Google accused of directing motorist to drive off collapsed bridge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66873982

by rwmj • 3 years ago

19 44 3 years ago

bbc.co.uk

Barriers that were normally placed across the bridge entrance were missing due to vandalism, according to the Charlotte Observer.
The lawsuit is also suing three local companies, arguing they had a duty to maintain the bridge.

Did the vandals steal the barriers? Or did the community remove the barriers temporarily? Sounds like this is where the blame should be targeted.

RugnirViking2• 3 years ago

It does bother me how often people see something like this and go "wow how dumb, blaming companies for their own lack of awareness/stupidity"

The guy died. His family want answers on exactly how it was that a bridge that had already collapsed was just left collapsed with a road leading to it with no barrier or roadsigns, both in the real world and in apps.

They also sued the people responsible for the physical roadsigns and barriers, which were missing at the time of the accident.

Exactly how negligent people may or may not have been will surely come out in court. They'll hear whether people tried to warn google that it was broken, and what happened to any such communications.

jiofj• 3 years ago

Na, the family just wants money. It's not some kind of 4D chess move.

baobabKoodaa• 3 years ago

Ah yes, because when your loved one dies, that's what you immediately think of: how can I make money off this?

sfn429• 3 years 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• 3 years 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.

netsharc• 3 years 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...

RugnirViking2• 3 years 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

2devnull• 3 years ago

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

pierat2• 3 years ago

How bad of a driver were they, that they didn't use their eyes to see the condition of the road?

Sure Google could also have done basic map due diligence. Sure, barriers could have been kept up. But this isn't much functionally different than a tree falling across the road, flooding, sinkholes, or other similar hazards.

You gotta watch the damned road if you're driving, NOT YOUR PHONE.

robador• 3 years ago

It was raining, night, and seemingly no street lights.

sfn429• 3 years ago

Then slow down. If you can't even see the road ahead of you, stop. You can't drive if you can't see the road.

If you choose to drive blind that's on you.

easton• 3 years ago

It was dark and raining. Visibility was probably impaired. (you know what's very visible? a nice reflective barrier)

PhasmaFelis3• 3 years ago

Look at the picture in the article. This was a narrow gap in an unlit, unpainted road in the forest at night. The guardrails were still up! Even at low speeds, the gap could easily have appeared as nothing more than a dark spot in a dark road. No reasonable person would expect a hidden pit to interrupt their journey. The only sure solution would be to never drive on dark rural roads, ever, under any circumstances.

Panzer04• 3 years ago

It seems like the bigger issue here is a complete lack of signs leading up to the bridge - If it's a contiguous road I can see how someone might be lulled into a false sense of security.

Ultimately, the final responsibility is the driver's, but there's very severe neglect on the part of the local government to allow the bridge to be unmarked and unsigned.

dannyphantom• 3 years ago

The boring context is that, in situations like this, the plaintiffs will indicate a large(ish) batch of defendants that will gradually slim down as the case moves forward in the court - the plaintiff attorney has a duty to cover all possibilities.

Some of the other comments here already touch on who may be the more liable party other than Google. The public works department seemed to have played a game of passing around the 'accountability ball' which contributed to a tragic event.

These cases generally take a pretttty long time to come to actually come to a close and it's an absolutely surreal and bleak experience the entire time.

nutate• 3 years ago

I drove into a ditch in Costa Rica following google maps. It was the end of any fantasy of ine that they still wanted to organize the world's information. Luckily it only cost $500 or so for the privilege of finding that out for sure.

francisofascii2• 3 years ago

Here is the location of the damaged bridge: https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B046'53.6%22N+81%C2%...

You can see it you move out to the main road which has an more recent 2023 street view image.

wackycat• 3 years ago

If this bridge had just recently collapsed, I think google would be less at fault but it collapsed in 2013. 10 years is an awful long time to continue directing motorists to a collapsed bridge. Additionally, you think even if google missed user reports that the anomalous data of motorists always ignoring that direction should have triggered some sort of review. It's also awful that in 10 years no lights or barricades were added simply due to a game of "not-my-problem" by developers and transit authorities.

macintosh-hd• 3 years ago

Excited for this to end up as the next McDonalds coffee story… Google was notified several times over NINE years that the bridge had collapsed and they did nothing.

mensetmanusman• 3 years ago

The risk of technology was predicted by Michael Scott:

https://youtu.be/DOW_kPzY_JY?si=CLFdmmo1zqyZste-

commiepatrol• 3 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOW_kPzY_JY

Google accused of directing motorist to drive off collapsed bridge

Related Stories