this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
232 points (90.0% liked)

World News

32311 readers
1074 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 95 points 1 year ago (6 children)

That's ridiculous, but I think the title makes it sound a lot more ridiculous than it actually is.

[the lawsuit] also named several private property management companies allegedly responsible for the bridge and adjoining land.

If he could just drive off a collapsed bridge without any warnings someone has clearly not taken their responsibility.

If there's a lack of signage and road blocks, and the map says the road is fine, I can see how one would make such an error.

I don't agree google maps should be held accountable here, but if this bridge has been collapsed for a decade, I can see why someone would want to at least pose the question.

[–] offbyone@reddthat.com 18 points 1 year ago

Keep in mind it's not an all or nothing thing, they'll assign percentages of fault. It's also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.

Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

I imagine Google maps gets it's data mostly from municipal and regional open data sources which often have downloadable road information.

If that's the case no one in the city's GIS department ever disconnected the road to show it was no longer connected, as they may never have been notified since people likely don't ever think to notify the GIS guys of unplanned changes to road systems.

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All signs and barriers kept getting moved/stolen.

[–] peter@feddit.uk 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the bridge was no longer there why wasn't there massive unmovable concrete barriers in the road?

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have read because it was a private road, they are legally not allowed to place an unmovable object

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That doesn't make sense. If it's a private road, wouldn't that mean you can place whatever you want on it? It's your road.

[–] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The developer never turned over the road to the North Carolina DOT after completion of the subdivision.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Just depends on the “they”. Local government wouldn’t touch it, the owners could have. I’d say it’s a slam dunk case against the owners for exactly that reason. Google ignored numerous reports so they may get some blame too.

[–] MrPhibb@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is what I was thinking, suing Google sounds like a cash grab as there's government agencies and possibly private land owners responsible for putting up barriers and signs warning the bridge is out. Google maps is useful, but you still have to use some sense rather than blindly following it, heck, I've run into cases where it can't figure out how to get to a street (that actually happened yesterday).

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Directing people onto a road that has had a collapsed bridge for a decade, despite numerous reports that the bridge is collapsed, does not leave them blameless.

[–] MrPhibb@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Why, why are they under any obligation to be accurate? I"ve used them since you had to print out the directions, they've told me to make illegal turns, go the wrong way down one way streets, use a road with a bridge out, use roads that don't exist and more, and while annoying, I just rolled with it, because they never promised me anything more than that the directions were prolly accurate.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz -1 points 1 year ago

I wonder if a HOA owns the land

[–] Syldon@feddit.uk -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am with you 100%. Expecting Google to be responsible for road maintenance is a frivolous. Google will sue them for legal costs.

[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 5 points 1 year ago

Absolutely not. Google played a part in causing this death, it might have been a minor part, but it was a party in the death. The court will decide how much.

This isn't a frivolous claim, this is Google not being able to maintain their maps safely. Google needs to put more resources into map maintenance, and respond when people submit safety issues with their mapping data.