Hacker News Reader

Comment by sfn42 | Hacker News Reader

I completely agree that the bridge should have been blocked off. After 9 years it shouldn't be a couple traffic cones (or nothing), it should be a solid barrier. This is on the local road authority.

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.

View on HN

At some level, Google puts these expectations on itself. Features like live traffic updates, road closures and breaking news highlighted on the map tell the average user that they are a reliable source of up-to-date information about something as safety critical as the state of the roads. They use this perception to build market advantage. You can't do that and simultaneously blame the end user for not compensating for being misled, and it looks especially bad when the end user trusted you and died. If every route calculation was forced to directly tell the user "this is not a reliable source of information about your route, please use precaution," that would be a win. But Google probably wouldn't like being forced to call themselves out like that.

And they can track vehicles. A graph node on which for mine years no human has gotten from a to b should be algorithmically flagged as unusable.

At best it would have to be flagged for review, at which point someone would have to check it somehow. Otherwise you'd end up deleting a bunch of totally fine roads that simply aren't frequently used by people who send their locations to Google.

9 years not used once is not infrequently

You seem confused. A road can be used by people who aren't sending their location to Google.

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.

In many countries there is mandatory road service by the state or logging companies.. And by now everyone has phones. Every road use able is used, if not by normal traffic, then by tourists, hunters, smugglers. The fear is that the obvious omnipresent surveillance of the panopticon and previeous accidents could open up surveillance companies to lawsuits. Cause they could have known..

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.

> They can't keep their map of the entire world 100% updated, that is literally impossible.

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

Yes, TFA claims google was notified repeatedly:

> Local residents had repeatedly contacted Google to have them change their online maps after the bridge collapsed in 2013, the suit claims.

I'm really curious what the actual Google policy on user corrections is. My apartment complex is all mislabeled when it comes to what numbers are in what buildings. When I moved in I entered corrections a few times (and I have to assume I wasn't the only one), yet a year later it remains unchanged.

I don't know the relevant laws for this case so I can't say anything about what a court might decide. I'm just stating my opinion.

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.

Google is not responsible for having immediate, omniscient knowledge of traffic hazards. They are responsible for heeding user-submitted warnings in a reasonably timely fashion, using the systems that they created specifically to do that.

That doesn't mean the distracted driver is blameless. More than one party can share blame.

Yes, Google is responsible for administrating their own app.

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.

> Yes, Google is responsible for administrating their own app. > > No, Google does not have any obligation to do so. They are providing an extremely valuable service for free.

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.

I think there were a few things going on here that make me more sympathetic to the driver:

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".

1. All the more reason to be on the lookout for kids in the road etc.

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.

they don't have to do the entire world but America would be a good start

In my experience, Google's update made my normal route shittier, for years it would show me the correct route, but one day it decided "Turn left here, drive straight a bit and drive down a set of stairs" is the better route...

They market their product as a real time navigation application. They are 100% liable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com