5 ms·

The bridge in question is about a mile from my house. I'm pretty sure the road it's on is not publicly maintained, as it's just a street within a neighborhood.

by Merad 3y ago

The bridge in question is about a mile from my house. I'm pretty sure the road it's on is not publicly maintained, as it's just a street within a neighborhood. And that's a neighborhood that doesn't have a HOA, so I don't know if anyone is actually legally responsible for maintaining the road or bridge.

jedberg 3y ago
There is always someone responsible. If it's private land, there is an owner of the land. If it's public land, then at the very least the county or city is responsible.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  Well, the land is owned by Strip of Land Holdings 123. But they have a contractual relationship with Bridges 876 Inc to maintain the bridge, and the owners of Bridges 876 Inc are to be found at a PO box in the Cayman Islands. Hang around outside the post office down there long enough and I'm sure you'll see the owners pop up.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    No one would care about Bridges 876. They would sue Strip of Land Holdings 123 as the owner of the property, and SoLH123 would have to send someone to represent them in court. If they didn't, the would loose, and then loose their land in the judgement. Eventually the person would be made whole somehow, and the responsible person would be found.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
      You are correct, but /u/cool_dude85 is making a movie reference to a chain of holding companies created to obfuscate ownership to avoid just this situation.
      - quazar 3y ago
        This is not Reddit.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >There is always someone responsible. I think what you're trying to say and left off is "outside of the person who had the event occur with them" And in that case, no quite often state laws will absolve responsibility from any potential stakeholders. Agricultural liability laws in many midwestern states are an example of that. https://www.inwoodlands.org/new_indiana_law_limits_liabili/ https://www.inwoodlands.org/new_indiana_law_limits_liabili/
- BubbleRings 3y ago
  Ethically? There are many people in that town partially responsible. There is no way I would live in a town for a year, where I knew a situation like that was in place, without stacking old cinderblocks or dragging a fallen tree across the road, on both sides. Sheesh. "Not my job" gone wild.
turtlebits 3y ago
If it's private, it should mean there is no street sign or marked as private. I'd be curious how the driver even got onto the road. IMO road hazards should be the responsibility of the property owner, what if someone got lost or even used to road to turn around?
- petsfed 3y ago
  I have been directed by google down roads marked "private". I have been directed by google down roads that weren't actually roads. When I was in Arches National Park, I noticed google trying to direct me to take an actual jeep trail instead of a paved road. Like, big sign at the turn out that said "high clearance, 4wd required. Do not attempt when wet" (the jeep trail actually crossed a river, which at that time was about 3 feet deep). And when i deliberately modified my path on my phone to not go down the jeep trail, within 2 miles of driving, google maps helpfully interrupted its own directions to say "we've found a route that will save you 30 minutes. If you don't want to take the new route, press ignore", which directed me back to the fucking jeep trail. I feel like Google does have some culpability here, since they make it so hard to actually avoid hazards while still using their tool. Like, how is there not an option to just avoid dirt roads the way I can avoid toll roads? I don't dispute that it is ultimately the driver's responsibility to validate the program's outputs. But if the only way to use the app at all is to not validate the outputs, then I don't think a single line clause in the EULA is sufficient to shield google from liability.
  - arp242 3y ago
    A few years back there was a story where Google Maps would frequently guide people through a steep narrow street which really wasn't intended for this kind of traffic, creating a dangerous situation for both drivers and residents because this road really wasn't designed or intended for heavy thoroughfare. Residents complained to Google. Google them to go pound sand and that there isn't anything they can do. Quite frankly I'm having a hard time explaining the difference between "knowingly putting people in a dangerous situation" and "accidentally putting people in a dangerous situation and then refusing to fix it". I guess it's easy to enough to ignore these kind of externalities if they're not happening at your front door every day... I can forgive the routing mistake, which is an understandable one to make. What I can't forgive is the "well, not our problem". If you're going to make a GPS guidance app then you also need to take responsibility for what it tells people. Mistakes are okay. Pretending mistakes have nothing to do with you is not. All of that said, I find it hard to really judge this situation based on the provided information; the key question is "could Google reasonably have done better?" However, in the past Google Maps has definitely demonstrated that it doesn't take these concerns very serious and it's 100% worth a serious investigation in both this specific siltation but also whether Google Maps in general takes enough reasonable precautions to prevent this kind of thing.
ConceptJunkie 3y ago
So is it obvious that the bridge is out? Did the incident occur at night, and was visibility poor? As much as I hate Google, I find it hard to believe they should be held accountable before whoever owns the road with a bridge to nowhere that isn't marked or blocked off.
- in_cahoots 3y ago
  The article states that the accident occurred at 11pm, and there were no barriers to the bridge. A concrete barrier was put up by local residents after the accident. It sounds like nobody wanted to put up any warnings, because they might then assume some responsibility for the bridge itself. Tragic.
  - cwmma 3y ago
    there where barricades but they had been taken down due to "vandalism"
- Merad 3y ago
  The road is pretty steep on either side of the bridge and it's a small one lane (IIRC) bridge. At night I definitely think it could be difficult to see that the bridge was out until it was too late. Edit: According to articles linked elsewhere in the comments the bridge was privately owned and the owners are being sued along with Google. As far as ownership, I am no expert but I think the land under the road would be government owned (not sure if state, county, or city) because there's a public right-of-way to ensure houses in the subdivision have access to public roads. However in the absence of a HOA the property owners within the subdivision are collectively responsible for road maintenance. It's part of the paperwork when you buy a house. But I don't know if they're required to maintain it to a specific standard... And in this particular case the neighborhood in question is pretty middle class (middle class in a LCOL area). I'm guessing a bridge repair isn't cheap, so it's very plausible that the neighborhood literally couldn't afford it. This definitely seems like a thorny topic, not something where it's easy to lay the blame at the feet one individual or entity.

by Merad 3y ago

jedberg 3y ago

There is always someone responsible. If it's private land, there is an owner of the land. If it's public land, then at the very least the county or city is responsible.

cool_dude85 3y ago
Well, the land is owned by Strip of Land Holdings 123. But they have a contractual relationship with Bridges 876 Inc to maintain the bridge, and the owners of Bridges 876 Inc are to be found at a PO box in the Cayman Islands. Hang around outside the post office down there long enough and I'm sure you'll see the owners pop up.
- jedberg 3y ago
  No one would care about Bridges 876. They would sue Strip of Land Holdings 123 as the owner of the property, and SoLH123 would have to send someone to represent them in court. If they didn't, the would loose, and then loose their land in the judgement. Eventually the person would be made whole somehow, and the responsible person would be found.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
    You are correct, but /u/cool_dude85 is making a movie reference to a chain of holding companies created to obfuscate ownership to avoid just this situation.
    - quazar 3y ago
      This is not Reddit.
pixl97 3y ago
>There is always someone responsible. I think what you're trying to say and left off is "outside of the person who had the event occur with them" And in that case, no quite often state laws will absolve responsibility from any potential stakeholders. Agricultural liability laws in many midwestern states are an example of that. https://www.inwoodlands.org/new_indiana_law_limits_liabili/ https://www.inwoodlands.org/new_indiana_law_limits_liabili/
BubbleRings 3y ago
Ethically? There are many people in that town partially responsible. There is no way I would live in a town for a year, where I knew a situation like that was in place, without stacking old cinderblocks or dragging a fallen tree across the road, on both sides. Sheesh. "Not my job" gone wild.

turtlebits 3y ago

If it's private, it should mean there is no street sign or marked as private. I'd be curious how the driver even got onto the road. IMO road hazards should be the responsibility of the property owner, what if someone got lost or even used to road to turn around?

petsfed 3y ago
I have been directed by google down roads marked "private". I have been directed by google down roads that weren't actually roads. When I was in Arches National Park, I noticed google trying to direct me to take an actual jeep trail instead of a paved road. Like, big sign at the turn out that said "high clearance, 4wd required. Do not attempt when wet" (the jeep trail actually crossed a river, which at that time was about 3 feet deep). And when i deliberately modified my path on my phone to not go down the jeep trail, within 2 miles of driving, google maps helpfully interrupted its own directions to say "we've found a route that will save you 30 minutes. If you don't want to take the new route, press ignore", which directed me back to the fucking jeep trail. I feel like Google does have some culpability here, since they make it so hard to actually avoid hazards while still using their tool. Like, how is there not an option to just avoid dirt roads the way I can avoid toll roads? I don't dispute that it is ultimately the driver's responsibility to validate the program's outputs. But if the only way to use the app at all is to not validate the outputs, then I don't think a single line clause in the EULA is sufficient to shield google from liability.
- arp242 3y ago
  A few years back there was a story where Google Maps would frequently guide people through a steep narrow street which really wasn't intended for this kind of traffic, creating a dangerous situation for both drivers and residents because this road really wasn't designed or intended for heavy thoroughfare. Residents complained to Google. Google them to go pound sand and that there isn't anything they can do. Quite frankly I'm having a hard time explaining the difference between "knowingly putting people in a dangerous situation" and "accidentally putting people in a dangerous situation and then refusing to fix it". I guess it's easy to enough to ignore these kind of externalities if they're not happening at your front door every day... I can forgive the routing mistake, which is an understandable one to make. What I can't forgive is the "well, not our problem". If you're going to make a GPS guidance app then you also need to take responsibility for what it tells people. Mistakes are okay. Pretending mistakes have nothing to do with you is not. All of that said, I find it hard to really judge this situation based on the provided information; the key question is "could Google reasonably have done better?" However, in the past Google Maps has definitely demonstrated that it doesn't take these concerns very serious and it's 100% worth a serious investigation in both this specific siltation but also whether Google Maps in general takes enough reasonable precautions to prevent this kind of thing.

ConceptJunkie 3y ago

So is it obvious that the bridge is out? Did the incident occur at night, and was visibility poor? As much as I hate Google, I find it hard to believe they should be held accountable before whoever owns the road with a bridge to nowhere that isn't marked or blocked off.

in_cahoots 3y ago
The article states that the accident occurred at 11pm, and there were no barriers to the bridge. A concrete barrier was put up by local residents after the accident. It sounds like nobody wanted to put up any warnings, because they might then assume some responsibility for the bridge itself. Tragic.
- cwmma 3y ago
  there where barricades but they had been taken down due to "vandalism"
Merad 3y ago
The road is pretty steep on either side of the bridge and it's a small one lane (IIRC) bridge. At night I definitely think it could be difficult to see that the bridge was out until it was too late. Edit: According to articles linked elsewhere in the comments the bridge was privately owned and the owners are being sued along with Google. As far as ownership, I am no expert but I think the land under the road would be government owned (not sure if state, county, or city) because there's a public right-of-way to ensure houses in the subdivision have access to public roads. However in the absence of a HOA the property owners within the subdivision are collectively responsible for road maintenance. It's part of the paperwork when you buy a house. But I don't know if they're required to maintain it to a specific standard... And in this particular case the neighborhood in question is pretty middle class (middle class in a LCOL area). I'm guessing a bridge repair isn't cheap, so it's very plausible that the neighborhood literally couldn't afford it. This definitely seems like a thorny topic, not something where it's easy to lay the blame at the feet one individual or entity.