> Even parallax based systems are good at avoiding stationary objects, and are inexpensive since they use two overlapping visible light cameras (see EyeSight fo

> Even parallax based systems are good at avoiding stationary objects, and are inexpensive since they use two overlapping visible light cameras (see EyeSight for one example). Essentially they work like the human eye to determine depth/distance. While I agree that it would be better to be using a multi-camera system for depth estimation, and there's no reason not to (because cameras are cheap and easy to build into bodywork of a vehicle), it shouldn't necessarily be needed. Otherwise, you'd have one-eye sighted people, who drive, running into the same obstacles, right? But they don't - so how do they do it? Probably motion cues, depth-from-motion, etc - something the brain does. From a cost-savings perspective, eliminating that extra camera will likely be looked at being done at some point, because over millions of cars manufactured, not installing that extra camera and wiring will save a ton of money and increase profitability. But Tesla isn't quite there yet, and probably shouldn't eliminate it... Furthermore, I'm not sure even LIDAR should be eliminated; the more sensors and sensor types, the better, ultimately. The problem is finding a LIDAR unit that has enough resolution and can be fitted to a vehicle (and doesn't look like a giant spinning top). Flash LIDAR units will probably be the solution, but they are still fairly expensive, and I don't know if they have the resolution needed yet, either.