> but in any sane road network this steps will _not_ kill anyone ...Which is why we don't say the victim was negligent. Unlike if, say, they'd just decided it

> but in any sane road network this steps will _not_ kill anyone ...Which is why we don't say the victim was negligent. Unlike if, say, they'd just decided it would be a good idea to drive into a flooded street. > it's not the responsibility of any 3rd party map service to close up death traps in a road network It is the responsibility of any 3rd party map service to accept corrections to their maps submitted by users through their official process within a reasonable time frame. Unlike in this case, where Google had been told over the course of two years that this bridge was out, and they shouldn't route people over it. > I mean would you have said the same if the bridge just broke a week ago? No, I wouldn't, especially if no one had reported it to Google within that time. It would have been a tragedy, but not an easily-avoidable one like what actually happened. > The safety of traffic participant _must never ever_ depend on the navy system they are using. > I mean if it tries to rout your multi day road trip through a desert that's a different matter. ...So apparently you do think that the navigation system can sometimes be at fault for giving dangerous directions. You draw the line in a different place than where I do, which is fine—but you also appear to think that this means there is no line, which is a problem for being able to rationally discuss important topics like this.