LIDAR - Safest car on the road potential?

RL8

Active Member

Verified Owner
Joined
Nov 3, 2025
Messages
252
Reaction score
292
Maybe this is a stupid question given Lucid is trying to figure how to stop a window from malfunctioning, but why isn’t Lucid using one of its greatest assets (LIDAR) to create a competitive advantage (safety)?

With LIDAR, it should be able to build a full suite of safety features including a screen that’s always on showing all cars and objects on the road (including animals), like Tesla. They could potentially build predictive insights (me thinking out loud).

Why haven’t they fully tapped into this potential to make the Gravity the safest car on the road? For a family-inspired vehicle that’s a huge selling point being left on the table, IMO.
 
I would hope that part of the plan for the HUD AR is a display that highlights all the cars, cyclists, pedestrians, and animals that are around. I love watching the display on the Waymo that shows this when I'm taking a ride in one, but I wouldn't want to have to look down at a screen when driving to see this information. It could be dangerously distracting. If visualized in the HUD, I could imagine the system even highlighting particular actors around the car that were evaluated to be higher risk for whatever reason.
 
Being on a highway and looking down at the screen to see if cars are around you vs. over your shoulder is a huge convenience and safety improvement. Or, just have it on the dash like when cruise control is activated. Why is that not always viable?
 
Being on a highway and looking down at the screen to see if cars are around you vs. over your shoulder is a huge convenience and safety improvement. Or, just have it on the dash like when cruise control is activated. Why is that not always viable?
So you prefer looking at a screen rather than reality?
Interesting as for boating you are required to keep a lookout all around you where there’s entire oceans around. Yet a car driver should not have to look? Might as well just put on vr goggles and pretend it’s a game.
You do you, but already people pay little attention when driving I want drivers to do the one job they have in a car, drive and don’t hit anyone or anything
 
So you prefer looking at a screen rather than reality?
Interesting as for boating you are required to keep a lookout all around you where there’s entire oceans around. Yet a car driver should not have to look? Might as well just put on vr goggles and pretend it’s a game.
You do you, but already people pay little attention when driving I want drivers to do the one job they have in a car, drive and don’t hit anyone or anything
it's the Teslafication of cars.
 
So you prefer looking at a screen rather than reality?
Interesting as for boating you are required to keep a lookout all around you where there’s entire oceans around. Yet a car driver should not have to look? Might as well just put on vr goggles and pretend it’s a game.
You do you, but already people pay little attention when driving I want drivers to do the one job they have in a car, drive and don’t hit anyone or anything

Having the screen as another safety check before entering a lane is helpful. It’s difficult to see through the tinted windows, privacy screen, and huge frames that all block your vision. How many times have you tried to enter a lane and didn’t realize someone was in your blind spot? It happens.

Not paying attention is not the same as what I described. It’s actually the opposite. No need to get all upset over it because you prefer a different approach. Submarines rely solely on instruments (because why not compare?)
 
Having the screen as another safety check before entering a lane is helpful. It’s difficult to see through the tinted windows, privacy screen, and huge frames that all block your vision. How many times have you tried to enter a lane and didn’t realize someone was in your blind spot? It happens.

Not paying attention is not the same as what I described. It’s actually the opposite. No need to get all upset over it because you prefer a different approach. Submarines rely solely on instruments (because why not compare?)
Hahaha submarines seem to hit stuff all the time, but we digress.
I use my mirrors and swivel my head to look around because that becomes instinctive so no matter what I’m driving it’s all the same in any daily commute or emergency situation. No matter the vehicle. All these other systems that are not full driverless are simply there to augment the driver so they are safer, not so they ca be distracted by whatever. And each model car is different so relying on a screen that’s there 99.9% of the time can bite you that last little bit.
 
Hahaha submarines seem to hit stuff all the time, but we digress.
I use my mirrors and swivel my head to look around because that becomes instinctive so no matter what I’m driving it’s all the same in any daily commute or emergency situation. No matter the vehicle. All these other systems that are not full driverless are simply there to augment the driver so they are safer, not so they ca be distracted by whatever. And each model car is different so relying on a screen that’s there 99.9% of the time can bite you that last little bit.

Nicely said. I still turn around when backing out of my garage or down my driveway vs relying on cameras. It would just be nice to have an extra layer of protection when changing lanes and for keeping track of traffic around you. This tech shouldn’t substitute human in the loop. (And thanks for picking up on my submarine sarcastic remark).
 
So you prefer looking at a screen rather than reality?
Interesting as for boating you are required to keep a lookout all around you where there’s entire oceans around. Yet a car driver should not have to look? Might as well just put on vr goggles and pretend it’s a game.
You do you, but already people pay little attention when driving I want drivers to do the one job they have in a car, drive and don’t hit anyone or anything
Perceptual failures account for a non-trivial fraction of accidents. Diligence when driving reduces the chances of that, but it doesn't make it go away. I believe that there's plenty of opportunity to augment human capability and make for safer driving, and so I don't dismiss the desire for better driver information systems the way you are.
 
If you're able to integrate digital displays into your situational awareness then it's a great feature to have. Unfortunately, in my experience the sort of folks who would benefit the most from this are also the folks who really can't process computer interfaces, at least not with the efficiency you need while driving. So then it becomes a distraction.
 
Maybe this is a stupid question given Lucid is trying to figure how to stop a window from malfunctioning, but why isn’t Lucid using one of its greatest assets (LIDAR) to create a competitive advantage (safety)?

With LIDAR, it should be able to build a full suite of safety features including a screen that’s always on showing all cars and objects on the road (including animals), like Tesla. They could potentially build predictive insights (me thinking out loud).

Why haven’t they fully tapped into this potential to make the Gravity the safest car on the road? For a family-inspired vehicle that’s a huge selling point being left on the table, IMO.

because lidar simply does not provide any real increase in safety.

There's a user on billibili who tests all different autonomous driving systems in china on difficult challenges, unprotected turns, etc.

Tesla FSD 14 (which is hacked U.S. version) smokes the competition. The other cars have lidar, radar and even the placement of the sensors should see cross traffic better. None of this seems to help

There is basically no evidence that these extra sensors even do anything

lucid's lidar placement is also not good. you want it as high as possible to get the best visibility. Putting it down low is only for aesthetics
 
because lidar simply does not provide any real increase in safety.

There's a user on billibili who tests all different autonomous driving systems in china on difficult challenges, unprotected turns, etc.

Tesla FSD 14 (which is hacked U.S. version) smokes the competition. The other cars have lidar, radar and even the placement of the sensors should see cross traffic better. None of this seems to help

There is basically no evidence that these extra sensors even do anything

lucid's lidar placement is also not good. you want it as high as possible to get the best visibility. Putting it down low is only for aesthetics
Tesla's software also accounts for the most fatalities of all these systems. I wonder if that number would be any lower if they integrated a full sensor suite into their ADAS stack rather than just CCDs. Gotta crack a few eggs to keep the investors frothy I suppose.
 
Tesla's software also accounts for the most fatalities of all these systems. I wonder if that number would be any lower if they integrated a full sensor suite into their ADAS stack rather than just CCDs. Gotta crack a few eggs to keep the investors frothy I suppose.
This is 100% false. Tesla FSD has effectively zero at-fault fatalities whereas other systems have actually killed people for failure to identify stationary vehicles.

Tesla on the other hand does have deaths from autopilot not seeing stationary objects. This is because the autopilot software is designed to run on much older computers found in early teslas. It doesn't run the advanced AI they use for FSD.

The reason that tesla has high NHTSA reports is because they have the most miles and they are the only brand reliably reporting accidents at scale.

NHTSA requires you report adas accidents but they don't mandate that your car remotely detect them. Therefore you just never know about them.

Rivian deliberately chooses to not enable their car to remotely collect crash data which is critical for safely training these edge cases. Because of that they may have possibly killed or seriously injured someone with their ADAS and you'll never know about it
 
This is 100% false. Tesla FSD has effectively zero at-fault fatalities whereas other systems have actually killed people for failure to identify stationary vehicles.

Tesla on the other hand does have deaths from autopilot not seeing stationary objects. This is because the autopilot software is designed to run on much older computers found in early teslas. It doesn't run the advanced AI they use for FSD.

The reason that tesla has high NHTSA reports is because they have the most miles and they are the only brand reliably reporting accidents at scale.

NHTSA requires you report adas accidents but they don't mandate that your car remotely detect them. Therefore you just never know about them.

Rivian deliberately chooses to not enable their car to remotely collect crash data which is critical for safely training these edge cases. Because of that they may have possibly killed or seriously injured someone with their ADAS and you'll never know about it
I can't be bothered calling out your Tesla fanboyism post by post anymore, so I had an AI pull your claims together and check them against the actual regulator filings.

Here's the summary.

"Tesla FSD has effectively zero at-fault fatalities."

Tesla's own filings to NHTSA say otherwise. July 2026 was the worst month on record for Tesla driver assist crashes. 236 reported to federal regulators, four of them fatal, and in every one Tesla's own data says Autopilot or FSD was engaged. In June, Tesla admitted FSD was on when a Model 3 killed a 76 year old in Katy, Texas, then blamed the driver for flooring the accelerator. NHTSA opened its own Special Crash Investigation to pull the event data recorder independently, because what Tesla posts on X is its own interpretation of its own logs. Two weeks ago Tesla's SGO filing on a 2021 Model Y that crossed a median and killed a man was marked "Verified Engaged", confirmed through Tesla's own telematics. Last Wednesday a pedestrian was killed on I-80 in Vallejo and the driver told CHP the car was in FSD. You can call all of those "not at-fault" if you want, but nobody can check, because the software field is redacted and Tesla decided what its cars did in those fatal crashes is a trade secret. "Effectively zero at-fault" isn't a finding. It's a claim built so it can't be checked.

"Tesla is the only brand reliably reporting accidents at scale."

The regulator disagrees. Under the 2021 federal order, crash reports are due within one to five days depending on severity. NHTSA said Tesla filed numerous reports months after the incidents, in batches or on a rolling basis, and opened a formal Audit Query to find out why and whether more crash reports are still unfiled. Separately, NHTSA escalated its FSD investigation to an Engineering Analysis covering 3.2 million vehicles and said Tesla's data limitation could have led to under-reporting of crashes. There are now three concurrent federal investigations into FSD: visibility failures, traffic violations, and crash reporting gaps. The company you're calling the gold standard of transparency is the one being investigated for the opposite.

"The deaths were Autopilot on old computers, not FSD."

The Engineering Analysis is into FSD, not Autopilot. NHTSA is looking at nine crashes, one of them fatal, where the software failed to detect poor driving conditions and alert the driver in time. Investigators found it failed to notice common road conditions that impaired camera visibility, or warn the driver, until immediately before the crash. It covers FSD equipped vehicles from model year 2016 through 2026. That's not an "old computers" problem. It's a camera only perception failure in glare and fog, which is exactly the gap lidar and radar exist to cover.

"There is basically no evidence that these extra sensors even do anything."

Waymo publishes its full data and methodology against human benchmarks. Over 270 million fully autonomous miles through June 2026, 82% fewer injury causing crashes regardless of fault, and 95% fewer serious injury or worse crashes, all built on the same NHTSA Standing General Order crash data, with rates per million miles broken out by city. Tesla publishes a page of hand picked avoidance clips and a self reported miles between crashes number with no published methodology and no denominator anyone can audit. One of those is evidence. The other is marketing. And your actual source for "lidar doesn't help" is a Bilibili video of a hacked, unsupported build running a handful of scenarios in China.

"Rivian may have possibly killed or seriously injured someone and you'll never know."

You have zero evidence for this. You accused a manufacturer of covering up a death with "may have possibly" doing all the work, in the same post where you demand ironclad proof before anyone says a word about Tesla.

You joined 17 days ago and you've made 42 posts, nearly all of them about Tesla, in a Lucid forum. Post what you want. But when you lead with "100% false" and follow it with claims the federal regulator's own filings contradict, expect to be held to the bar you set.

Sources:









 
It's remarkable the way some Tesla enthusiasts (maybe I should restate that as FSD enthusiasts) seem to struggle so mightily against the cognitive dissonance of Waymo successfully deploying autonomous vehicles much more broadly than Tesla while simultaneously believing that Tesla is fundamentally the leader in autonomous driving. Admitting that Waymo has delivered a very competent autonomous driving solution into the market while still believing that FSD has a lot of promise would seem to be a much more realistic place to be, without requiring strange mental gymnastics to reconcile the difference between what you want to be true and what the facts on the ground show. Why have a cult-like devotion to a corporation?
 
Back
Top