161
Family sues Google after Maps allegedly directed father off collapsed bridge
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
161 points (93.0% liked)
World News
32038 readers
352 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Ridiculous. If you blindly drive over a bridge that isn't there because a map says so, you're an idiot. Congratulations for the Darwin Award.
Did you read the article?
It was also raining and at night, so he likely had no way to know the bridge was gone until it would have been too late to stop.
Doesn’t sound like google’s fault, does it?
The article even mentions that other entities are sued but oh that sweet headline.
Yeah, suing google makes as much sense as suing the car maker for not making the car fly.
No??? It's perfectly reasonable to sue Google here, considering locals had been asking the company to update the map for nigh on ten years. It's negligence on their part at that point. When it's dark and raining, you can and should expect that your GPS won't lead you across a bridge that collapsed last decade.
I would agree if the purpose of GPS navigation was to allow you to drive with all your windows covered. It's not. When you're driving and can't see what's in front of you (because you're blinded by something, because there's fog, because it raining hard or because Batman is throwing smoke bombs) you have to slow down appropriately or stop entirely if necessary. I can understand following GPS indications and getting stuck in some mud but not falling of a bridge. If you don't see the rode in front of you: stop.
There can be some culpability in Google's direction, it doesn't have to be all the blame.
It's absolutely negligent of Google to suggest that route after been informed multiple times over 10 years the bridge is collapsed.
The expectation of safety should be on the local authorities. Clearly marking that the bridge is unsafe to drive over with signs and blocking off the area. While google should have marked it as an inaccessible route, it's the local authorities that should be looking out for the safety of drivers in that situation.
The bridge was broken years though, so Google should not have been using it for routes. The country is definitely at fault for not having signs up, but Google isn’t blameless in this.
The company literally directed this man to his death. Why are all these commenters going to bat for a trillion dollar company that refused to pay a programmer for the ten seconds it would take to fix thee issue?
I once approached a red light and the satnav commanded me to "go straight". I almost did so, because a robot voice told me to do it. Would it have been the map's fault because it didn't know the traffic light was red? No, it would've been me, because I didn't pay **enough ** attention for a moment, following a command blindly. Drivers have to be aware of their surroundings all the time.
Here in this case there should have been a road block and hazard signs in front of it.
This all reminds me of the case where some people sued a weather app because it didn't warn them of bad weather and they completely relied on a single source of information.
Because following a GPS blindly is stupidity...yes in this case it has been out 10 years.. but what if it was out 10minutes or what if it was some other hazard in the road or some road workers fixing somthing... you should be paying attention to the road and signs....now I agree signs should have been there. But just because the satnav says okay doesn't mean driver can just blindly follow, you are a dangerous driver not aware of your surroundings and in wet conditions going too fast for the distance you can safely see.
If it had only been out for ten minutes, then there would have been no way for Google to update the map. You realize the whole issue is that they've been contacted about it multiple times over around a decade right?
That is not the point when we say it could have been out 10 min....the point is there are all sorts of unmapped obstacles in the road so saying driving off a bridge is a maps fault is showing poor driving skills.
There were no signs or barriers, as the article mentioned, and it was a rainy night. This dude had no way of knowing or seeing something was wrong until it was too late.
It is simply not the responsibility of google to prevent this tragedy. It is firstly the responsibility of every driver to make sure to be able to see where you are driving and be able to stop in time in case of unexpected. What if there was a person in his path and he could not stop in time for example?
And secondly it is the responsibility of the local authority/agency to put up signage and block the road.
Sure, i am not a fan of giant megacorps either, and it makes sense to be angry at google for not correcting the wrong map data. But strictly from a responsibility perspective, i don't think google should be held accountable here.
I also believe the thinking "directed this man to death" is too extreme. It simply is a map, with route information. There is no automatic driving or compulsion to follow its direction, the driver has to make safe decisions by himself imo.
Then that would be on him, because google did not receive multiple reports of a person in the middle of the road for ten goddamn years, and it's easier to spot a person in the middle of the road than it is to spot this
Why do you want a already too powerfull company to be in charge of road safety?
I want the local goverment to be responsible for that.
I don't want them to be in charge of road safety, I want them to not suggest routes that get people killed
So sue the county or who ever is in charge of erecting the barriers. Still not the map's fault.
The bridge broke down years ago. Google is absolutely also at fault for sending someone down it, along with whoever didn’t have warnings up. Multiple entities can be at fault here.
There has never been a guarantee for a map to be absolutely precise and correct. Just because maps today are digital and get updated automatically - or are even something like "live" - does not mean that there can't be any inaccuracies.
And that's the reason one never relies on a map alone, but uses it as a guide.
I've seen road signs that were simply wrong. Always use a combination of informational input and always be aware of possible flaws.
Thing is, as the article points out, people had contacted Google trying to get this fixed.
There was more than one failure here. That’s why the family is suing more than one entity.
The family might as well sue the local medium that failed seeing the incident in their crystal ball.
Given that there weren't any signs or barriers, it sounds like the local authorities are the ones at fault here. It could even be that that didn't file the proper paperwork to indicate that it collapsed. Google gets it's information from some database and if their sources aren't accurately reporting data as they should, google wouldn't have any way of knowing that the bridge collapsed. Ultimately, hazards like this should be clearly blocked off. Google doesn't have the power to do that.
If you can't stop within the range of visibility, you're driving faster than road conditions allow. That part is on the driver. The lack of barriers or warnings is on the municipality.
I always like to point this out.
In every single driver's manual, it states having a 4 second window of visibility, minimum. On rainy days/fog/bad weather, more if possible.
That buffer is to help avoid unknown surprises.
Yes so this is the on the authority that owns the road if people have been telling Google about it surely the municipal or state or whoever maintains the road was informed and should have made effort to block it off or mark the road as private or whatever. If it is a private road you are still liable if it appears to be access to your property (say for delivery drivers to your mailbox)
He was thinking fourth-dimensionally.