5 ms·

So much negligence here, partly on Google but: “there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway” for a road which was destroyed 9 years be

by tass 3y ago

So much negligence here, partly on Google but: “there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway” for a road which was destroyed 9 years before.

livefox 3y ago
Exactly, Google for sure should have updated it but why had the city or even a concerned neighbor not put a fence or even a log or something there to block access to the bridge? A sign and a temporary barrier would have saved lives here. Hell non-locals might have driven off the thing without GPS help, depending on how the bridge looked from road-level
- avereveard 3y ago
  The kind of person that plows trough bushes likely overlap with the kind that would remove the roadblock.
- whylo 3y ago
  Apparently there were barricades but they'd been removed due to vandalism. No mention of how long they'd been missing though. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article279563759.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/...
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    > But the barricades had been removed after being vandalized ... is this saying that, like, someone graffiti'd the concrete barriers in front of a collapsed bridge, and they took the barriers away leaving the collapsed bridge accessible? I'm trying to figure out how to parse this in a way that makes sense to do.
    - bewaretheirs 3y ago
      Indeed. Slapping a coat of beige paint over the graffiti has got to be easier than moving them.
      - saalweachter 3y ago
        The older article, from 2022, says: > Even barricades that had previously warned drivers not to cross the bridge had been washed away, WCNC reported. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article279563759.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/...
caf 3y ago
It is mind-boggling both that such a piece of destroyed public infrastructure can stay in that state for 9 years, and that no kind of safety barrier or even signage was put in place in that time.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  The part that confuses me is: The North Carolina State Patrol had said the bridge was not maintained by local or state officials, and the original developer’s company had dissolved. So, nobody is maintaining the roads in that neighborhood? It makes very little sense. The roads in my neighborhood are owned and maintained by the neighborhood (not that state or county) and we (the HOA) carry liability insurance.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    maybe there was no neighborhood, just some abandoned area
  - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
    It's the same as your neighborhood, but without the maintenance being performed. My little 15-unit private drive was a single homeowner's 25-acre plot in 1950. Someone built a house in the back, with a long driveway up to it. Then they sold three lots for others to build nearby, then in the 1970s they sold another dozen lots, including mine. In the 80s they pooled some money together and turned the gravel drive into a paved road, still private, we all just have an easement that allows us to drive on it. Now, 40 years later, that paved road needs repaving to the tune of $90,000, because tree roots are breaking it up and it's delaminating in spots from an inadequate repair job a decade ago. But try convincing 10 retirees with limited funds, and 5 families with small children, to each dig in their pockets and come up with $6,000 for a new driveway. Most people have bigger priorities, which is why there's currently a few nasty potholes on the route Google will suggest for you (the only route to my house). This is even worse, because a bridge like that probably costs a lot more than $90,000, and instead of 14 out of 15 people driving over it every day, most of the neighborhood residents don't need it.
yreg 3y ago
Why partly on Google? In my opinion it is obvious that marking / blocking off unsafe roads should be the full responsibility of a public institution. They cannot hand over any part of that responsibility to Google. What if someone drove through there without using a navigation / map? What if someone drove through there using an offline satnav with outdated maps? I would hope Google (or OpenStreetMaps!) is not legally responsible to keep their maps 100% updated and accurate, since it's impossible to do that.
- hef19898 3y ago
  All car mounted navigation systems have the driver confirm, paraphrased, that they are aware the save operation of the vehicle is their sole responsibility.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- freejazz 3y ago
  Because they knew they were directing drivers to a collapsed bridge for 2 years and did nothing about it. Sure enough, someone eventually went over it. There is no legal principle saying that both Google and the municipality can't be jointly liable.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Nine years, not two, according to the article.
    - debugnik 3y ago
      Two years prior they were notified of the issue by email. Nine years prior the bridge collapsed.
  - cromwellian 3y ago
    What if the guy was using paper maps? If this was 30 years ago would paper nap publisher be liable? When you are driving, you’re responsible for being aware of the road. If you drive over a dangerous road that has no visible signs of it being dangerous, then it’s the government’s fault, or if a private road, the owner’s fault.

by tass 3y ago

So much negligence here, partly on Google but: “there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway” for a road which was destroyed 9 years before.

livefox 3y ago

Exactly, Google for sure should have updated it but why had the city or even a concerned neighbor not put a fence or even a log or something there to block access to the bridge? A sign and a temporary barrier would have saved lives here. Hell non-locals might have driven off the thing without GPS help, depending on how the bridge looked from road-level

avereveard 3y ago
The kind of person that plows trough bushes likely overlap with the kind that would remove the roadblock.
whylo 3y ago
Apparently there were barricades but they'd been removed due to vandalism. No mention of how long they'd been missing though. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article279563759.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/...
- saalweachter 3y ago
  > But the barricades had been removed after being vandalized ... is this saying that, like, someone graffiti'd the concrete barriers in front of a collapsed bridge, and they took the barriers away leaving the collapsed bridge accessible? I'm trying to figure out how to parse this in a way that makes sense to do.
  - bewaretheirs 3y ago
    Indeed. Slapping a coat of beige paint over the graffiti has got to be easier than moving them.
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      The older article, from 2022, says: > Even barricades that had previously warned drivers not to cross the bridge had been washed away, WCNC reported. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article279563759.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/...

caf 3y ago

It is mind-boggling both that such a piece of destroyed public infrastructure can stay in that state for 9 years, and that no kind of safety barrier or even signage was put in place in that time.

alistairSH 3y ago
The part that confuses me is: The North Carolina State Patrol had said the bridge was not maintained by local or state officials, and the original developer’s company had dissolved. So, nobody is maintaining the roads in that neighborhood? It makes very little sense. The roads in my neighborhood are owned and maintained by the neighborhood (not that state or county) and we (the HOA) carry liability insurance.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  maybe there was no neighborhood, just some abandoned area
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  It's the same as your neighborhood, but without the maintenance being performed. My little 15-unit private drive was a single homeowner's 25-acre plot in 1950. Someone built a house in the back, with a long driveway up to it. Then they sold three lots for others to build nearby, then in the 1970s they sold another dozen lots, including mine. In the 80s they pooled some money together and turned the gravel drive into a paved road, still private, we all just have an easement that allows us to drive on it. Now, 40 years later, that paved road needs repaving to the tune of $90,000, because tree roots are breaking it up and it's delaminating in spots from an inadequate repair job a decade ago. But try convincing 10 retirees with limited funds, and 5 families with small children, to each dig in their pockets and come up with $6,000 for a new driveway. Most people have bigger priorities, which is why there's currently a few nasty potholes on the route Google will suggest for you (the only route to my house). This is even worse, because a bridge like that probably costs a lot more than $90,000, and instead of 14 out of 15 people driving over it every day, most of the neighborhood residents don't need it.

yreg 3y ago

Why partly on Google? In my opinion it is obvious that marking / blocking off unsafe roads should be the full responsibility of a public institution. They cannot hand over any part of that responsibility to Google. What if someone drove through there without using a navigation / map? What if someone drove through there using an offline satnav with outdated maps? I would hope Google (or OpenStreetMaps!) is not legally responsible to keep their maps 100% updated and accurate, since it's impossible to do that.

hef19898 3y ago
All car mounted navigation systems have the driver confirm, paraphrased, that they are aware the save operation of the vehicle is their sole responsibility.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
freejazz 3y ago
Because they knew they were directing drivers to a collapsed bridge for 2 years and did nothing about it. Sure enough, someone eventually went over it. There is no legal principle saying that both Google and the municipality can't be jointly liable.
- jjulius 3y ago
  Nine years, not two, according to the article.
  - debugnik 3y ago
    Two years prior they were notified of the issue by email. Nine years prior the bridge collapsed.
- cromwellian 3y ago
  What if the guy was using paper maps? If this was 30 years ago would paper nap publisher be liable? When you are driving, you’re responsible for being aware of the road. If you drive over a dangerous road that has no visible signs of it being dangerous, then it’s the government’s fault, or if a private road, the owner’s fault.