You are making a lot of potentially faulty assumptions. 1) The "delta" was wide enough to save/harm people, you have no idea. 2) The extra information provided

You are making a lot of potentially faulty assumptions. 1) The "delta" was wide enough to save/harm people, you have no idea. 2) The extra information provided would always be valuable and/or not be overcome with better AI models using the visual sensors in the future. 3) The amount of technical overhead generated by the extra sensors were not prohibitive long term. When working with AI there are often times where it would seem logical that extra relevant data will always improve a model, but that turns out not to always be the case, or provide so little value that managing another dataset is just not worth it.