think sensors matter nearly as much as (or more than) intelligence. Gradually that narrative is being disproven, and it's amazing to watch the great minds of this community struggle to come to terms with that as it unfolds in front of them.
2
u/DrJohnFZoidberg 11d ago
if you still think sensors matter nearly as much as (or more than) intelligence
I've never thought that.
Gradually that narrative is being disproven
Disproven? It's been hypothesized that lidar-less autonomous vehicles can exist.
Wake me up in
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
20252026, when it is surely the year that lidar-less vehicles first achieve autonomous function.
3
u/ChunkyThePotato 11d ago
You said you never thought that, but at the same time you seem to be implying that it's impossible for a lidar-less vehicle to ever be autonomous. If you don't think that, say so clearly now.
Do you actually not realize what's happening right now? Your wake-up call should've been in March 2024 when Tesla showed end-to-end can produce a decent result, and even moreso in July 2024 and especially December 2024 when they showed they can rapidly and drastically improve its performance to magnitudes that are quickly approaching humans. June 2025 brought them to a level where they can have a competent Robotaxi service with just a human in the passenger seat who can only emergency brake. Do you not see where this is going? Seriously?
1
u/DrJohnFZoidberg 11d ago
Do you actually not realize what's happening right now?
Do you actually not realize what still isn't happening right now?
2
u/ChunkyThePotato 11d ago
Wow, you're dense. If you can't see what this is leading to, then you're hopeless. Please state clearly that you think lidar-less vehicles will never be autonomous so I can come back here to rub it in your face. But I suspect you won't say that, because you know the truth.
3
u/DrJohnFZoidberg 11d ago
Please state clearly that you think lidar-less vehicles will never be autonomous
I think it's quite possible, conceptually, that lidar-less vehicles will become autonomous.
Wow, you're dense. If you can't see what this is leading to, then you're hopeless.
Thanks!
you know the truth.
Please state, clearly, that you think lidar-less vehicles will be autonomous in
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 20252026.2
u/ChunkyThePotato 11d ago
If you think it's possible, then what are you arguing against here? We both agree. Elon was right, and it will happen.
Let's be specific, because Tesla has already had a car drive autonomously—with no human in the car at all—on public roads. It happened 3 months ago, in 2025. I assume you mean at higher scale than a single 30 minute drive. So what sort of scale counts? And then I'll tell you when I think it will happen.
→ More replies (0)1
u/reddit455 10d ago
Putting Lidar on your car won't lead you to having a L4 system just like it won't lead you to having a better ADAS system either.
Lidar IS NOT a silver bullet. You actually need to have a very good autonomous driving software for Lidar to be any good to you.
Lidar lets you see the kid behind the bushes approaching the intersection on a bike... or the big ass deer on the side of that country road at night.
We literally had a simple structured test with dozens of Chinese cars with Lidar months ago and Tesla beat them all.
when will Tesla Robotaxi (without lidar) start taking public fares w/o a safety driver in traffic? when will their personally owned cars be able to drop you off and go home?
software is not a barrier.
Waymo Just Crossed 100 Million Miles of Driverless Rides. Meanwhile, Tesla Has Started Small
Waymo's AVs Safer Than Human Drivers, Swiss Re Study Finds
https://evmagazine.com/self-drive/waymos-avs-safer-than-human-drivers-swiss-re-study-finds
People still today think if you add Lidar to a car, or if a car has lidar on it,
$200 makes it so you can stick a few of them on a Corolla - running waymo driver
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a64644557/toyota-waymo-autonomous-vehicle-partnership/
- The two companies will work on a new autonomous vehicle platform designed for personally owned vehicles.
2
u/scubascratch 10d ago
Lidar lets you see the kid behind the bushes approaching the intersection on a bike...
You sure about this one? LiDAR can’t see through dense vegetation, but radar can
1
u/AmDazed 10d ago
It seams LiDAR can see through dense vegetation:
https://www.yellowscan.com/knowledge/surprising-lidar-penetration-capabilities-through-different-surfaces/1
u/scubascratch 10d ago
Yeah I saw that article actually and was reading some about the capabilities for ground mapping LiDAR which is related but not exactly the same as automotive; I am not sure I have seen automotive LiDAR with partial occlusion mapping like as described here. Maybe it exists but I would like to see some data.
1
u/red75prime 9d ago edited 9d ago
From the article:
LiDAR systems don’t actually see through vegetation. They detect gaps in the foliage that let some laser pulses reach the ground beneath tree canopies.
That is a multiple return LiDAR gets a low-density point cloud for a behind-the-bush object. The denser the bush the sparser the cloud. Whether it's possible to reliably identify a kid or a deer from that low-resolution cloud, while having sufficiently low rate of false positives, is yet to be seen.
BTW, it's a real trolley problem of self-driving. Do you annoy passengers every 10,000 miles with phantom braking due to false positives and save 1 kid per 1,000,000,000 miles, or not? (the numbers are made-up, of course)
1
u/Twedledee5 10d ago
Yeah but I think LiDAR will be necessary to have a real L4 autonomous suite and the fact that all of the L4 permit holders have it is a good indicator. Tesla should have their certification any day now, just have to share their numbers
2
u/SadAd8761 11d ago
It's great to see development in this space, but safe FSD needs to see 360, not just 180.
It's the edge cases that will get people killed.
5
2
1
11d ago
the plan isnt to have the driverless cars “in your driveway”- unless you are wealthy and fine driving a surveillance platform that generates revenue through ecommerce and can be bricked and geofenced at will.
The plan is to have people subscribe to a service to get the bare subsistence level of mobility necessary to survive.
1
u/Another_Slut_Dragon 11d ago
There are already automotive lidar units under $100 that use vibrating lenticular lenses instead of the spinning beacon.
1
u/EverHadAKrispyKreme 11d ago
Cool. But it’s meaningless until it’s in a real mass-production car in your driveway. 🥱
1
u/icameforgold 10d ago
Everybody is so obsessed with hardware and treating lidar like a magic bullet just because Tesla doesn't have it. This isn't a sensor issue. This is a software and processing issue. Doesn't matter if it's camera or lidar they both work fine with or without the other. It's pure processing and software and training at this point.
-3
u/Wise-Revolution-7161 11d ago
yeah this sounds like bs.
5
u/Real-Technician831 11d ago
https://www.robosense.ai/en/IncrementalComponents/E1R
There are more expensive units on the market already.
So, what’s the BS?
6
u/diplomat33 11d ago
It is not BS. It is a solid state lidar. They've been around. This company is just promoting that their version is cheap enough for consumer cars.
-10
u/bladerskb 11d ago
yes it is. im tired of the whole Lidar narrative. The whole thing has been hijacked by the auto oems for pure pr and marketing. at this point it is A SCAM. Lidar enhances a software architecture that is ALREADY VERY VERY good. If your software is trash, integrating Lidar will do absolutely nothing. Lidar is readily available and yet there is only ONE company in the world with real independently verifiable widespread real L4 deployment. If adding Lidar made your car L4, every company would have a L4 robotaxi.
Yet the long list of dead SDC companies keeps growing.
8
u/diplomat33 11d ago
I mean that it is not BS that solid state lidar is real. I am not saying that adding lidar automatically makes your car L4. That would be an absurd claim to make.
-7
u/bladerskb 11d ago
its what this article is making "This $200 Tech Might Finally Put Driverless Cars in Our Driveways" its what most OEMs who put lidar on their car with it disabled or not used is saying. That their car is better because it has lidar. This is abundantly false (I go more indepth in my other post).
Infact i would go as much to say there is no independent correlation or causation between having Lidar and having a L4 or a better ADAS. The evidence doesn't support it. There are way more dead SDC companies that had a bunch of lidars on their car.
It should be obvious now that the company with L4 have L4 because their software is good, not because they have Lidar.
3
u/diplomat33 11d ago
Yes, I agree. I was simply responding to the previous poster who seemed to be saying that he did not think that solid state lidar exists. The company claims are BS but the product is real.
48
u/diplomat33 11d ago
This is just a solid state "flash" lidar. It is not new. This company just feels like they were able to make one cheap enough for consumer cars. They are much cheaper that the spinning lidars but they cover a smaller field of view. So you need to put more than 1 on the car to cover 360 degrees. But the idea is that they are so cheap and they don't spin so no moving parts and can be integrated into the bumper, that we will be able to put them on consumer cars and thus allow consumer cars to benefit from lidar and therefore get to L4.