5 ms·

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

by sfn42 3y ago

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.

xzsinu 3y ago
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.
- 3seashells 3y ago
  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.
  - mu53 3y ago
    [dead]
  - sfn42 3y ago
    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.
    - 3seashells 3y ago
      9 years not used once is not infrequently
      - sfn42 3y ago
        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.
        3seashells 3y ago
        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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
netsharc 3y ago
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...
RugnirViking 3y ago
> 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
- andrewjf 3y ago
  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.
  - thatguy0900 3y ago
    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.
- sfn42 3y ago
  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.
2devnull 3y ago
They market their product as a real time navigation application. They are 100% liable.
- atkailash 3y ago
  [dead]

by sfn42 3y ago

xzsinu 3y ago

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.

3seashells 3y ago
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.
- mu53 3y ago
  [dead]
- sfn42 3y ago
  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.
  - 3seashells 3y ago
    9 years not used once is not infrequently
    - sfn42 3y ago
      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.
      - 3seashells 3y ago
        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.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

netsharc 3y ago

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...

RugnirViking 3y ago

> 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

andrewjf 3y ago
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.
- thatguy0900 3y ago
  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.
sfn42 3y ago
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.

2devnull 3y ago

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

atkailash 3y ago
[dead]