162
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
162 points (93.1% liked)
World News
32349 readers
413 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Well it seems clear who is actually to blame here.
Seems like most of the blame goes there but
It's collapsed a decade ago and they've even tried to get Google to mark it so on their maps, unsuccessfully. Google must have some responsibility to the maps and routing.
No they don't. Christ 🤦♂️.
It's 100% on the local government to handle that shit. There are hundreds of sources for map data and I bet you most of them aren't up to date.
Google Maps gave incorrect routing advice resulting (on their part) in a person's death. It was a decade out of date, it had been brought to their attention and they did nothing. They still used that data in their routing. Obviously they have some sort of responsibility here imo.
Idk why you think I'd think differently if it was some other company, routing provider etc. If it was a municipal roadside map that showed that you're free to drive off that bridge then it would be the same. Or even a private roadside tourism map.
Nope.
If the bridge had collapsed a few hours ago. No one would know. Due to this being a real risk. Just like anyone reading an older paper map. The driver of any car is entirely responsible for looking where they are going. Not some 3rd party navigation source.
Evidence that google is crap. In no way shape or form makes them legally responsible for your visual attention while driving. You are.
And google has faced these cases in a number of nations. Through out the erly addoption of GPS navigation in the 2000s. We saw many cases of folks driving into lakes and rivers. Because they were stupid enouth to trust the GPS system. Rather then use the minimal common sense of watching where they are driving.
Google map quest and all others never faced and requirement to take responsibility for drivers inability to drive.
After a decade. The local authority bears responsibility for failing to signpost. Or hell fix th fucking bridge. But even then nope if your driving, how long its been down. In no way relieves you of the standard job. Of watching where the hell you are going. Just means the local auth need to lose there jobs/ 10 years ago.
Guess what. Old folks crossing the road and falling over. Can happen with little notice. But if you come around a corner. And are not paying attention to the road. The fact that a little old lady fell and knocked herself out. Guess who is legally responsible for failing to drive safly when you crush the poor ladies head.
As someone with mobility and vision issues. Who is at high risk of losing my balance when travelling. It really fucks me off how many drivers fail to realise. They are responsible for driving a multi ton potential killing machine. And share the environment with the whole of society.
As soon as they abdicate that responsibility. Thay are basically saying people like me must remain locked in our houses.
Of course they had a part in the death. They routed him over a broken bridge. That's their part of it. And not fixing the map after being told about the issue. Thinking they didn't have any part in this seems bizarre.
There's two problems here.
Firstly the map is out of date.
Secondly the road wasn't blocked off.
The map been out of date is not criminal there's no legal requirement that maps are accurate. However there is a legal requirement that a road is blocked off.
It's the state that's ultimately responsible not some GPS company. The above response right, how does it make any difference how long the bridge has been out for? Google aren't actually responsible for updating a section of their map, Yes it would be great if they would do it, but they're not actually legally required to do it.
"It's not criminal so they didn't have any part or responsibility" is something I don't understand. Of course the routing was part of the reason this happened. Municipality's/landowner's part is how they hadn't closed to road, put up signage etc. Google's part is the bad routing. Driver's part is well, the ultimately the driving. Thinking the routing had no part in the death just doesn't make sense to me.
Ample time and opportunity to fix it, even being told about the issue. Of course the time makes a difference, if the bridge had collapsed 15 minutes prior then it would be less bad on Google's side for not having made the change.
Of course there's responsibility for the bad routing, even if they're not legally required to update the map/routing. I doubt the case against Google goes anywhere but to me it seems obvious they share a part of the responsibility for their routing.
You're expectations of Google would be like demanding that the map company who printed maps must provide a free, updated map every time that the roads change. Life doesn't work that way - sometimes people need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.
NAL, but I think part of it is that Google does update its map regularly (you see the latest edition whenever you access it online)
Where Google arguably failed was, despite having a system to report discrepancies which people used for this collapsed bridge, Google failed to make the routing changes that could be reasonably expected by 5+ years. They could have used some combination of satellite images, user reports, the Google car etc.
Even if you were to compare it to paper media: If you published a new edition twice a year, you had incorrect information, people reported it to you yet you still failed to correct it for 10+ editions and it causes harm to someone, then as a publisher you may be liable.
No it isn't? My expectation is that if someone guides someone poorly then of course they have some responsibility and part in their death. Honestly it's simple as that and it just seems like common sense.
Yes it very literally is.
A driver has ultimate responsibility for where they drive their car, that's not up for debate.
Google is providing guidance, sure, but the driver, by virtue of being present, having eyes and a brain, and controlling the fucking vehicle is the one responsible for where the vehicle goes.
You may have a (very good) point if this was a self driving car and Google was partially or wholly responsible for the actual motion of the vehicle.
But that's not what happened.
Google's guidance is nothing more than them saying, "Based on our data, this is the route we think you should take." Obviously the driver has better data on local conditions than Google.
That being said, local authorities are to blame for improper signage and safety features. While Google isn't responsible for road conditions and safety, some government or another absolutely is, and they are absolutely a valid target for a lawsuit, as they should be.
That you think Google shoulders blame in this is actually kind of a sad commentary on how some of society views personal responsibility.
I just told you how you misunderstood what I expected and you still insist on understanding me. That's funny.
There's not just one person responsible for this. Driver, municipality, Google are all responsible in different amounts.
Yeah and they're responsible for giving bad guidance, same as the municipality is responsible for not closing down the route and the driver for mistakes they made.
You completely misunderstood me. I take part of the responsibility (lol) for it.
If I buy a map I don't just drive down the road not looking out the window. The bridge could have washed out that night I would never expect a map to cover that a map is for planning a route...I would be pissed off that it had led me down a dead end and I had to stop and turn around so I might ask for money back on the map but the death and driving off a road is not on the map
Well duh
Not their problem. You can expand your definition of liability ad-nausium.
Bizarre thinking. Some rest stop owner puts up a tourist map pointing someone off a bridge and they wouldn't hold any responsibility in your mind, not a tiny bit of moral responsibility if someone drove off the bridge while following the map's advice?
In what world are you holding corporations to moral rather than legal definitions? This is about legal liability.
You don't think corporations have any sort of moral responsibility? That's fucked up, ngl. Of course corporations should have moral responsibility for their actions (or inaction).
I said "some responsibility". You mentioned legal liability. I think there's lots more to responsibility than just who is legally liable. To me that seems like a no brainer.
This is an article about being sued. If your want to change the scope you should be specific to what you're expanding too.
And no, corporations are run by thousands of people all with a wide and diverse definition of ethical. I do not place ethical standards on them whatsoever. I expect them to act within the legal limits of the country of operation and what public opinion will tolerate. To expect anything otherwise is silly.
I just talked about responsibility. It by default is a wider thing than just legal responsibility.
That's fucking grim.
What is that public opinion based on if not in part on moral judgement?
The public is happy to buy from companies that engage in unethical behavior. There is a higher bar that is tolerated before consumers will stop purchasing products however.
I just meant that that's often morality based, as in general public holds companies to some moral standard. Often it's a fairly low standard though, as you've pointed out.
Thanks for the warning.
As much as I disagree with the idea that corporations don't have a moral responsibility I suggest you read their comment anyway, since otherwise the convo doesn't make much sense.
You're confused.
Sure am. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that someone giving someone directions would have zero part in the eventual accident when those directions were faulty.
You should keep trying, because that is the only logical conclusion.
You think it's logical to say someone giving directions had no part in what happened? Zero part, had nothing to do it?
Right... Logical.
Having a part and being responsible are two very different things. You are moving the bar 🤣.
They obviously have responsibility for their part... 🤦♂️
You previously replied to me asking if they have no part and said "that is the only logical conclusion"... If you didn't get what I meant you should've probably mentioned this moving the bar then and not after you gave a silly answer to the question. Better look if nothing else.
haha what