Well, it's closer to: any car with stale data and sufficient water depth is a financial and PR disaster. These cars are not cheap, and a tiktok of someone being driven into the water is even more expensive!

▲

cma 20 hours ago | parent [-]

As soon as the car descends below what was mapped it should be able to know there is a discrepency.

Satellite monitoring is also available for detecting extensive road work which they could use to invalidate and send out something to remap.

▲

nomel 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, if you drive around slow enough so you can stop in time. Lets say coefficient of friction is around 0.5. That means you can drive around town at a brisk 12mph, if you need to stop within 10 feet (with 0ms reaction time).

▲

cma 4 hours ago | parent [-]

People usually drive slow too through flooded sections. They don't have the advantage of any descent of the car diverging from HD maps, or any water level visually below HD map surface serving as an immediate warning.

	▲	nomel 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> drive slow too through flooded section This first requires knowing you're in a flooded section. That's the gap here, is it not? My point is that you can't use descent AS a "flooded zone" detection because then your speed, by the harsh mistress of psychics, is very limited everywhere you go, flooded or not, because stopping distance has to be kept very short since just a few feet of overshoot, when your flood detection triggers, is the difference between ruined engine or not. Maybe that's their fix, if a flat mirrored surface is detected, slow way down, because perceiving depth of muddy water before getting in it is hard.