I've worked with a researchers who use LIDAR heavily. Amazing technology, but aside from cost/weight/size/expense there's one big disadvantage. LIDAR doesn't work like eyes.

So in certain conditions LIDAR can see better than human eyes, like say complete darkness. This could lead to a car behaving differently than a human driver which might well cause an accident.

In other conditions LIDAR can see much worse than a human. Depending on the fog, snow, rain, dust, tumbleweeds etc can look more solid to a lidar than a human eye. Which can also cause accidents. A human might recognize a whisp of fog, whose outline and volume look like a fallen tree, but a camera would have a better chance.

So even with a magic LIDAR that costs $100, has good range, solid state, etc. it's not clear what LIDAR offers over a pair of cameras, or other cheap sensors like cameras, mm band (60 GHz) radar, and ultrasound.

Additionally LIDAR systems need cameras anyways. Is that a ambulance or UPS truck? Schoolbus or city bus? Police car or Camry? Does the police car have it's lights on? Did someone flash their high beams at you? Delivery truck or post office truck? Color is hugely important in predicting what's going to happen. Sure you can add cameras to LIDAR, but then why? Doubly is you have two cameras for distance.

So I'd love to be wrong, and indisputably LIDAR is getting better, but seems like pairs of cameras might well be the best fit for driving like a human. Doesn't seem like it could ever be LIDAR, but LIDAR + cameras could compete, but what does LIDAR give you over a pair of cameras?