Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
Presumably the road to the bridge would've been blocked off with signs and stuf? Is there any information about whether the signage was inadequate? Doesn't excuse Google for but updating the map in almost a decade, but it seems either council or the driver have more responsibility here.
So how the hell do they blame google instead of the local government for failing to keep up the signs and blockades?
It's such an idiotic case, "the guy drove blindly off a bridge because his navigation told him to". So in the old days, he would've had a paper map and would have driven off the bridge the same way.
Multiple entities can hold responsibility, including:
This was a long running problem that Google was contacted to fix and didn't. They don't bear sole responsibility, but that is negligence that contributed to his death.
This is not on Google and in any way, shape or form. Google Maps is not a civil engineering project. Google is not a state or local governing entity.
What's next? Google gets sued because someone missed out on an important interview? "Google Maps mislead me and caused me to lose out on a prospective job offer."
I don’t think we know that yet, and I think the discovery will be interesting.
How many reports were there? Were they credible? What other sources of truth did Google consult in deciding to ignore those reports?
Google gets lots of reports and needs to filter out spam, and especially malicious reports like trying to mark a competitor’s business as closed, or trying to get less traffic in your neighborhood for selfish reasons. It wouldn’t be reasonable for Google to accept every user suggestion either.
So if Google reached out to the town and the town said the bridge is fine, then it’s not Google’s fault. If they ignored multiple credible complaints because the area was too rural to care about, that might be negligent.
the fault is shared. google was mentioned moreso because its big company and that makes a headline
I don't know whether you didn't read the article or are just one of these simpletons incapable of holding an opinion more nuanced that "good or evil", but they are suing the owners.
Paper maps don't talk to you and tell you which way to go, do they?
I seriously can't decide whether you're some Google shill or you've just given your brain the day off.
Nice b8 m8 not going to respond to a weak troll :)
Yeah, that's definitely more the council's responsibility then (or those vandals, if they find them).
How in hell were vandals able to remove anything?! There should have been dragon's teeth or something similar blocking the road.
It sounds like their "barrier" was probably traffic cones or sawhorses—easily knocked over, stolen, or destroyed. What should have been there, but apparently wasn't, was a double or triple row of concrete jersey barriers. Or something else that was too heavy or awkward to be easily stolen, or destroyed without leaving serious residue. Nothing like hitting concrete chunks all over the road to make someone slow waaaaaay down and take a look around.
Yeah, I'd say that whoever was responsible for keeping that road blocked off was the major culprit in this. Google is just a "they have deep pockets, and we might be lucky and get a judge who doesn't know squat about how nav systems work" add-on.
Knowing about how nav systems work would make them more likely to find against Google, because an online nav system is trivially updatable. Even if they wanted to be extra cautious a simple call to the local police or a peek at a satellite image in the preceding 9 years would give confirmation.
It wasn't mentioned in the summary on top, I assumed there wasn't anything extra in the article.