251
submitted 1 year ago by Syldon@feddit.uk to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 104 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] silvershrimp0@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] digitalgadget@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] offbyone@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

All signs and barriers kept getting moved/stolen.

[-] peter@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago

If the bridge was no longer there why wasn't there massive unmovable concrete barriers in the road?

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 95 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 43 points 1 year ago

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?"

[-] Pronell@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Well their name ain't Google no more.

Let's start with 26 slices.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] inasaba@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jsdz@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 67 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] rifugee@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 1 year ago

This would be a non-story if they had just sued the city for negligence. But everything is big tech's fault nowadays.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jmYi6euT36iMbMqq7

Think this is the bridge in question which appears fine on Google Street view.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 16 points 1 year ago

September 30, 2022 in Hickory, NC it rained 5 inches. That is a shit load of rain. It doesn't say when he was driving home, but from 5 PM to 7 PM, it rained 1.7 inches, the peak of the storm. Driving through a wooded, unlit area in a torrential downpour... I'd wager you're right.

Article also says he drowned. In this little creek:

Yeah, it was raining hard.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

This is the actual scene.

The overgrowth would have been visible ahead of the bridge, even in rain. I wonder if any dashcam was on board and if speed was also a factor.

[-] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

He wasn't found until the next morning, so that's not a great indicator of what it would have looked like as he was driving. A few comments up is a picture showing the approach he came from is not nearly as overgrown, also.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

"Image capture 2012" This is why it shows still intact. The bridge washed out after this street view was taken.

[-] Slappula@lemmy.zip 31 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Snazzy@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Snazzy@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 12 points 1 year ago

they are also in the lawsuit, the article just chose to misleadingly play the less juicy bits down

[-] mojo@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SirStumps@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] gomp@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
251 points (90.1% liked)

World News

32349 readers
565 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS