6 ms·

Where I live I am often surrounded by Waymo vehicles... is Lidar 100% safe for people to be around? I ask because I read an article about how Lidar on one of t

Where I live I am often surrounded by Waymo vehicles... is Lidar 100% safe for people to be around? I ask because I read an article about how Lidar on one of the new Volvos could destroy your phone camera if you pointed it at it? If Lidar can do that to a phone camera, can it hurt your eyes?

HighGoldstein 9mo ago
When it becomes a widespread issue they'll just release Meta Glasses 5/Apple Vision 3 with the appropriate eye protection, and vision will be very affordable.
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 9mo ago
Depends on the type of LIDAR. LIDAR rated for vehicle use is at a wavelength opaque to the eyes so it hits the surface and fluid of your eye and reflects back rather than going through to your cones and rods. It isn't however opaque for optical glass (since the LIDAR has to shine through optical glass in the first place) so it hits your camera lens, goes straight through, and slams the sensor.
- kappi 9mo ago
  During the presentation, Rivian speaker specifically said it is safe for your camera sensors. Check the youtube video of their presentation
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 9mo ago
    Ah. Theirs may be then. In which case they are probably using a different wavelength and a different glass. I was just speaking in terms of the commonplace LIDAR solutions for road use.
- dllu 9mo ago
  You seem to be implying that all automotive lidar are 1550 nm but that's not true. While there are lots of 1550 nm automotive lidars (Luminar on Volvo, Seyond on NIO) there are also plenty of 850 nm to 940 nm lidars are used in cars (Hesai, Robosense, etc). Those can pass through water and get focused to your retina, but they are also a lot lower power so they do not damage cameras.
  - culi 9mo ago
    Also although that energy longer than 1400nm is generally absorbed by the cornea and lens, it is still energy, and it is not a hard bandpass filter per se. Safety is relative at higher wattages.
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 9mo ago
    NGL I thought sub 1550nm LIDAR had been banned for use in new automotive applications already? I clearly must be mistaken but I had thought that was the case.
    - dllu 9mo ago
      Not banned. In addition to the Chinese lidars I mentioned, the Valeo Scala on Audi cars is 905 nm, and then there are also Ouster (865 nm), Innoviz (905 nm), Livox (905 nm) etc. The large spinning lidar on top of the Waymo Jaguar I-Pace is also purportedly 905 nm, although in the past they also had a swivelling 1550 nm lidar in the dome of the Chrysler Pacifica cars (situated just underneath a smaller spinning 905 nm one). The eye safety threshold for 850/905 nm is a lot lower than 1550 nm, so they output way less power, but the much better sensitivity of silicon sensors makes up for it partially. You can also squeeze out more range using clever signal processing and a large optical aperture (which allows you to output more light, but since the light is spread out across the aperture, the intensity doesn't exceed the threshold). Typically, the range of 850/905 nm lidars is less than that of 1550 nm lidars though. On the bright side, due to lower power, there hasn't been any instances (to my knowledge) of 850 nm and 905 nm lidars damaging cameras, whereas at least two different 1550 nm lidars have been known to destroy cameras (Luminar and AEye). On the Luminar lidar website [1] they proudly advertise "1,000,000x pulse energy of 905nm". [1] https://www.luminartech.com/technology https://www.luminartech.com/technology
slashdave 9mo ago
In terms of plain wattage, it cannot be dangerous. Unless, of course, you were to stand with your eye up against the sensor and maybe stare at it for a few minutes.
- eutectic 9mo ago
  Lidars use pulsed lasers with peak powers up to the kW range.
  - culi 9mo ago
    Yes but failure cases are still possible. A stuck mirror or frozen phased array can result in a continuous beam. Engineers should design in a way where the worst case possible is the assumption not the exception
doctoboggan 9mo ago
I watched the livestream and they said their hardware is "Camera Safe". I am not sure if camera safe and eye safe are correlated, but I would hope/expect that they would not release something that isn't known to be eye safe. I guess it's possible that the long term effects could prove bad, and we will all end up getting "Lidar Eye" dead spots in our vision.
- dylan604 9mo ago
  Digital camera sensors are much more sensitive than eyeballs, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that it won't leave a permanent line across your eyeball like it can to a camera sensor
- slashdave 9mo ago
  Lidar Eye? No, how the heck would that happen? I mean, there is a dangerous source of light outside (we call it the "sun"), and yet we manage fine.
  - airstrike 9mo ago
    I mean, technically the Sun is "above" us and the LIDARs are at...eye level? So not exactly the same, at least to my layman eyes
  - Rebelgecko 9mo ago
    Your body has signs to knock it off when you're staring at the sun, does it do the same thing for Lidar?
colechristensen 9mo ago
There are two kinds of safe. Safe when it's working as intended, and safe when it breaks. But yes there are lidar sensors out there where if broken in the right way could burn out your retinas permanently.
filoleg 9mo ago
Your eyes will be fine (assuming that we are talking about automotive LiDAR specifically). Automotive LiDAR is designed to meet Class-1 laser eye-safety standard, which means "safe under normal conditions." It isn't some subjective/marketing thing, it is an official laser safety classification that is very regulated. However, if you try to break that "normal conditions" rule by pressing your eyeball directly against an automotive LiDAR sensor for a very long period of time while it is blasting, you might cause yourself some damage. The reason for why your phone camera would get damaged, but not your eyes, is due to the nature of how camera lenses work. They are designed to gather as much light as possible from a direction and focus it onto a flat, tiny sensor. The same LiDAR beam that is spread out for a large retina can become hyper-concentrated onto a handful of pixels through the camera optics.
- tennysont 9mo ago
  Why wouldn’t your eye lens focus LIDAR photons from the same source onto a small region of your retina in the same way that a phone camera lens focuses same-origin photos to a few pixels? Sorry if this is a silly question, I honestly don’t have the greatest understanding of EM.
  - Retric 9mo ago
    Your eyes a much larger sensor area than the opening, they do the opposite of concentrating light in a small area.
    - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
      A point source in the visual field will create a point image on the retina. The "sensor area" you're referring is what's necessary to capture the entire visual field simultaneously.
      - Retric 9mo ago
        I disagree that it’s a point source at distances of peak concern. Also, it’s something of a nitpick but physically point sources still end up as a circle.
loeg 9mo ago
The existing regulations here might be insufficient. There is definitely risk if the devices are not carefully designed to be safe.
- krackers 9mo ago
  To date I can't think of any existing lasers which you are intended to look at during daily use. Most consumer facing lasers are either class 1 but hidden (CD-ROM), or class 2 but basically not shined into your eye (barcode reader). There was another discussion a week back https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46126780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46126780 The lack of accessible certification/testing docs for the lidars is also worrying. Where is the proof that it was even tested? Was it tested just via simulation, via a dummy eye stand-in, or with a real biological substitute? What if there are biological concerns other than simply peak power involved with shining NIR into the eye? (For instance, it seems deep red light has some (beneficial) biological effects on mitochondria. How do we know that a pulsed NIR laser won't have similar but negative effects, even if it doesn't burn a hole in your retina.)
  - tziki 9mo ago
    >I can't think of any existing lasers which you are intended to look at during daily use Iphone face unlock users lidar to scan your face when you look at it.
  - culi 9mo ago
    > class 2 but basically not shined into your eye (barcode reader) TIL barcode readers can cause serious eye damage when misused. You'd think they'd have warning labels on these things given how common self-checkout is nowadays and how curious/stupid children can be
    - krackers 9mo ago
      They're not always class 2, some are class 1. I'd maybe suspect the self-checkout ones are class 1 since the object is pressed right against it, while handheld barcode scanners are class 2.

HighGoldstein 9mo ago

When it becomes a widespread issue they'll just release Meta Glasses 5/Apple Vision 3 with the appropriate eye protection, and vision will be very affordable.

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 9mo ago

Depends on the type of LIDAR. LIDAR rated for vehicle use is at a wavelength opaque to the eyes so it hits the surface and fluid of your eye and reflects back rather than going through to your cones and rods. It isn't however opaque for optical glass (since the LIDAR has to shine through optical glass in the first place) so it hits your camera lens, goes straight through, and slams the sensor.

kappi 9mo ago
During the presentation, Rivian speaker specifically said it is safe for your camera sensors. Check the youtube video of their presentation
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 9mo ago
  Ah. Theirs may be then. In which case they are probably using a different wavelength and a different glass. I was just speaking in terms of the commonplace LIDAR solutions for road use.
dllu 9mo ago
You seem to be implying that all automotive lidar are 1550 nm but that's not true. While there are lots of 1550 nm automotive lidars (Luminar on Volvo, Seyond on NIO) there are also plenty of 850 nm to 940 nm lidars are used in cars (Hesai, Robosense, etc). Those can pass through water and get focused to your retina, but they are also a lot lower power so they do not damage cameras.
- culi 9mo ago
  Also although that energy longer than 1400nm is generally absorbed by the cornea and lens, it is still energy, and it is not a hard bandpass filter per se. Safety is relative at higher wattages.
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 9mo ago
  NGL I thought sub 1550nm LIDAR had been banned for use in new automotive applications already? I clearly must be mistaken but I had thought that was the case.
  - dllu 9mo ago
    Not banned. In addition to the Chinese lidars I mentioned, the Valeo Scala on Audi cars is 905 nm, and then there are also Ouster (865 nm), Innoviz (905 nm), Livox (905 nm) etc. The large spinning lidar on top of the Waymo Jaguar I-Pace is also purportedly 905 nm, although in the past they also had a swivelling 1550 nm lidar in the dome of the Chrysler Pacifica cars (situated just underneath a smaller spinning 905 nm one). The eye safety threshold for 850/905 nm is a lot lower than 1550 nm, so they output way less power, but the much better sensitivity of silicon sensors makes up for it partially. You can also squeeze out more range using clever signal processing and a large optical aperture (which allows you to output more light, but since the light is spread out across the aperture, the intensity doesn't exceed the threshold). Typically, the range of 850/905 nm lidars is less than that of 1550 nm lidars though. On the bright side, due to lower power, there hasn't been any instances (to my knowledge) of 850 nm and 905 nm lidars damaging cameras, whereas at least two different 1550 nm lidars have been known to destroy cameras (Luminar and AEye). On the Luminar lidar website [1] they proudly advertise "1,000,000x pulse energy of 905nm". [1] https://www.luminartech.com/technology https://www.luminartech.com/technology

slashdave 9mo ago

In terms of plain wattage, it cannot be dangerous. Unless, of course, you were to stand with your eye up against the sensor and maybe stare at it for a few minutes.

eutectic 9mo ago
Lidars use pulsed lasers with peak powers up to the kW range.
- culi 9mo ago
  Yes but failure cases are still possible. A stuck mirror or frozen phased array can result in a continuous beam. Engineers should design in a way where the worst case possible is the assumption not the exception

doctoboggan 9mo ago

I watched the livestream and they said their hardware is "Camera Safe". I am not sure if camera safe and eye safe are correlated, but I would hope/expect that they would not release something that isn't known to be eye safe. I guess it's possible that the long term effects could prove bad, and we will all end up getting "Lidar Eye" dead spots in our vision.

dylan604 9mo ago
Digital camera sensors are much more sensitive than eyeballs, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that it won't leave a permanent line across your eyeball like it can to a camera sensor
slashdave 9mo ago
Lidar Eye? No, how the heck would that happen? I mean, there is a dangerous source of light outside (we call it the "sun"), and yet we manage fine.
- airstrike 9mo ago
  I mean, technically the Sun is "above" us and the LIDARs are at...eye level? So not exactly the same, at least to my layman eyes
- Rebelgecko 9mo ago
  Your body has signs to knock it off when you're staring at the sun, does it do the same thing for Lidar?

colechristensen 9mo ago

There are two kinds of safe. Safe when it's working as intended, and safe when it breaks. But yes there are lidar sensors out there where if broken in the right way could burn out your retinas permanently.

filoleg 9mo ago

Your eyes will be fine (assuming that we are talking about automotive LiDAR specifically). Automotive LiDAR is designed to meet Class-1 laser eye-safety standard, which means "safe under normal conditions." It isn't some subjective/marketing thing, it is an official laser safety classification that is very regulated. However, if you try to break that "normal conditions" rule by pressing your eyeball directly against an automotive LiDAR sensor for a very long period of time while it is blasting, you might cause yourself some damage. The reason for why your phone camera would get damaged, but not your eyes, is due to the nature of how camera lenses work. They are designed to gather as much light as possible from a direction and focus it onto a flat, tiny sensor. The same LiDAR beam that is spread out for a large retina can become hyper-concentrated onto a handful of pixels through the camera optics.

tennysont 9mo ago
Why wouldn’t your eye lens focus LIDAR photons from the same source onto a small region of your retina in the same way that a phone camera lens focuses same-origin photos to a few pixels? Sorry if this is a silly question, I honestly don’t have the greatest understanding of EM.
- Retric 9mo ago
  Your eyes a much larger sensor area than the opening, they do the opposite of concentrating light in a small area.
  - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
    A point source in the visual field will create a point image on the retina. The "sensor area" you're referring is what's necessary to capture the entire visual field simultaneously.
    - Retric 9mo ago
      I disagree that it’s a point source at distances of peak concern. Also, it’s something of a nitpick but physically point sources still end up as a circle.

loeg 9mo ago

The existing regulations here might be insufficient. There is definitely risk if the devices are not carefully designed to be safe.

krackers 9mo ago
To date I can't think of any existing lasers which you are intended to look at during daily use. Most consumer facing lasers are either class 1 but hidden (CD-ROM), or class 2 but basically not shined into your eye (barcode reader). There was another discussion a week back https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46126780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46126780 The lack of accessible certification/testing docs for the lidars is also worrying. Where is the proof that it was even tested? Was it tested just via simulation, via a dummy eye stand-in, or with a real biological substitute? What if there are biological concerns other than simply peak power involved with shining NIR into the eye? (For instance, it seems deep red light has some (beneficial) biological effects on mitochondria. How do we know that a pulsed NIR laser won't have similar but negative effects, even if it doesn't burn a hole in your retina.)
- tziki 9mo ago
  >I can't think of any existing lasers which you are intended to look at during daily use Iphone face unlock users lidar to scan your face when you look at it.
- culi 9mo ago
  > class 2 but basically not shined into your eye (barcode reader) TIL barcode readers can cause serious eye damage when misused. You'd think they'd have warning labels on these things given how common self-checkout is nowadays and how curious/stupid children can be
  - krackers 9mo ago
    They're not always class 2, some are class 1. I'd maybe suspect the self-checkout ones are class 1 since the object is pressed right against it, while handheld barcode scanners are class 2.