> When lidar says the path is blocked and video says it is not, you essentially have to either trust lidar and stop unnecessarily or just ignore lidar and go a

> When lidar says the path is blocked and video says it is not, you essentially have to either trust lidar and stop unnecessarily or just ignore lidar and go anyway (and then what was the point of the lidar?). If it's actually blocked then decision becomes stop and prevent harm or go forward and hurt someone. I don't think it's a very good counter argument. Edit: without meaningful data as to which is more meaningful I'd lean towards LIDAR being safer because there's less info (depth) to infer, and to me color seems less important than depth, barring stuff like signs and lights. Which shouldn't be hard to correlate between the two. But without more meaningful data this comes off as a "you should x people people did x anciently and it seems like that worked"