That’s ridiculous, but I think the title makes it sound a lot more ridiculous than it actually is.
[the lawsuit] also named several private property management companies allegedly responsible for the bridge and adjoining land.
If he could just drive off a collapsed bridge without any warnings someone has clearly not taken their responsibility.
If there’s a lack of signage and road blocks, and the map says the road is fine, I can see how one would make such an error.
I don’t agree google maps should be held accountable here, but if this bridge has been collapsed for a decade, I can see why someone would want to at least pose the question.
I would agree, however if this statement from the article can be proven:
The lawsuit adds that Google had previously been notified about the collapse and several attempts had been made for the route information to be updated.
Then there might be an argument that Google was negligent in not updating it’s maps. I’d agree that it’s a weak argument and that the Terms of Service likely contains a clause like “you are responsible to watch out for road conditions”. But, if the bridge has been out for a decade and multiple attempts to update Google about the collapsed bridge had been made, that may rise to the level of negligence.
I encountered this issue too. An overpass near me was demolished but Google Maps was still showing it there. I submitted an edit and included a link to the state DOT’s website about the project that clearly stated the overpass would be permanently demolished and not replaced. My edit was rejected.
Google’s editing algorithm is atrocious.
I’m a local guide, although I haven’t really done much in ages. Still, one day not too long ago I was standing in a new business that wasn’t on maps yet. I added the business, photos, hours, even their phone number and it was immediately rejected.
Sometimes you can get small changes approved but change more than one or two things and it’s immediately rejected too. Doesn’t help much with saying “road isn’t here” though.
I tried to report a restaurant as closed. I was looking forward to eating there while out of town. It was empty, had a big CLOSED sign in the window, and was surrounded by construction equipment and road barriers. I took pictures of all of this and they still rejected my edit.
They did approve my addition of a river access in the middle of nowhere, though.
Keep in mind it’s not an all or nothing thing, they’ll assign percentages of fault. It’s also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.
Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.
I imagine Google maps gets it’s data mostly from municipal and regional open data sources which often have downloadable road information.
If that’s the case no one in the city’s GIS department ever disconnected the road to show it was no longer connected, as they may never have been notified since people likely don’t ever think to notify the GIS guys of unplanned changes to road systems.
All signs and barriers kept getting moved/stolen.
If the bridge was no longer there why wasn’t there massive unmovable concrete barriers in the road?
I was as baffled as you are, until I law the location it happened.
Well, could you link it? What about the location makes it obvious that they didn’t plate unmovable concrete barriers?
The article just says there were no barriers placed. There were no pictures but it mentions Snow Creek Lake in North carolina as the location if you want to map it on google.
The OP already linked an article which tells you
The article doesn’t have pictures or mention why there were no barriers, which I think this person is asking.
Ohhhhhhhhhh, my bad. Think I need another coffee!
deleted by creator
I have read because it was a private road, they are legally not allowed to place an unmovable object
That doesn’t make sense. If it’s a private road, wouldn’t that mean you can place whatever you want on it? It’s your road.
The developer never turned over the road to the North Carolina DOT after completion of the subdivision.
Just depends on the “they”. Local government wouldn’t touch it, the owners could have. I’d say it’s a slam dunk case against the owners for exactly that reason. Google ignored numerous reports so they may get some blame too.
This is what I was thinking, suing Google sounds like a cash grab as there’s government agencies and possibly private land owners responsible for putting up barriers and signs warning the bridge is out. Google maps is useful, but you still have to use some sense rather than blindly following it, heck, I’ve run into cases where it can’t figure out how to get to a street (that actually happened yesterday).
Directing people onto a road that has had a collapsed bridge for a decade, despite numerous reports that the bridge is collapsed, does not leave them blameless.
Why, why are they under any obligation to be accurate? I"ve used them since you had to print out the directions, they’ve told me to make illegal turns, go the wrong way down one way streets, use a road with a bridge out, use roads that don’t exist and more, and while annoying, I just rolled with it, because they never promised me anything more than that the directions were prolly accurate.
I am with you 100%. Expecting Google to be responsible for road maintenance is a frivolous. Google will sue them for legal costs.
Absolutely not. Google played a part in causing this death, it might have been a minor part, but it was a party in the death. The court will decide how much.
This isn’t a frivolous claim, this is Google not being able to maintain their maps safely. Google needs to put more resources into map maintenance, and respond when people submit safety issues with their mapping data.
Don’t get tricked by big media the way they did with the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit.
Google was notified for a decade that they had a dangerous route listed. Safety standards aren’t made for people acting perfectly, they’re made for having multiple layers of safety for things that can kill or maime you.
Yes, there is SOME level of personal responsibility, but if Google told 100,000 people to do something dangerous, it’s inevitable that someone would have a combination of factors that caused someone to do it and die.
Google just claims over and over that it’s too big and has too much data to be able to have any sort of customer service or maintenance, and this is the result.
Yes, other people are also responsible, but that’s what the legal system is for, to look at evidence and not headlines and place blame. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google settles out of court on this one and promises to fix their maps.
Google just claims over and over that it’s too big and has too much data
“ok, google. how many pieces should you be sliced into in order to rectify this?”
Well their name ain’t Google no more.
Let’s start with 26 slices.
- Uppercase and lowercase.
This kind of thing is why I hate Google Maps. There is no way to ensure that edits are carried out based on your local knowledge, whereas with OpenStreetMap you can just go make the changes that need to be made. It’s been very satisfying for me to go contribute to OpenStreetMap when I see that paths are added or changed, so that the map reflects reality. Meanwhile Google Maps won’t even move an entire park that is in the wrong place.
Thanks for helping put in some work.
I can edit my street as a dead end to lower bar traffic, cool!
People do check this stuff for vandalism.
You’d still get plenty of traffic from Google Maps, etc.—it would only be the cool people who stopped using your street.
Maps have been around for thousands of years and have always been unreliable. You’d think the legal principles involved would be well explored by now.
Citations Needed podcast did an episode about “frivolous” lawsuits where they talked about the McD coffee lawsuit too: https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-107-pop-torts-and-the-ready-made-virality-of-frivolous-lawsuit-stories
It’s great that people are getting educated on things like this.
Legal Eagle also did a similar episode - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg
What did bid media told public about got coffee lawsuit?
It’s commonly used as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, because everyone knows coffee is hot right? Of course coffee can burn you.
The issue is that this particular coffee was negligently hot, so hot that the victim had third-degree burns on her privates. Also, the victim originally only sought coverage for medical expenses, but instead McD went to court and had to pay out a much larger amount.
Anyone who thinks this lawsuit was frivolous, try to find some of the pictures of her burns.
The media reporting was that is was frivolous, someone burned themselves on coffee and wanted to blame McDonald’s. That wasn’t the full story.
deleted by creator
Well it was super super hot, like you said. It was handed off to some grandma, the lid popped off, and the super hot coffee spilled all over this very old woman’s inner thighs. There were pictures.
Old people have notoriously thin skin. Literally. So this hot-ass coffee burns this old woman’s thin skin, and I think the resulting burns needed to be fixed via hospital visits & maybe surgery. So yeah it wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit.
Here’s an article/video from a local news source that better explains what happened and who the lawsuit calls out as liable for the accident.
Seems there are possibly two entities that could be liable for the accident.
A. The developers…they did not turn over responsibility of roadwork to the NC DOT after the subdivision was completed, and had no road maintenance plan in place. This also means they would be responsible for marking the roadway that the bridge was out.
B. Google…they had multiple requests to change the map to indicate the bridge was out, and they didn’t update their maps. Even Mapquest and Apple Maps have their maps updated.
Thank you for the additional source. So, there wasn’t any signage, barriers, or lighting, AND it was dark and raining AND Google had multiple requests and 10 years to fix it AND other services have it properly marked. Maybe people should slow their roll and stop dismissing the case out of hand?
During Mr Paxson’s journey, the GPS put him on the unfamiliar path of the bridge, which had collapsed almost a decade earlier and was never repaired, the lawsuit said.
He drove off the unguarded edge and crashed about 20 feet below, the lawsuit said.
I don’t understand this at all. Were there no signs telling people that the bridge did not exist, or is the news report omitting some critical detail? If the bridge was like that for a decade, was he the only one to drive off it?
Also, when using navigation, you’re still supposed to be looking at the road and paying attention to what’s happening.
I don’t get how stuff like this happens.
EDIT: Looks like there were no signs that the bridge was out. This really isn’t a “Google problem”, but the municipality should be to blame (unless they did put up a sign that was removed by some lowlife).
EDIT 2: Looking at the accident photo, it appears that the driver would have had to drive through overgrowth to even access this collapsed bridge. This is looking more like inattentiveness than poor navigation. Still trying to find the actual location of the bridge, so I can see what images Google Street View can provide going back since the time of the collapse.
This would be a non-story if they had just sued the city for negligence. But everything is big tech’s fault nowadays.
It was private land, the story is a bit more nuanced than you may think. Someone posted a link to a local article that sheds a lot of light on the matter
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jmYi6euT36iMbMqq7
Think this is the bridge in question which appears fine on Google Street view.
I thought so! You can actually see that the most recent Street view (May, 2023) has barriers, but how can someone miss the gaping hole, even without signs? The driver would have still needed to drive through the overgrowth :/
This is what they would have seen as they approached the bridge:
Yes, barriers should have been put there, but being a low-speed residential area, the driver shouldn’t have missed it. Really strange story, especially putting blame on Google.
EDIT: Barriers were put there, but vandals destroyed them, and they had to be removed ahead of this accident. SOURCE
If he was driving at night in the rain I could imagine that looking like a big dark reflective puddle and not realizing it’s a gaping hole until you’re too close to stop.
No doubt there were other factors at play, but you can’t blame Google for bad weather and poor road visibility, though.
The story here is that the city of Hickory had a responsibility to put barriers and signs up, which they did not. The family is likely going after Google because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, but they have no case.
But shifting the blame wholly onto the driver is also not reasonable. People thinking “lol, Darwin” damned well know that driving at night in a dark, rural area, you’re still going to be driving a decent speed and you might not see something coming. There are classes of problems you have to expect, like wildlife or other vehicles… but there are also classes of things you should not have to worry about, like the map not being updated about a destroyed bridge after 10 years despite having been notified repeatedly.
The city of Hickory bears most of the blame, of course. But the fact that Google does not pay attention when users notify them about dangerous road conditions in their maps is a serious problem, and deserves some responsibility. They can’t say “we didn’t know” when they actively, aggressively choose not to listen.
But shifting the blame wholly onto the driver is also not reasonable.
Of course, safety measures should have been put in place. The problem is that the family seems to be putting blame on everyone else, and that’s also not reasonable.
The city of Hickory bears most of the blame, of course.
Yes, but…
“The barricades were removed after being vandalized and were missing at the time of Paxson’s wreck.” (source)
Really awful circumstances. If the vandals were caught, I’d have them face an involuntary manslaughter charge.
EDIT: Also, this particular bridge was on a private road that had no “ownership”. It actually was NOT the city’s responsibility and the developer of that road apparently dissolved… this just keeps getting worse and worse for the family.
But the fact that Google does not pay attention when users notify them about dangerous road conditions in their maps is a serious problem, and deserves some responsibility. They can’t say “we didn’t know” when they actively, aggressively choose not to listen.
Having mapped for Google for years, that’s just how it is. Missing roads, incorrect routes, addresses that don’t exist, closures that aren’t reflected on the map… all normal stuff for every digital mapping service.
The reality is, Google does not bear any responsibility for what happens during the use of the product. No navigation app/company does. It’s always in their TOS.
The very nature of maps is that they are ever-changing, and never 100% accurate.
Yes, McDonalds coffee is kept at far hotter temperatures then other resteraunts to extend the life of the coffee. Yes, they did know that it had already caused serious burns from spills.
Still, that woman should have known that coffee is hot and not asked for the cost of her medical bills to be paid by McDonalds when she required multiple skin graft surgeries to heal the third degree burns to her genial area. I mean, come on, how could McDonalds by liable for that?
I’m probably just old, but there’s more than one case of an Internet map telling folks to turn somewhere that there was no where to go because the maps aren’t updated. I also used to used the old fashioned paper maps before MapQuest and while those were usually fine, they also don’t help in cases of road closures or construction changes.
Whoever’s responsibile for the road itself (local municipality or state) should have had it blocked off.
the fact that Google does not pay attention when users notify them about dangerous road conditions in their maps is a serious problem,
Again, as someone who grew up using paper maps, this is such a bizarre statement. It’s cool that map companies offer things like speed trap warnings, but I frequently get warnings about stuff and there’s nothing there. You still can’t fully trust what the system is telling you. It’s just a tool.
“Image capture 2012” This is why it shows still intact. The bridge washed out after this street view was taken.
There’s also a big problem with North Carolina’s laws regarding the maintenance of roads. I’m not 100% sure this is the case, but I’d be willing to bet it is. Most other states require developers to get the road certified and adopted by the State Department of Transportation before any homes are sold. In NC, the developer can do this afterward (and they sometimes don’t do it at all). Our neighborhood association found this out the hard way. Over ten years after the first house was sold, we called the DOT for a road repair and were told that our road wasn’t covered. It was because of one form that wasn’t filled out and filed with the State. The crazy thing is that the road is considered a public road (you can’t treat it as private) and the state will not maintain it until you get it certified. If your road has degraded in that time, then you have to pay to get it back up to near-new quality before they will take it over.
Now imagine that instead of just a road to repair, it’s also a road and a bridge. Is the HOA going to be able to raise the money to pay for a bridge repair? Pay for a proper barrier? This type of basic infrastructure should be handled by the state government.
Side political rant- a bill to change these laws has been in committee for years. I don’t think it has ever made it to a vote.
An accident still could have occurred if someone wasn’t using Google maps. This is sad but IMO Google is the least to blame and the focus should be on the entities responsible for maintaining the bridge and road.
Don’t get tricked by the title. The lawsuit isn’t only going after Google, they are just one party in the chain of negligence that led to this death.
I’ve read the article before posting. There’s a small section where it mentions other parties in the lawsuit. That’s why I said there should be a FOCUS on the entities responsible for maintaining the bridge and road. The article makes it seem like Google is primarily responsible.
While I agree other entity have a responsibility to maintain the roads etc. It is thier bloody job after all.
I strongly disagree that they or anyone but the driver have responsibility for watching what they drive onto.
The driver is incharge of the car. If you(for the sake of the point) are driving in any direction. Without knowing what is under your wheels. At the very least you have no right to be driving a car, and should lose your licence. At the worst you can be responsible for killing a child or adult that fell into the road before you arrive, and should lose your freedom.
Transportation authorities etc. Should just lose their job for not doing it. Not take responsibility for you not following the basic legal and moral ruirements of driving a car.
Consider weather, time of day, visibility, reaction time and all those related incident/accident elements.
Then you’ll understand that you would probably have fallen from the fucking bridge as well.
Copnsider as a licenced qualified driver. You are legally responsible for driving a heavy machine that can and dose kill people.
And you will understand. Legally on most of the planet. If condition mean you cannot proceed safely for yourself,. You are risking the life of others and are requiredno to drive. Inconvenience getting wet or being late at your destination in no way excludes you from that legal responsibility.
And as a disabled person with balance and visual impairment ho used to be able to drive. But hnded in my licence as soon as I was unsafe.
I am really getting pissed of with the number of modern drivers who seem to think driving is a right not a responsibility.
When you (for the sake of argument. I am sure you are not this dumb) choose to continue driving when you cannot see if the way ahead is safe. You are clearly indicating that anyone with stability issues of any form. Has in you opinion, no right to be out in public. In case they fall in the road and get knocked out.
Because you are saying if “weather, time of day, visibility, reaction time and all those related incident/accident elements.” Mean I should legally stop driving. I consider the risk to your life. Less important then myself getting to my destination at a reasonable time.
Anybody that has ever driven at night in the rain in a rural area would, per your judgement, not be able to have a license. People do sometimes drive off the road into fields in those circumstances, but a maintained road suddenly being non-existent is not even on the radar (and it is maintained until this point as there are resident’s driveways shortly before the bridge).
Bull shit. They are legally expected to drive at a speed where they can safly stop within there visual range.
If your lights are not showing enough of the road for you to see within your stopping distance ce you are require to slow down. If you cannot drive slow enough to stop. You are required not to drive.
DRIVING IS NOT A FUCKING RIGHT.
Sorry caps were a accident. But I’m leaving it.
they are also in the lawsuit, the article just chose to misleadingly play the less juicy bits down
How would this person survive only a few years ago if they blindly trusted Google Maps completely and absolutely for their physical safety? Google Maps doesn’t turn your steering wheel or press your gas pedal.
Because they’re not blindly trusting Google maps, which is why Google is only one of those in the lawsuit and not the most culpable.
I would usually agree but there was no barriers I am not sure about signage. While I think the driver should always be aware of where they are driving they honestly set him up for failure. On top of that Google had a decade to fix the route and didn’t.
If there was signage, that at a minimum would make it his fault.
From now, i will ask google for every decision I make in my life that way I can sue them if they fuck up.
I hate these billionaire companies, but this aint it.
I live in the PNW and needed to go somewhere past a large mountain in winter. I.E. what roads were plowed and which weren’t mattered. I used google maps, and downloaded the route, cause no cell signal on the mountain.
I started off and it was fine. Used the appropriate highways and such. There is a transition between major highways I’d never used before that I wanted help with, but that was the only bit I was unfamiliar with.
Google ended up trying to get me to take a forest service road that starts off looking good. At this point I know not to listen to it, cause I did know this area and knew that that road, regardless of what it looked like at the entrance, was not safe.
I got out and walked about 100 feet and around a corner, and suddenly it’s 4 feet of snow. It all looked safe at the start. Remember, there is no cell signal and I could easily see getting stuck there and not being able to get help. It looked safe and google was telling me to do it. It feels easy to say, “hurr durr, the driver was stupid.” but that just sounds to me like “hurr durr, that woman with third degree burns should have known McDonalds coffee was as hot as plasma.”
“hurr durr, the driver was stupid.” but that just sounds to me like “hurr durr, that woman with third degree burns should have known McDonalds coffee was as hot as plasma.”
It doesn’t sound like that to me.
One is McDonald’s directly gave her a something that caused the damage.
The other is a guy decided to use maps and didn’t paid attention to where he was going.
“McDonalds was repeatly told that this was a problem” - Google was repeatedly told this bridge was out and to update the maps for OVER A DECADE
“McDonalds gave her something that was that caused the damage” - Google gave this guy the service of maps, with the implication that the maps were up to date, and the speed limit it says the road has is safe.
“If she didn’t spill the coffee she wouldn’t have been burned” - If it hadn’t rained a metric fuck-ton, and been at the dead of night, or the bridge had been properly signed, he wouldn’t have crashed.
You not being able to see the parallels is because you’re intentionally working to not see them. Or, you’re a paid shill. Or, you work for a tech company and Upton Sinclairs quote “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” applies to you.
More “personal responsibility doesn’t exist, sue corporations cause I’m a dumbass” rhetoric.
Google maps is free, it has no SLA or accuracy requirements because you didn’t pay for it. If you’d paid then you’d have a case.
State troopers who found the father-of-two’s body in his truck said there were no barriers or warning signs near the bridge.
[…]
The lawsuit adds that Google had previously been notified about the collapse and several attempts had been made for the route information to be updated.
People should get their priorities right
Sounds like this family should get a nice fat payout from Google and also from the city.
I knew the second I opened the link it was gonna be this.
They should sue the makers of the steering wheel.
Did the steering wheel just fly off?
It flew off and landed on the desk of some ambulance chasing lawyer, as luck would have it.
RIP Alan Tudyk
eh… how many people drove off bridges before google maps was a thing though? if it happened at all they have no case.
If I were the headline writer it’d be “Dead Man Sues Map For Not Being Territory”
deleted by creator
Have you read the article ?
The bridge was destroyed since a decade but still on Google maps. There were no markings, no road blocks, nothing. It was 11pm in a pitch black country side road, the car was a jeep or something like that, aka not the best breaking action on the planet.
You know you are supposed to be able to stop on half the distance you can see ? But do you ?
So now pictures yourself driving in pitch black environment on a road so far up your mom’s ass there’s literally zero chance of seeing another car. It’s 11pm, you’re tired, eager to go home and your gps show you a straight line. On your lights beam you only see road, trees and darkness, you’re probably driving 50kph or more as you don’t feel the bumps on your huge murican style car.
Suddenly the road is darker and you see a huge gap (or maybe you missed it by a few seconds as you were changing radio station or checking your speedometer for half a second).
Add 1 or 2 seconds for your brain to react and you need at least 15 meters to stop, more if you’re driving faster.
Then also account that probably 85% of drivers are not pilots and they never brakes hard enough during an emergency (when they say to crush the brakes pedal with all your strength they mean it).
Result ? You’re probably dead, as well as most everyday drivers in the exact same situation, so here take your free Darwin Award 🥇 🤷🏻♂️
Sky News has a photo of it.
Imagine all that you said, and this is the bridge. It’s not a very big one, if it was in place you wouldn’t likely notice there was even a bridge there.
Result ? You’re probably dead, as well as most everyday drivers in the exact same situation,
Then those drivers are also happily abdicating there responsibility as a responsible driver.
If they hit a child or collapsed adult due to failing to watch where they are going. Who do they blame then.
As a disabled person with balance and vision issues. Attitudes like this are basically stating I and all elderly of physically infirm people, have zero legal right to leave my house. As drivers cannot be expected to watch where they are going if I fall.
The simple fact you and far to many modern drivers forget every day is. You are legally responsible and qualified and licenced when you drive. The fact that conditions make you unsafe t drive. Is in no way overridden by the fact that not getting to drive is incovinient and you are tired. If you cannot see what you are driving towards. You are legally required to stop driving. Not use your multi ton potential killing machine to make your life a littlke less hard.
What the fuck are you on ? It’s like I said “I like sandwiches” and you’re screaming “so you hate pastas!”
I just stated facts and statistics I did not said it was an excuse for killing peoples, that just the hard truth, most drivers are shit while thinking they are not (and I say that as an everyday cyclist).
I don’t fucking care who they blame or who you do when you fuck up, I just don’t like seeing internet experts trashing a dead dad because of a shitty clickbait title.
you suggested a person driving in a dangerous way where he cannot see. Is undeserving of the Darwin award criticism.
So while it may not be your intention. Your lack of consideration is saying exactly that this person has a right to travel in a way that risks killing children.
And that drivers in general should not be held accountable for the requirement to do so safly.
The fact you are to ignorant to consider the full conclusion of your statements. Dose not mean you are free from critisim for them. Or others who may find the inconsideration of you driving advice offensive. (“your probably dead” To someone advising he is responsible for his choices). Dose not mean anyone strongly disagreeing with you must be on drugs.
Your example is flawed. If you’re driving at night in the rain in a rural area and hit a person who runs into the road, you’re not going to be charged and it would be very difficult to show any negligence.
Have you ever left the city?
If you live in the rural areas. So do many elderly. It is entirely possible and not uncommon for folks like me. With balance and vision issue. To fall and get knocked out.
If you are driving in a manor where you cannot see a bridge is out to avoid killing yourself. You are driving in a manner where you cannot see a child or pedestrian. And definatly can’t see someone ill in the road.
And yes you are entirly responsible. In the rural UK where I live. And cities. You are required to travel at a speed where you can safly see within you total stopping distance.
So no my example is far from flawed. My next door niegbours daughter was killed this way in 1988. Amd the driver went to prison. Happens in other cases. But thats the only one I know personally.
Feel free to correct me, but I’m reading “Darwin applies here” as “the guy was too dumb to live longer”, which I think would be pretty insensitive. Regardless, I don’t think it’s fair at all to invoke Darwin here.
This article paints a better picture of the driver’s perspective. It was late at night and rainy, so vision was obscured and allegedly “pitch black”. Furthermore I’d argue the average driver doesn’t have a reason to believe that Google Maps would direct them over a collapsed bridge, much less one that’d collapsed 10 years ago, so it’d be easier to say “Can’t see a damn thing, I’ll trust Maps”.
I obviously don’t know the guy at all, and the details above were taken from the lawsuit afaik so they can make any claim they want, but with so little other information I think it’s fair to paint this more as a tragedy than as “natural selection”, even if you don’t want to hold Google or any of the bridge property managers responsible.
Plus, the guy had a wife and 2 kids, and was driving home late from cleaning up from his daughter’s birthday party; I think he deserves a bit more respect than that.
“Cant see, trust the map and keep driving” is like an even dumber birdbox challenge.
You know something. If vision is poor. You are legally required to slow to the point you can safly stop within your visual range.
If for example its late at night. And some little old lady crossing the road falls and knocks herself out.
As a qualified driver you are responsible if you crush her head. Not h poor old lady. Sorry I could not see her on the road is not an acceptable excuse. If you cannot see whas in front of ou. Your inconvenience in no way outweighs your responsibility as a driver.
The average driver dose not in any way shape or form have a legal right to abdicate their responsibility to google.
If he was driving towards the bridge without the ability to see it was out. He was driving in a way that means any pedestrian was t risk from his actions.
I’m not talking about the level of responsibility he has as the driver of the vehicle, I’m talking about the degree to which it’s okay to mock him (post-mortem, I might add).
It sounds like you’d argue that Google Maps and the bridge managers should win this lawsuit (assuming this even goes to court) under ACDA laws. Maybe you’re right. But there’s a large gap between just saying that, and then also saying “this is natural selection taking its course”.
Say that about the dude that sticks his dick in an electrical socket, or the guy that shoots himself because a magic 8-ball affirmed that he was bullet-proof. Don’t say it about a guy who probably just drove a little too fast, with visibility a little too low, a little too confident that a GPS system wouldn’t guide him over a literal cliff.
As far as I’m concerned, this was a preventable tragedy, yes preventable by more cautious driving, but also by better GPS, or by barricades, or by so much as a visible warning sign.
They will win this lawsuit. Its happe ed multiple times whe folks drove into lakes etc. Was a common issue in the early days of GPS navigation. And is proove n again and again that navigation systems are not responsible for your inability to look where you are driving.
As for bridge repair. Well apparently this was a privrate road. But if not. Whike there is grounds to sue the authority for failing to do thier job. Seems very unlikely they can be held accountable for the inability of the driver to stop within his visual range. I have been licenced (before losing my vision) in both the US and UK. Passing test in both. As crap as the US test was. Stopping distances and the effect rain and visibility has was clearly mentioned i the question pool.
deleted by creator
Look, if the guy was doing 80 on a backroad in pitch black, you’d probably be right, fair?
If the guy was driving a little too fast, so maybe 15-20, and couldn’t imagine GPS would successfully guide him over an un-barricaded, warning sign-less cliff, I think he deserves a little more slack. If you disagree, then take the stand as a character witness in the trial, for all I care.
I fully agree. I also hate Google and will look for any reason to hate on them more, however in this context they aren’t at fault. You’re the one driving and operating the machine. The app is literally “guidance”. It didn’t order him to drive over the bridge 🤣
Google has been told about the bridge being out multiple times and have refused to do anything about it. If you’re so negligent that you keep routing people to a collapsed bridge on a private road, you deserve to be sued.
Nope. As much as I hate Google. You’re in charge of the car. You can’t blame an app for not paying attention to your surroundings.
You can’t blame a company in the GPS industry for directing people to drive over a collapsed bridge while they ignore multiple warnings that the bridge is out in the first place? It happened a decade ago, Google should have fixed it a decade ago.
Also it can be hard to see the surface of the road at a distance at night. By the time he saw the bridge was out, it was probably too late. There’s no lights around the bridge at all.
I’m not saying all of the blame is on Google though, that road should be blocked off/barricaded. However, all of this would’ve been avoided if Google Maps told him to take a right turn instead of a left. All they had to do was listen to the locals telling them that it’s impossible to cross the bridge for a decade. It’s negligence pure and simple and if it hadn’t happened to him, it would be someone else.
