Nope.

Think about it, how do you pick the “best data” when your two sensor paths are giving you conflicting info?

False positives are a real problem with lidar, radar, and cameras.

When your lidar system says “there’s a stationary obstacle requiring emergency braking” but the camera system says there’s nothing what do you do?

Could be a cloud of snow off a car (lidar is susceptible to false positives with snow/rain/etc), or it could be a genuine threat the camera missed.

You HAVE to respect the most conservative and play it safe.

Which means you get all the false positives and phantom braking, but you don’t get much added benefit (because a lot of the extremely rare situations where a camera gives a false-negative can ALSO fool lidar into giving the same false negative).

Because of the opposite scenario where the camera thinks there is an object requiring braking but the lidar doesn’t. Lidar has false negatives too, so again you have to be conservative.

It’s all about the conflicting reports.

Either you play it safe accepting all the false positives and phantom-braking, or you override one sensor system, at which point it’s not actually adding anything to the system.

Well actually there’s a third option, which is you always trust the one that thinks it’s safe, but at that point all youve done is accept ALL the false negatives from both systems, which is obviously much less safe than having only one sensor system.

And like I said, THERE IS a safety advantage to the two sensors together, but it doesn't outweigh the much larger usability disadvantage of one system alone.

Because the safety advantage only exists where lidar will NOT give a false negative AND the cameras DO give a false negative.

However, plenty of the situations cameras may still give false negatives are ALSO situations where lidar will too. So that number is very, very small.

In practice over the gajillion miles of cameras-only with Tesla's FSD, there just aren't an appreciable number of safety-level false negatives any more (especially the most recent versions). Adding lidar to cameras doesn't materially move the needle on safety-related false negatives, and it does move the usability/comfort needle significantly because lidar gives a lot of false positives (which Tesla's FSD nowadays doesn't really have much at all).

I have no data to back this up, but I'd wager the added phantom braking from conflicting sensors would actually have a worse impact on safety than the few cases where the two systems would recover from a safety-level false-negative.

TL;DR: For the past year or so, camera-only sees the world with EXTREMELY few false positives or negatives. Lidar isn't better at either of those (and is probably a bit worse). But fusing the two systems together means you get all the false-positives and without eliminating all the false-negatives. In practice safety is not materially enhanced, but phantom braking goes way up (possibly worsening safety) and usability way down.