Google accused of directing motorist to drive off collapsed bridge
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
The guy died. His family want answers on exactly how it was that a bridge that had already collapsed was just left collapsed with a road leading to it with no barrier or roadsigns, both in the real world and in apps.
They also sued the people responsible for the physical roadsigns and barriers, which were missing at the time of the accident.
Exactly how negligent people may or may not have been will surely come out in court. They'll hear whether people tried to warn google that it was broken, and what happened to any such communications.
As for Google, absolutely no liability. They can't keep their map of the entire world 100% updated, that is literally impossible. Yes, they could have fixed it in 9 years but that's irrelevant. It could have collapsed the day before, there would be almost no chance for Google to update their maps and the guy would still be dead. It would just be more obvious that it's his own fault.
You use maps for directions, some times they're wrong and they can't always be totally up to date. You have to deal with that. You are the operator of the vehicle, it is entirely your responsibility to make sure you are operating it safely regardless of what an app says, or what signs and barriers are present.
I would also be surprised if every single road in the world has seen usage in the past decade. I'm sure there's a whole bunch of roads that just aren't ever used any more. Doesn't mean they won't be useful in the future. Doesn't mean they should be removed from maps.
Implementing your suggested algorithm would probably make the map less accurate, not more accurate.
Can not have surveillance capitalism without the liability.. Have your cake and eat it. The family is right to sue apple and Google.. If you saw, and you could have known, being a beeping Tom as buisness model makes you liable.
That's kinda what im saying though. There is such a range of possibilities. It could have happened the day before and there was no way to know -> no liability
It could also be true that people tried in vain to get their attention about it multiple times over months and google didnt change it despite being made aware it was dangerous -> potentially some liability depending on other factors
Societally, thats the purpose of filing the suit - to find out
> Local residents had repeatedly contacted Google to have them change their online maps after the bridge collapsed in 2013, the suit claims.
Google Maps being wrong is not dangerous. It's an inconvenience. There can be absolutely no expectation that Google Maps is correct. Routes are generated automatically by complex algorithms working on imperfect data. I'm sure if anyone gave a shit they'd find this type of warning in some TOS or whatever.
People driving recklessly is dangerous. If you drive off a collapsed bridge you were driving recklessly. There is no way that happens if you drive responsibly. You are literally trying to drive onto a bridge that does not exist, you can't see any bridge there but you are trying to drive onto it anyway. There are two ways I can see this happening. Either you were looking away (generally phone) for multiple seconds without properly looking ahead, or you were going much much faster than you should given the conditions.
Google can, in my opinion, not be held responsible for reckless drivers who happen to be using their app.
That doesn't mean the distracted driver is blameless. More than one party can share blame.
Yes, Google definitely should update their maps when notified of errors.
No, Google does not have any obligation to do so. They are providing an extremely valuable service for free.
No, Google does not hold any blame in this case. The moron who drove off a collapsed bridge because he was (probably) busy looking at his phone holds the blame.
Google Maps generates routes based on complex algorithms and an absolutely enormous amount of imperfect data. It is not always reliable, nor is there any promise that it will be reliable. It's a tool that usually works. When it doesn't, you figure it out and deal with it.
Which is it? Are they responsible, or are they not?
The fact that it's free does not absolve them of any moral obligations. (Besides which, it's not "free," it's ad-supported. You're implying that they should get points for their selflessness in providing this service to the world, but that's not what they're doing.)
> The moron who drove off a collapsed bridge because he was (probably) busy looking at his phone holds the blame.
Why make assumptions when there's information readily available? Look at picture in the article. This was a narrow gap in an unlit, unpainted road in the forest, at night, in the rain. The guardrails were still up. Even if you were tightly focused on the road and driving at a reasonable speed, it could easily look like nothing more than a dark spot in a dark road.
The greatest blame probably ought to fall on the local authorities that didn't properly block off the road. But, again, there doesn't have to be just one bad guy.
1. The picture in the article makes it seem like the bridge is located in a very residential spot where you might have your guard down.
2. The article mentions it was dark and raining when the accident occurred.
3. The driver was in an unfamiliar neighborhood, and in those times, I think many, many people have gotten very used to relying on Google/Apple Maps to "get you home without directing you into a creek".
2. All the more reason to slow down, you can't drive if you can't see.
3. All the more reason to slow down. Especially if you have to spend time looking at the map.
Yes, it was a more difficult driving experience than a familiar road on a sunny day. So you slow down. That's what being a responsible driver means. If you just gun it with no idea what's up ahead you're going to end up in a river or worse, hurt someone else.
Ultimately, the final responsibility is the driver's, but there's very severe neglect on the part of the local government to allow the bridge to be unmarked and unsigned.
Some of the other comments here already touch on who may be the more liable party other than Google. The public works department seemed to have played a game of passing around the 'accountability ball' which contributed to a tragic event.
These cases generally take a pretttty long time to come to actually come to a close and it's an absolutely surreal and bleak experience the entire time.
> The lawsuit is also suing three local companies, arguing they had a duty to maintain the bridge.
Did the vandals steal the barriers? Or did the community remove the barriers temporarily? Sounds like this is where the blame should be targeted.
You can see it you move out to the main road which has an more recent 2023 street view image.
Sure Google could also have done basic map due diligence. Sure, barriers could have been kept up. But this isn't much functionally different than a tree falling across the road, flooding, sinkholes, or other similar hazards.
You gotta watch the damned road if you're driving, NOT YOUR PHONE.
If you choose to drive blind that's on you.
I am aware that many people drive recklessly. That doesn't change the fact that when they do so, they are neglecting their responsibility to keep themselves and others safe. When their recklessness has consequences, they have to face those consequences.
Maybe if they survive and are rational people they will look inwards and understand that they could have avoided it had they taken their responsibility more seriously.
This isn't a "no one does that" arm wavy topic. This is literally, in every sense of the word life and death. When you drive recklessly you endanger the health and lives of yourself and everyone around you. This is an extremely serious responsibility, traffic is responsible for the vast majority of deaths in modern society. Almost all of those deaths are caused by recklessness and neglect.
I have known many people who have died in traffic. Some due to their own recklessness, others due to others' recklessness. I also know a man who has to live the rest of his life with the burden of having killed a 15 year old girl on her birthday, because him and his buddy wanted to race on public roads.
I have absolutely no patience or sympathy for reckless drivers. Recklessness is a spectrum, obviously driving drunk or racing is more reckless than driving a too fast for the conditions but within the speed limit. But both are reckless. Both cost lives every day.
Again, if driving conditions prevent you from seeing too far down the road, either go slower or quit driving. It is your responsibility that you see what the road conditions are, and how to manage them. And in this case, the guy was too busy glued to his phone and died because of it.
Blame and lawsuits and cash payments dont bring back human lives.
Blame and lawsuits are often effective ways at solving problems, including preventing future deaths, such as, for example, smoking being advertised as healthy.
Personal responsibility does not solve all problems.