Lawsuit claims Google Maps led dad of two over collapsed bridge to his death A lawsuit was this week filed against Google in North Carolina following the death of a 47-year-old father of two who drove off a collapsed bridge. Medical device salesman Philip Paxson was alleged to have been navigating using Google Maps at the time of the accident in September 2022. The complaint [PDF] claims that the app …
I get it - you should be in control of your car at all times and the ultimate responsibility for this kind of crash rests with the driver, but surely if a road would lead you over a bridge that doesn't exist, there should be some sort of major indication ahead of the nonexistant bridge.
If there were signs, then this is entirely on the driver since the visible information trumps sat-nav every day of the week. If there were no signs, then I'd expect the way owner to be liable* as roads probably shouldn't lead you straight off a cliff with no warning.
Really struggling to see how Google can be liable.
That's not to say that Google should probably have updated the way on Maps at some point in the last ten years as even if you don't drive off the edge, it'll be really inconvenient, but they're the last people you should be suing.
*Yes, the landowners are part of the suit, but based upon the article, Google is the primary defendant.
"That's not to say that Google should probably have updated the way on Maps at some point in the last ten years"
Their system seems to be a bit weird. Their map identifies the house of a colleague as a Middle Eastern embassy, which is actually around the corner from them. So they used the feedback link on Google Maps or something to report that error, with a link to the embassy website showing the real address. Google fixed that quite quickly and their map showed the correct location. But strangely enough, a few weeks later the location reverted back to their house. Weird.
Right-click on a point on the map and select "Report a data problem".
From there you can add or delete roads - or at least, request the changes - report business-listing problems, etc etc.
I've done it a couple of times because Google is adamant that my driveway connects to my neighbors' driveway. Anyone turning onto mine in the hope of getting to the neighbors is bound for disappointment.
I wonder if the action is based on your rep with Google.
I upload a lot of pics and do reviews so I have a good score. Whenever I report a business had changed location, or their hours, or even shut down, the results get actioned within an hour.
Possibly, I've found the same and have tried to add photos of areas I know decent photos of areas are missing.
I've corrected my sisters road where she lives as it didn't exist, that was accepted fairly quickly (Although the road has a street name plate which was visible on Google Maps). I do get annoyed with the your amendment is helping, especially if I suggested it be changed over 10 years ago (Or whenever they introduced it).
Up here in Caithness we've even had the Highland Council use Google Maps addresses in preference to Royal Mail - Village Road (which is only 4 houses) rather than Main Street which is a lot of houses and a school. This is as part of a proposal to narrow the road.
I do agree, but at a certain point it does go from negligence on the part of the driver to negligence on the part of the way owner.
If you drove as if every time the road dipped slightly out of sight, it might unexpectedly cease to exist where you would reasonably expect it to continue existing, then you'd probably be committing other driving-related offences as you sped up and slowed down "unreasonably".
Yes, but it was also a private road. If it was a public road there would have been signs and barricades.
The landowner and the driver are responsible for this. Yes, Google should have updated its maps, but ultimately it's up to the driver to drive safely.
Yet if you DO drive at a speed where you can stop in the space you know to be clear, you can get tickets for obstructing traffic because some corners have to be taken at 3 kph, especially when local jurisdictions refuse to cut back trees and bushes. Resulting in fines for "obstructing traffic" or even "dangerous driving" when you have to slam on the brakes because it wasn't clear that the upcoming blind corner was in fact completely obscured. And other such offenses. So no matter what you do, you're breaking the law.
I have to question, however, why that road wasn't just blocked off. Signs be damned, roads like that shouldn't be open at all.
I bet Google has more money than the local council/county/what-have-you in charge of blocking such roads though. And they could, arguably (as is done in courts), be partially liable.
"Yet if you DO drive at a speed where you can stop in the space you know to be clear, you can get tickets for obstructing traffic"
Can you give an example of this ever actually happening? It's certainly true that it's against the law to unnecessarily obstruct a highway, but I've never heard of a single case where someone was actually prosecuted for simply driving slowly on a blind corner. If that actually happened, virtually every pensioner in the country would be in jail by now. It's incredibly difficult to be prosecuted for dangerous driving even if you actually kill someone, the bar is so high that it's almost always a lesser charge of careless driving or often not even that. No-one ever faces such prosecution for simply braking at a blind corner. In fact, it's notable that this is only ever raised as a complaint by people who for some reason don't think they should ever be required to drive slowly and/or safely.
"I have to question, however, why that road wasn't just blocked off. Signs be damned, roads like that shouldn't be open at all."
According to reporting pretty much everywhere else, it was blocked off, but frequent vandalism means the signs and barriers have often been removed.
I live in Caithness and normal roads I go at 56mph the single track roads I go at 30mph - 35mph. Weirdly enough on the single track roads I can stop before an oncoming vehicle clobbers me. I can also dodge most of the potholes. I exclude those in a chain across the road from my dodging. So what speed was the driver doing in bad conditions? Also why didn't he go back the way his wife came when he was following her.
Conclusion, much as it hurts to say it, Google is not guilty.
Given that you're not the driver in question, it seems as though your experience driving a different vehicle in a different country might not be applicable here. I'm in a slightly different part of the country where driving 30-35 on many of the single-track roads is likely to get somebody (or at least some livestock) killed. Roads are built different in different places and American vehicles are insane.
Also looking at the photo in the story, if you were approaching at night the way the road continues the other side could lead you to think that the road simply dipped down to the bridge below the range of your headlights. On a road with no warning signs or barriers of any kind (this is the bit that is incomprehensible to me!) why would you immediately assume that you were driving towards a collapsed bridge?
On a road with no warning signs or barriers of any kind (this is the bit that is incomprehensible to me!) why would you immediately assume that you were driving towards a collapsed bridge?
You wouldn't. But if you were a competent driver you would be prepared for the possibility that a sheep, pedestrian, cyclist or other obstruction was on the bridge (which you have specified you can't actually see) and slow down in case you have to stop.
Exactly, if the bridge itself is below your headlights, anything on it like a sheep or cyclist would still be in the full-beams. We can be very confident there was no obstruction on the bridge, or indeed on the road leading up to the bridge, where there definitely should have been.
This is the bit I'm struggling with. The locals have been complaining about it for so long and nothing was done by Google on their maps or the authorities. Round here at least one resident (me or someone else) would have taken matters into their own hands and built a barrier to block the road for the safety of others because we know the big corps or the authorities were too slow and there was a clear danger present.
The way liability flows in these cases, each defendant found partly responsible for the loss is individually responsible for the whole judgement ('jointly and severally')
So if Google is found 0.5% liable, their insurance could still be paying a large lump sum. If it's a privately maintained public road (as happens in some parts of some states), there may not be any other money to pay the other 99.5%, and Google could be up for the lot.
The articles I've seen report that the signs were missing "due to vandalism". You'd have thought if the bridge has been out since 2013 something rather more substantial than signs that can be removed by vandals would be there. Like big lumps of concrete, or barriers bolted to the road. Like you, can't see how Google can be liable, but sueballs & lawyers, big target with lots of money...
I doubt that. A big lump of concrete is quite noticeable sitting in the middle of the road in your headlights for any driver more competent than a Tesla autopilot.
Look at the pictures of that bridge. At night, the headlights are going to reflect better off of the [still standing] crash barriers on the side, and I could see the potential for your mind filling in the missing bits for long enough that it's too late to stop. There not being any signs up is scary; I know that leftpondians hate rules and regulations, but one would have thought that mandating a "bridge closed" sign be displayed is rather obvious common sense.
"I know that leftpondians hate rules and regulations, but one would have thought that mandating a "bridge closed" sign be displayed is rather obvious common sense."
As a Left Cost leftpondian, I quite agree with you. I know of several bridges, maybe a dozen, that were washed out in the last year[0][1]. Every single one of them was blocked on both sides by a police car, 24 hours per day, until a more permanent (and solid) solution was applied. Usually said solution's only option for vandalism was graffiti. Most of these bridges have been rebuilt or replaced already.
But we're talking about a place called Hickory, North Carolina. Things are a trifle ... uh ... slow in them there parts.
[0] The weather last winter was rather wet, at least for California.
[1] This does not include bridges recently washed out by flash flooding down in the desert
Not enough for Google.
The University of Northern Iowa, UNI, closed an on campus street that was a major short cut for many people. They put a large planter in the middle of the street with other signs or something on either side so obviously blocked on both ends. I reported it twice. The second time I included a picture of the blockade which had a sign saying road closed if I remember right. I can't find the picture now, don't know why I didn't keep it. :-)
I took them several more years to quit listing the road.
Fun fact about Google maps. If your looking at street view, you can keep going into the now missing street (UNI expanded the parking lot into it) and see the old street. I just checked and it still works that way. Nice for a road temporarily close for construction when the street view car drove by. But strange for a removed road.
For said bridge out. It should have had Jersey barriers across the road or a big pile of dirt or rocks. And maybe the guard railing should have been taken out, or cut and bent across the road. At night that would look like it still was a road/bridge with the railings still there. But that is on the local government, not Google.
This seems to be the somewhat overlooked but most key of issues here. The bridge has been missing for such a length of time and yet somehow the barriers are temporary enough to be stolen AND it appears that this has happened previously.
The road should have been blocked in a very obvious and far more substantial way. You should not be reliant on a soft safety mechanism for such a life threatening issue. Google maps marking it as 'closed' would be utterly useless if you're not using google maps.
A key point is that a driver unfamiliar with the area, was almost certainly driving this road, in the rain, at night, because GM directed him there.
Without GM, he would have taken the same (probably signed) route as everyone else did.
So GG absolutely did direct him to his death.
Not that that lessens the astonishing negligence of leaving the road unblocked.
Your are right, but only in a small way. Google directed him down that road, that much is true, and after being closed for 9 years, Google Maps should have been updated properly, even if only to show a "temporary closure" since it's entirely possible that the bridge may one day be replaced and the road re-opened. On the other hand, the local council/authority/whatever have had NINE YEARS to properly deal with that situation by placing proper barriers there, not a few plastic cones that can be and have been removed multiple times. I'm sure even the most hard up and financially stretch rural small town council could have asked a local farmer or construction company to dump a few truckloads of "waste", eg rocks, hard core etc to block access for free or very little cost.
>>the local council/authority/whatever have had NINE YEARS
IIRC the road in question is privately owned (unadopted in Uk terms) - this is entirely on the failure of the driver to drive within the conditions, and the road owner failing to adequately disable the road, before the defective bridge, through barriers or other means.
If Google routed me through a well established ford and I chose to drive through it when the water was particularly high, consequently hydrolocking my engine, how is that Google's fault? even when you add rain and darkness to the equation its still, IMHO, not Google's fault.
> I chose to drive through it when the water was particularly high, consequently hydrolocking my engine
What is this "engine" you talk about? And how does one hydrolock it? A risk of shorting, I could understand, but I believe that the motors and electric components are well sealed against all reasonable water ingress. Mind you, if the lithium gets going, then you might well have a problem!
"What is this "engine" you talk about?"
I have several diesels that are so purely mechanical that they will survive an EMP from the Nuke of your choice. They will happily drive through as much water as you can throw at them ... just as long as the air intake is above water. If they suck in enough water, they will hydrolock. (Gotta keep water out of the fuel, too, but that's a different issue ... the vent tube is tiewrapped to the intake, just in case.) Your lithium powered clusterfuck will be a total write-off in such a scenario. To say nothing of the EVs catching fire in junkyards all over Florida after taking a salt water bath in a hurricane.
There have been cases where satnavs have directed people down non existent roads, or old roads - the man who drove into a reservoir in Spain because the satnav showed the road as still being there, or the Japanese tourists who drove into the sea.
"unadopted in Uk terms"
I'm not sure if the US has an equivalent of the UK 'public right of way'. I used to live on an unadopted road (privately owned but a public right of way) and now the residents actually have liability insurance for the road. I'm not sure if this is now law or just 'a bloody good idea'. Back in the 80s/90s no-one even considered it.
People do tend to mix up private and unadopted. It was always a chore to explain to new residents the difference.
And then we have the fun surrounding 'private' car parks and the such that are open to the public.
Ah the joys of law.
"I'm not sure if the US has an equivalent of the UK 'public right of way'."
No, not really. The rules and regs are quite different regarding who owns what, who can travel where, and who is responsible.
Amusingly, it doesn't keep the armchair lawyers from pontificating, though.
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." —Unknown
Like you, can't see how Google can be liable
Dunno, if this bridge had been out since 2013 and multiple people had told Google about it and they didn't update their maps, there is at least an argument for negligence on their part. I mean, they had NINE YEARS to fix that issue. Do they only add new roads to their maps, but don't have any process for removing them?
Google might drive every road, but they won't know if a road is officially "closed" or not - that's taken from mapping data supplied by local authorities, the same as things like speed limits, etc.
Google can't just guess at those, because getting it wrong would result in things like this being their fault. But if the local authority never "officially" closed the road, that's on the authority.
> Google does let people report map data problems directly
I think you misspelled "Google completely ignores any reported map issues"
At least in my experience. I've reported 7 different map issues, including pictures to back it up, and never had any of them be acted on.
Google does let people report map data problems directly. It's surprising that this did not happen
RTFA.....
"The complaint alleges that Google had been notified by concerned residents asking for the route to be struck off both years before the accident"
If they drive every road, shouldn't they remove roads they are unable to drive? Is all that driving of roads only intended to find/add new roads and update streetview pics, but not address places they show roads but can't drive either because the road is closed or because the map was incorrect and there was never a road there?
"...based upon the article, Google is the primary defendant."
I'm not sure we can conclude that without more information. It might well be that that's just the aspect the writer focused on, deeming it of most interest to El Reg's techie audience.
I am certain they get thousands of requests to mark a road as impassible so that drivers will stop using shortcuts through quiet neighborhoods. The number of such complaints only being limited by the fact they are summarily ignored.
On the other hand,
- if Google Maps hasn't a record of any traffic taking a road section since 2013, it's a pretty clear indication that section of road is closed. You'd think they would apply that data (lack of travel) automatically.
- Google Map regularly recommends
- to route me along recommended bicycle streets that would only be faster if don't stop for all the stop signs, or
- crossing multiple lanes of traffic without the aid a traffic light on a busy street, all to avoid that very helpful traffic light one block over, which I have to wonder is contributing the multi year increase in pedestrian and bicyclist deaths.
- maybe routes through quiet neighborhoods SHOULD be de prioritized, and busy roads preferred.
>*Yes, the landowners are part of the suit, but based upon the article, Google is the primary defendant.
Your claimed liability depends on how much you're worth. Google's at the top because they've got the deepest pockets.
Realistically, you need to not believe mapping systems, especially if tempted to take a short cut. Here in the US a lot of small roads are seasonal and blindly following them will get you into trouble or worse iresults) if you're trying to drive them when they're not open. This clearly wasn't a public road so it should have been used with caution, especially at night.
Its not just the US, either. My bother's driveway in the UK used to be the approach to a hall. He gets a couple of optimists a year looking for a short cut (the OS map still looks as if there's the Avenue there). Stories of people following sheep tracks in the Pennines are legendary although the locals tend to put up home made signs telling incautious to turn back before they get stuck.
Not true, even in the southern states. Now what is true is many people in the South hate taxes and some move into neighborhoods where the roads are all private. Maintenance is genrally not very good. My question is why didnt some of those good southern christians put up some barricades.
My question is why didnt some of those good southern christians put up some barricades
They probably did, but it was closed nine years ago. Someone steals the sign, or some weather event takes it out, but no one notices because everyone local knows that road is closed and doesn't drive to where the sign used to be.
Now one could argue that a sign, which can go away for one reason or another, isn't sufficient and there should be a barrier. But if it is somewhere people starve the local government of funds by voting down any tax increases they might not be able to afford a couple of those (since the bridge has two sides) be permanently placed there.
Probably why the local government wasn't included in the lawsuit - they don't have any money!
Starting to read the article, my mind was already compiling a snarky "not eligible for Darwin Award" comment. But an ex-bridge without signs, barrier to prevent drivers from driving into the river? Shouldn't the owner be the main target there? Don't understand what Google Maps got to do with it (besides bigger pockets than the owner).
This is like all the other stories we get about Google. People attempt to contact the company for all sorts of reasons, and it's like a big black hole. I read a story the other day about Google spending billions with cell providers for search & Chrome exclusivity. You would think they could spend a fraction of that on product service. It's not customer service because we aren't the customers, we are the product.
It's pretty surprising, because Google Maps does have a UI to report issues with the map data, and as far as I heard they do react and fix issues — they even regularly mark roads around my place as closed for temporary events like marathons and the like.
Maybe they reported the bridge collapse by sending a letter to "Google, California"?
The road is still there on Google Maps even now:
The Street View data is all the way back from 2012, so it still shows the road, even though the 3D view does show the bridge is collapsed:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7813855,-81.2835562,84a,35y,62.65h,34.08t/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
"and as far as I heard they do react and fix issues"
If you've ever tried to report issues to them, you'd know that their response to such reports varies all the way through from:
Taking you at your word right there and then, with the change you've suggested being immediately applied to the map
via
Taking your report, doing nothing with it for months and offering no feedback as to whether or not this is because they've completely forgotten about it, or need more info, or are just waiting on someone to get around to fixing it for you, until, just after the point at which you've given up any hope of them ever fixing it, as if by magic you suddenly get a notification to say they've fixed it
to
Flatly refuse to accept anything is wrong with their data and everything remains as-is for the rest of the lifespan of the universe...
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if, given the lack of any streetview imagery along that exact section of road showing the collapsed bridge, they simply did what I know they did for one of my reports and just went "nope, can't see that in our latest SV imagery, change request denied...".
I can't speak for now, but about a decade ago I noticed that Google was navigating people down an off ramp, and telling them to perform a U turn into oncoming high speed traffic going the wrong way up a road.
In Google's defence it was a new road where an older one used to be, however they had all the new roundabouts and all, so it's like somebody just guessed at the way the road system worked and got it badly wrong.
Against Google, there didn't seem to be any mechanism (at the time) to flag this as dangerous and not to do it.
So I took the issue up on the support forum thing. Eventually a volunteer with map editing abilities stepped in to help. This involved going back to take photos to show what was actually there, plus the volunteer changing the road a section at a time and waiting for each change to be "approved" by some opaque process before doing the next part. It took weeks.
Other map issues? Oh boy. Many rural roads here in France have communal numbers (like C4, C5, etc) and just as many aren't named. So Google has ignored the C numbers and instead given them the name of the nearest farm or other named building. This has led to a messy situation where driving from one turn to the next used to result in "slight right to stay on Bellevue" (fifty metres later) "continue on to La Maison Neuve" (a hundred metres later) "continue on to Les Marches". Navigation has stopped doing that, I'm guessing too many people complained, but the roads are still marked that way.
Which means people looking to find me are usually directed to halfway up the lane as navigation, for some reason, prioritises the road in preference to the building.
Oh, and recently they seem to have rejigged the route algorithm so a quick 5km jaunt using back roads is less attractive than 10km on major routes, because it's clearly more efficient when you can drive faster, right? Sorry, but I'd prefer the shortest most direct route.
Okay, granted, it's not quite the same as being directed off of a bridge, but it does highlight that any sane person will take navigation directions with a huge pinch of salt. It's useful when you're alone and don't quite know where you're going, but personal judgement should always trump what a machine says...even if she sounds like a Norland Nanny.
It took Google about a year after the new M1/M6 (S) junction was finished* to stop telling motorists to carry on going down the ( going nowhere) stump of the M6. And if you miss the new exit it's a f****ing nightmare** to get back on track.
*This wasn't a small or sudden change. It's arguably the main interchange for the whole of England, (if not the UK) linking London with the, respectively Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland and Leicster/Yorkshire/Hull/Newcastle routes, and they'd spent years building the bloody thing
**Unless you welcome tours of the Central English countryside
I had exactly the same issue in South Wales in the early days of Google Maps.
I was driving late at night, torrential rain, in a very unfamiliar area. I arrived at a T junction, to be instructed by the navigation prompts to turn right, which I duly did.
A minute later I spotted headlights coming towards me, on the same carriageway as myself. I had just turned right onto the wrong side of a dual carriageway. Immediately pulled over and got out of the car. Once the oncoming vehicle had passed, I checked the map again, thinking I had made a mistake.
Nope. Google was telling me to turn right at a regular junction, not knowing that the road had now been changed into a dual carriageway.
It was a scary moment.
Phew. I'm glad I'm not the only person who suffered something like this. My issue happened to me in Devon many years ago. After letting me drive past the correct entry lane to a dual carriageway, Google Maps told me to turn left, which resulted in me driving down the off-ramp from the dual carriageway the wrong way.
I was concentrating on the directions and just followed until I got to the bottom, then was jarred out of my complacence by the road markings being wrong and why was I joining a dual carriage way from the wrong side. Had to do a rapid U-turn actually on the dual carriageway. Fortunately the car I was driving had a very tight turning circle, and also fortunately the road was not busy.
All this time, I thought it was just me making the mistake, and misremembering the direction until I read your incident.
It was a newly upgraded by-pass, and there were no "No Entry" signs at the top of the off-ramp (I checked) so it was easy to believe the Google Maps directions. I guess it was just out-of-date. I've always been very cautions about following GM directions since.
I have only heard the opposite - people I know who update Google about impassable routes either get no response and no change (and have to keep turning back truck drivers trying to get around impossible bends or squeeze down bridleways) or get a change for a few weeks that is subsequently reverted without explanation.
There is more than one party liable. In order of priority (highest to lowest, IMHO):
The first is the driver who has command of the vehicle and should drive to what the driver can see - particularly on unfamiliar roads.
The second is the owner of the road due to the fact that the road is public and should be secured through signposting and a barrier.
The third is Google - the liability in my opinion only arises where Google has omitted to update roads and routing and actively guides people down that route. But that does not absolve the other two parties. Many people using Google Maps - or any other SatNav - will have been guided down phantom or blocked roads and perhaps even be sent down one way streets in the wrong direction. It is a tool, but never more than that.
It's in America, so you could probably add jeep into the mix - the car was probably marketed as an 'off road' vehicle, yet when the road was missing it stopped working.
(partly tongue-in-cheek because if it had been a Tesla, people would be blaming the car/company/CEO)
When electronic maps became popular they started putting up "street name signs" on the country roads. One near us was given a name very different to the one it had been called for at least 4 centuries.
I asked the District Councillor when he deigned to come to our Parish Council meeting. He mumbled something about Google, and clearly said that it was essential for roads to have names. When I asked if the District Council would replace the signed with the correct name, he said they had no money to make the changes and didn't know how to tell Google that it had changed.
It made us think that Google had funded the signs to help their directions, but the wouldn't be drawn further on the matter. An FOI request received a reply that it was privileged information.
(For context there is one countywide committee that decides on speed limits, weight limits, etc. When you ask to see the meeting minutes you are told that they haven't published any in 25 years. My MP has also tried and received the same answer, but now he is a minister he has no time to pursue this abuse.)
(For context there is one countywide committee that decides on speed limits, weight limits, etc. When you ask to see the meeting minutes you are told that they haven't published any in 25 years. My MP has also tried and received the same answer, but now he is a minister he has no time to pursue this abuse.)
If you had been successful, you might have discovered that for revenue raising reasons, the minute used in mph calculations had been altered. But twat-nav errors are fun. There was a nice pub in Reading that overlooked a popular sat-nav short cut over a river. Mapping company probably assumed it was a bridge, even though on OS maps it was clearly marked as a ford, and may a Ford was hydrolocked. I guess they're uncommon enough that people don't know they really should look at the level gauge, and have some clue how much over the air intakes the water level is. Used to provide some free exercise though.
I reckon my request to Google is way down the list. I just want the sat nav voice to say 'Pavillons Way' rather than 'Pavilions Way'. The map has it correctly marked so it must just be some kind of vocalisation issue. Perhaps the logic just refuses to use French words when outputting directions in English.
Here in rural Nova Scotia we've been trying for nearly a year to correct the name of our road from "Breakwater", which it's not, to "Lighthouse" which is what the sign reads.
We have failed, so every delivery includes special instructions for drivers, and new ones invariably phone us in confusion.
We did though convince Google to change the address for the 150+ year old lighthouse at the end of our road. We know the request worked because we received a notification that the "Western Head lighthouse has moved to a new location!"
You think that's bad... Depending on the satnav, I have 2 different addresses that are almost the same but not quite... So I got a delivery on Tuesday, but the same company couldn't deliver on Thursday because my address didn't exist... Different delivery bloke using different satnav.
I get stuff delivered to the local bar now.
We have a moderately important coastal road between Blue Anchor and Watchet in Somerset, UK that has fallen down the cliff towards the sea in the last couple of years. The local authorities have just shut it, claiming that they have no money to reroute it, and no mandate to acquire the land that would be required if they did.
Google Maps still has it marked as a passable road, although fortunately there are clear and permanent signs to stop people driving down it. But it's driving the holiday business on the road out-of-business, as it's now much more difficult for people to get to them (they can, but it's a fairly long diversion). And this road was also the chosen diversion route if the A39 (the single major road) was blocked between Wiliton and Carhampton. If the Police bother to sign a diversion if the A39 is blocked, it ends up taking traffic both ways down single-track roads at the same time!
The roads here are just rubbish, but I guess that is as much down to geography as anything else.
In know what the law says about not driving faster than you can see/react
Never drive faster than your Guardian Angel can fly has served me well.
Probably wouldn't have helped here as I would have been looking over my shoulder trying to figure out what the fuck she was up to as I went over the edge of the missing bridge.
There are quite a few little oddities on my 10 mile commute in Brum. The main one being a 20mph zone that Google Maps still shows as 30. Which means you need to be aware of the moron brigade who switch their brains off when they turn the sat nav on.
There was also a 40mph stretch that is still showing as 50 - 10 years after it was changed.
Having worked in mapping and logistics software, I do wonder what the fuck Google are doing that makes it so hard. It's almost as if their obsession with consumer data means they can't do projects properly anymore.
Generally I have fuck all sympathy for the sad-face-sat-nav stories. But this does seem to be quite unique. RIP and condolences to the family.
Compare Google's Market cap ($1.032Tn) to The Netherlands' GDP ($909Bn), then compare the number of employees that Google has (174,014) to the number of people in the Dutch civil service (Approx 3.5Mn).
Google's market cap per head is $5.7Mn compared to The Netherlands GDP per Civil Service head of $260k, which is 21 times higher.
Even then, that 21 times would be much higher in a practical sense considering that a country has a lot more infrastructure to take care of within that budget.
I'm with you on the sat nav stories but torn on this one. The road itself disappearing on me isn't something I generally look out for.
Many years ago I was using Google Maps to give me directions home while driving through Texas. I was in a deep area of woods, trees everywhere and came to the road where Google told me to "Turn Left" at what looked like a cross-road. So I turned left and started to drive down the road about 60mph in the left lane ... then two cars appeared in what I thought were both lanes with one heading straight towards me and then moved right, blowing their horns and one car waving a pistol.
About 20 seconds later I left the tree filled area and saw that I had turned into the north traffic lane, Google had told me "turn left" as I was about to cross a dual carriage-way into the oncoming traffic lanes but in the trees it was not possible to see everything. So now I drove across the median to get onto the correct side of a dual carriage-way going south. I was totally scared and ever since I've been very cautious about Google's instructions although in general Google Maps is helpful, I still use it but I'm a lot more cautious these days.
Google tracks you all the time but never tells you that you are in the wrong road.
If they didn't use the SatNav, would this of still happened?
Yes, then it's not Google's fault.
No, then it's still not Google's fault.
Why?
I live in rural Shropshire and many, many roads are 60mph. On great deal of these, if you go above 20mph, you are riskng ending up in a ditch, a hedge or slamming into a car or tractor around the blind bend.
You drive to the conditions and the surroundings, end of.
If you are unfamiliar with the road and it's dark, slow the fuck down.
I go down so many of those 60mph single track "roads".
When there's a guy behind me trying to give me the hurryup beyond 20mph I get that he probably drives down the road everyday and can do it blindfolded but I'm barely even aware of what town I'm currently in, and at my age I don't care what other drivers think of me so long as I'm alive
"a guy behind me trying to give me the hurryup beyond 20mph"
I find it amazing that when that happens to me, a feature in my car means that it slows down even more.... :)
This is the issue with rural roads of course - you drive along fairly cautiously as you don't know what's round the next bend (that you can't see round because of the huge hedge) and the local who drives it everyday bets his life that there's nothing coming, right up until he hits a combine harvester coming the other way.
As a general rule, yes to all of the above.
However, in this case it's a little more nuanced than that, because this wasn't simply GMaps telling the driver to head down a road where there would potentially be hazards such as narrow sections, blind bends (though these at least would be visible on screen if you're zoomed far enough into the map view...), oncoming vehicles etc. No, this was GMaps telling the driver to head down a road that wasn't even there in the first place. And not just "not there" in the sense of them having mapped a road that was actually a dirt path across a farm field which might at least still be followable to some extent and would give a driver enough opportunities to realise things might not be quite right and back things up to go find another more suitable route, but "not there" as in physically obliterated, leaving a gaping chasm into which a vehicle would fall unless the driver was quick enough on the brakes.
As a bare minimum, it's not unreasonable to expect that if you look at a map, or get directions from someone, and the map/directions are telling you that there's a road in such and such a location that's available for you to use, that there actually is a road there which is safe to use. And when you get to one end of that road and are faced with a complete absence of signage, barriers or other such obvious indications that the road ahead isn't perhaps in the same state as the maps/directions have implied, it's then not unreasonable to set off down that road still in the belief that there is indeed a road ahead you can follow.
So yes, ultimately, you still need to drive to what you can see and react to, but I can see why Google and whoever was responsible for the local signage will be getting squeaky bums now, because given the significant time period that elapsed between the bridge collapsing and this accident, it's entirely unreasonable for either of them to not have acted appropriately on the knowledge that the road was now impassable in all this time and made certain that it was marked accordingly in the map data and in reality.
"1faced with a complete absence of signage, barriers or other such obvious indications"
Surely whoever is responsible for the road is liable? If it looks like a road, it's not unreasonable for somebody to think it is. And if it suddenly ceases to exist, why the hell isn't it marked as such?
At the very least, it wouldn't have hurt to bring in a backhoe to wreck a few metres of the road surface near the entrance. That way, it would clue people in to its state prior to the sudden gaping chasm.
I was testing a route for a group drive on Tuesday. Went around a corner and found the road blocked by a fallen tree (due to the wind the previous night). So I came to a stop and got out the car to have a look around.
Fortunately there was a man working in removing the tree who helpfully told me that someone was due in the next 30 minutes to remove it.
No problem, however if nobody had been there I would have called the police and told them the road was blocked and could they get someone out to close the road until it was cleared.
Likewise if the bridge is out then a couple of concrete barriers should be erected on each side so that it is obvious you can’t go that way.
Stop relying on the satnav and get your eyes on the road. Having said that I know of somebody who used a satnav to get from his house to the local Tesco - about 2 miles…..
"I know of somebody who used a satnav to get from his house to the local Tesco - about 2 miles…."
Actively using it to help him navigate there, or just running in the background to provide real-time updates on traffic conditions? Probably 99% of the time my Waze app has spent running has been during drives where I don't need to be told how to get where I'm going, but I would like to know if I might need to divert off my preferred route due to heavy traffic, accidents etc...
Could be. The article states:
"The complaint also lists James Tarlton, Tarde LLC, and Hinckley Gauvain LLC as "Bridge Defendants" which it alleges "owned, controlled, and/or were otherwise responsible for the land" where the bridge is located, claiming that they "had a duty and responsibility to maintain" the bridge, not limited to "erecting and maintaining proper barricades and/or warning signs identifying any hazards particular to the land." These entities have also been accused of gross negligence."
But it does seem to be a a public road, or at least publicly accessible.
Not sure it's relevant, but my understanding is that commercial map producers throw in a few deliberate errors in order to discourage their competitors from copying their maps without travelling the roads in question. And in fact a few years ago saw a road on a map that looked like it might be a shortcut. I took it and about a mile in, I ended up in someone's dooryard face to face with a barn that looked like it might have been there for a century or two. I doubt the rest of that road ever existed beyond that point. Certainly not for a great many years.
Moral -- maps, Google's or anyone else's -- aren't completely trustworthy.
After 9/11 I was in New England using a current Rand McNally Map, the map showed a crossroads and the main road we were travelling along continuing straight ahead...
We went straight ahead and on the other side of the cross road the tarmac stopped and was replaced by bare cinders, after a couple of miles the tarmac resumed..
Welcome to rural America. Unpaved roads are far cheaper to maintain than paved roads. And as long as traffic is light and the town runs a grader or bulldozer over the ruts and washboarding every now and then, the dirt roads are often far smoother than their potholed paved cousins. Of course, there IS that week or so in early spring when the road, thawing from the top down, turns into an endless river of mud. But the locals take that in stride. They've even been known to close schools for a few days if the roads get so bad they threaten to engulf school buses.
>Unpaved roads are far cheaper to maintain than paved roads.
Actually it's the opposite. Paved roads are cheaper to maintain, and the lifetime cost is also significantly less. But they cost a lot more more to make in the first place.
90% of rural roads were gravel in my youth, but 90% are now sealed. The councils gradually chipped away at sealing them every year, and 40 years later it's almost done.
Paved roads might be cheaper to maintain, but only if you keep doing maintenance.
A large network of country roads engineered to statewide 100km/h limits had its maintenance funding cut drastically about 25y ago. Now the potholes are so bad entire roads need to be rebuilt from scratch. The approved solution is not to rebuild the roads, but downgrade the speed limits.
Welcome to Australia, home of Highway 1, the longest road in the world.
Lucky you have wild camels - prepping for the glorious future Scotty from Marketing dreamt of on the beach in Hawaii.
Camels are the cross-party solution. One side doesn't want to pay tax to maintain the roads so you can drive on them, and the Greens don't want you to be able to drive at all.
"Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. You’re responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences."
Yes, terribly, terribly sad but honestly, would anyone be trying to blame a physical map publisher if their atlas or A to Z was wrong?
If it was in error well before the map was published, and the publisher had been notified: absolutely.
The fact that an online map can be corrected rapidly and at extremely low cost, means that the threshold for negligence and culpability is lowered enormously.
The other factor is that it is not just a map. It is actively directing people along the route.
A real person would have far more culpability for giving misleading directions, than for handing over a map.
Google's routing algorithm is also somewhat negligent. Experienced navigators follow known routes they have used before, even though you can drive anywhere at all on the sea. The reason is that not all underwater hazards are mapped. Google is uniquely able to know that no user has driven across that road in years, and a prudent routing algorithm would thus not route thorough it, and definitely not do so at night (something Google is also able to predict).
Google should in fact know it is no longer a through road as vehicles have approached both side, then backtracked, with none going through.
"Yes, terribly, terribly sad but honestly, would anyone be trying to blame a physical map publisher if their atlas or A to Z was wrong?"
True. I remember referring to my road atlas many years ago and it showed a dotted/ghosted road junction onto a new motorway being built in the direction I was heading. IIRC it was marked "Penning 1998" and since it was 2001 now, I head off in that direction only to find an enormous mound of sand where the new motorway junction was supposed to be. The originally mapped road was still there, but now turned off in a direction I didn't really want to go and would not have chosen if I'd know the new junction was at least 3 years late in opening. Another was the "new" road into the North end of Hull. Every road atlas for at least 10 years showed the new road as "opening nnnn" where nnnn was the year after the map was published.
Our neighbours get many, many people turning round and going back the other way on Fridays because that's when the chalet site takes in new guests every week. The misguided tourists go right past a big sign at the chalets' road because their satnav guides them to the centre of the postcode at our neighbours' about half a mile further on. The satnav must be right, what I can actually see must be wrong.
Some tourists demand the keys to their chalet, which is nowhere in sight. Once our neighbours were startled to see a bunch of Japanese tourists staring into their window. Some of them don't even know what the site's called - they think it's Hoseasons, the booking agent.
Disagree, they were using Google Maps...
Yes it does have some route navigation functionality, however, it is in the same category as using the OS Maps in the UK or Rand McNally maps in the US ie. its a map and having a person giving directions off the map without looking out the windscreen.
If, however they were using Waze, a navigation app owned by Google and uses Google Maps data, that would be a different matter.
It's not clear if the references to "Google Maps" literally do just mean the driver was using the map data to plan their own route a la a printed map, or if the various comments about "being directed" etc. imply, he was actually using it in active navigation mode - i.e. exactly like any other satnav system.
As a side note, Waze doesn't use Google Maps data, it's still entirely based on crowdsourcing which means stuff like this tends to get updated pretty much as soon as it happens (or at least as soon as someone becomes aware that it's happened) without any of the corporate inertia that plagues the Google Maps update process - in this case Waze has had the bridge closure mapped since at least 2016, which is as far back as the edit history goes. So had they been using Waze then it would indeed have been a different matter, because they'd not have been sent down that road in the first place...
It still is true of Waze - whilst there are more restrictions on what can be edited (entirely reasonably, given the risks involved in giving anyone free access to modify any part of the data) based on how much experience you've got of making edits, the local editing community always has the ability to make whatever changes are required either through temporarily removing those restrictions so that whoever requested the change can do the work themselves if they so wish, or by getting one of the more senior editors with the necessary editing rights to do it. Everything is still done within the community, and we can all see who did (or didn't do) what, meaning any bad behaviour from anyone in the community, no matter whereabouts on the experience ladder they sit, can be dealt with.
There may be some areas around the world where the senior editors are behaving in ways such as you describe here, which would be something that would need raising either with the respective country level admin team, or if the problem is within that team itself, then with Waze themselves. And this is a key point - the ability to raise these concerns against specific editors, rather than (as with GMaps) simply being given the brush off by a completely anonymous moderation team with no recourse. But in the main, things do still work the way they need to work in order to allow the people who actually know what's going on with their local roads to make whatever changes are needed.
Interestingly, there is a big unsupported assumption that the deceased was actually using Google Maps. I assume the phone was recovered from the river and forensically examined to determine Google Maps was the foreground running application; without this level of evidence the use of Google Maps is circumstantial or even supposition.
No, that's no-one's fault except the idiot who ran into you, and that's the sort of accident that can occur on any road at any time, regardless of who or what directed you to use that section of road at that moment in time.
In this case, the only reason the driver was on that road was because GMaps had directed them along it on the false premise that the road actuallly still existed in an even remotely passable state. This might have been excusable if the bridge had collapsed just a few days prior to the journey, but when it'd actually been down for YEARS, and when GMaps had already been asked to correct their map data to no avail, it becomes rather less excusable to presume they are blameless here.
>The complaint alleges that Google had been notified by concerned residents asking for the route to be struck off both years before the accident and following Paxson's death.
So all local residents , and presumably his friends, were fully aware of the collapsed bridge and nobody bothered to erect a barrier or warning sign, after the failure of the local authorities and land-owner to do so?
It is everybody's responsibility to protect others from harm where they can do so. This is a failure of the entire community, not just the landowner, and local authority responsible. Google are at the end of a very long list of those who's negligence contributed to this accident, but no doubt they have the deepest pockets.
Now living on the opposite side of the Atlantic Ocean, I can’t say I’m fully aware of the laws in Carolina, but are you saying that local residents should have taken it upon themselves to erect barriers, signs etc. in the interest of being ‘good people’?
In itself, yes, that would be a good and ‘right’ thing to do, except, hypothetically were someone to crash into said barrier, irrespective of warning signs etc. the American legal system being what it is, who do you think the lawyers would be after?
"So all local residents , and presumably his friends, were fully aware of the collapsed bridge and nobody bothered to erect a barrier or warning sign, after the failure of the local authorities and land-owner to do so?"
Possibly because they knew about bridge being gone, the posted barriers/cones/whatever had been put there, so never, ever drove down there and were unaware the barriers had been vandalised/stolen. Assuming you have a closed/blocked road in your area, how often do you drive down to check it's all still properly blocked off?
That the county was negligent has no bearing on whether Google was also negligent. They are completely uncorrelated questions.
Either party could independently have prevented the death had they acted diligently.
Google are not at the end of the list at all. They actively directed him to his death. Nobody else said "drive down this road". Google did. Google had knowledge that the road was not open (Waze - a Google property, marks it as such), and they had been notified that is was a lethally dangerous situation, not merely a mapping error.
Now I wouldn't expect Google staff to be facing a manslaughter charge, which someone in the county might well be worried about, but it is absolutely appropriate that they be in court defending their actions or in this case, inaction.
This post has been deleted by its author
I don't see why Google can't very quickly figure out that the road is closed. Surely they could have noticed that of the hundreds or thousands of people it sent that way over the years, exactly zero went across the bridge. It's an easier problem than showing congestion due to construction or crashes.
They could even follow-up with an in-app message to a few users, just like it asks "is the speed trap still there?"
We noticed you turned around at this location. Please select the reason.
1. Road temporarily closed
2. Road permanently closed
3. Bridge missing
4. Troll attack
[I don't see why Google can't very quickly figure out that the road is closed.]
Sometimes roads get closed for a very short time, repairs can sometimes only take half a day for example.
In the case of broken bridges there is usually signs and cones and some way to block the bridge. The fact the broken bridge remained unblocked for over a decade is not something you can blame Google of.
Why are people demanding real time data of Google while at the same time demanding Google doesn't track them?
Even if Google had billions of drones flying all over the world it would still be impossible to have 100%:accurate map information of the whole world.
Does Google have to slap a "The map information may be outdated" every time people uses Google Maps?
What people can blame Google of is of not updating the map for a very long time.
However not having the bridge blocked is again not Google's fault but the locall government.
I get that there are a lot of factors contributing to this tragedy, and it is unfortunate. What I don’t get is how, even after 10 years, an entire decade, that even these people wouldn’t have known? You have got to be kidding me. If it is true that this bridge has been out for the last decade, a person plugs in the directions to go home and it shows directions going over that bridge, then one would should say oh I shouldn’t go over that because that’s the bridge that’s broken. Isn’t that what most people would do or say to themselves if they live in that community and this bridge has been such an issue? Sure Googs could do something about it but I think it’s about the community having should done something about it rather than just submitting requests for change via feedback messages on a smartphone maps app and a few phone calls to local authorities.
Heck, wouldn’t it have made sense long ago for residents themselves to at least put up some signs and barricades? Uh duhhh no I’m a doofus we just rely on others to always do the work. Dooo duh dooo
But really just comes down to self preservation and common sense. Stop relying on others to take care of you. Letting smartphones do all our thinking and planning. Ugh Try harder. Use your brain not your smartphone. I’m all for smart phones, but I use it very seldom and only for quick answers to things and yes directions but I think before I just go. It’s the thinking that needs to happen more. People just go but they don’t think. Get a clue.
"What I don’t get is how, even after 10 years, an entire decade, that even these people wouldn’t have known? You have got to be kidding me."
Well, the article does say that:
"the family had recently moved to the area from Florida so Paxson was unfamiliar with the neighborhood"
and
"When Paxson left, it was dark and raining. He had no knowledge of the collapsed bridge he was being led toward"
So is it really that bizarre to you that he genuinely wouldn't have been aware of what he was driving towards?
"If it is true that this bridge has been out for the last decade, a person plugs in the directions to go home and it shows directions going over that bridge, then one would should say oh I shouldn’t go over that because that’s the bridge that’s broken. Isn’t that what most people would do or say to themselves if they live in that community and this bridge has been such an issue? "
"the family had recently moved to the area from Florida so Paxson was unfamiliar with the neighborhood."
&
"When Paxson left, it was dark and raining. He had no knowledge of the collapsed bridge he was being led toward, yet residents were familiar and referred to it as the "Bridge to Nowhere"
What part of that did you fail to notice while reading?
On the stretch of road where the bridge was, the StreetView images are dated October 2012.
Approaching from one end of the road the images are dated May 2019. From the last of these you can see the collapsed bridge, and you can also see that there is a fairly flimsy barricade. Presumably the camera car could see that the road was impassable, as it went no further. That would have been a good time to update the map.
Approaching from the other end the images are dated May 2023, and now concrete blocks are visible, mostly blocking access to the former bridge from both sides. Again, the camera car would clearly have been very aware that the road was impassable.
So I think Google could and should have updated their records. But their failure should never have resulted in anything more than inconvenience.
As of 2019, at least, though, the signage and blocking of the road was pitiful.
But, as far back as 2019, and still in 2023, so clearly also at the time of the accident, there were (small) trees growing up in the space where the bridge had been. A competent driver, proceeding sensibly down an unfamiliar single-track road, should have been going slowly enough that seeing a tree in front of them should have been enough to cause them to stop safely.
I would pin a substantial amount of the blame on the blame on the driver and the rest on whoever is responsible for maintaining the road.
Whilst I generally agree with you, it is possible that the driver was suffering something called "perception bias".
This is a cognitive bias that leads a person to subconsciously draw conclusions based on what they are expecting to see, and seeing a tree growing in the middle of the road would not be expected. The driver would then tend to look for evidence that reinforces "this is a road", rather than questioning what they were actually seeing.
"Perception bias" is a real issue, and has lead to a number of fatal air accidents when it was obvious after-the-fact (flight data and voice recorders) what was actually going to happen.
When I were a lad, I was working on collision intervention systems for a large automotive OEM as part of an EU Fourth Framework project. We needed a "test track" to use for some project validation work, and were given access to a new stretch of autobahn that was being built in the former GDR.
We were out doing some data collection one night in heavy rain, when the collision warning went off unexpectedly and the car came to stop - about 10m from the edge of a large drop.
Turned out that there was a bridge that hadn't yet been constructed, and the warning barrier (flimsy wooden construction) had been blown away or knocked over by the weather so that none of the high-vis markings were pointing along the road, and nothing showed up in the headlights (confirmed on the video data-logger we had on board).
Luckily, the advanced radar system we were running (there is still nothing comparable in use) saw enough of the debris from the barrier to decide it should intervene.
Quite an eventful trip all round, especially as the site was guarded by ex-stasi with kalashnikovs.
After one of our big earthquakes in California, a couple CHPs died this way. They topped a rise in the pre-dawn twilight, and could see the road cresting the next hill, but didn't realize that the road in between those two points had ceased to exist.
Technically speaking you should always drive such that you can stop within the distance you can see; but in real life, almost none of us drive that way on the highway.
I suspect when you press 'Agree' to the Google Maps T&Cs it probably has buried away in their somewhere that Google are not responsible for any inaccuracies in the mapping data that might result in damage, injury, death etc. Cos if i were a multi billion dollar company like Google id had made sure the lawyers squeeze that in there.
I do feel sorry for the guy who died, Ive found myself down some very dodgy roads after following Googles advice when out in the country on unfamiliar roads. But in this situation it seems to me that the liability should rely squarely on the shoulders of the owners of the road/land where the bridge is located If its been out for 10 years there should be permanent barricade to stop anyone even getting close enough to be able to go over the edge. Even if it were just some concrete blocks or a big pile of hardcore it would be enough to stop the majority of vehicles, even if vandalism did remove the signs.
As even if Google had updated their maps, the lack of physical barrier is still the main issue, as not everyone will be using Google maps who might be heading down that road. It could be a driver of an older cars with build in sat navs that never got any get map updates in the last few years or people relying on good old paper maps and an update on Google wouldn't help those people.
Google's and the land owner's negligence notwithstanding due diligence while driving is always necessary. Let's say that a road is flooded during a heavy downpour - do I drive straight into the water (and get my car waterlogged) and later I blame Google? No, I turn around. And yes, mommy better explain the kids that daddy cannot be there with them anymore because he has made a rather stupid mistake, but admitting that would be too un-American I guess...
Google Maps still claims that A165 Osgodby Hill still exists even though it's been at the bottom of the sea for over a decade.
Did the local street department post signs the bridge was out? Was the driver in command of his faculties at the time of the accident? Was he wearing proper restraints? What was his speed? Did this occur during daylight or night time hours? Was this a properly dedicated roadway or a private lane? In most states, landowner are not liable for the condition of private lanes unless they are a recognised highway. Just some of the counter claims Google et al will probably raise.
Some years ago, on the local news, some dumb bint was actually bragging about how she ignored a bunch of warning signs and drove off an incomplete overpass. But I digress.
I was all set to say "that sucks, but why didn't he just stop when he saw the bridge was out" when up pops the bit that it was basically a dark and stormy night. Honestly, it sounds like there's plenty of blame to go around. The city/county/whatever, could have either fixed the bridge or put up signage at least. Grab a couple of those heavy concrete road divider barriers and put 'em on either side along with some "bridge out" signs.
Much as I generally dislike Google, I can't really fault them much on this one. They can't be expected to know when every single bridge is out, or road is closed everywhere in the world. Usually they rely on municipalities updating public databases they can hoover up and integrate into their apps. So, I understand the pain they're feeling, but clearly Google is the target simply because of the deep pockets the company has. The fault lies with whatever government agency is in charge of that road and took absolutely no preventative measures, despite apparently having years to do so.
Bootnote: Let's take a moment to look back at an old Register article from 2013: https://www.theregister.com/2013/09/26/apple_maps_directed_drivers_onto_alaskan_airport_taxiways/
>They can't be expected to know when every single bridge is out,
They can when they have been told, when their streetview camera has recorded it, when the streetview driver has seen it, when their Waze map database shows it not open, when the android tracking shows that vehicles have been unable to cross it.
What does it take for Google to "know" something?
A fool’s errand.
I had 40 such changes to make once.
Contacted Google. Only way to proceed was to ring 40 separate times, one for every update.
It took over 2 hours as they insisted I did a “survey” after every update.
A system that fails so spectacularly is not a system at all.
Re: “maliciously change the map”
Oh this happens regardless.
I’ve had to contact Google to get a pin changed.
Someone had added a private mobile number to a government driver’s licence office.
You can imagine the drama for the Mobile owner.
Trying to get Google to remove the entry and restore the toll free government number was near impossible.
They just don’t care.
Usually with services like this, the terms basically preclude claims like this as they say things like the information is not to be used for XYZ purposes, and is provided with no warranty/guarantee of accuracy etc...
So, I doubt this will go anywhere.
Surely they should be suing whoever is in charge of maintaining that road for not putting up barriers?
The fact that this is a private road makes me wonder why google is sending traffic there to begin with.
While I see escape paths for goog legally, at the same time, if you provide a service you are responsible for your actions, guiding people to drive there. And they were repeatedly informed it was closed.
If it hadn't been dark and raining, I expect he would have seen it. It is very sad.
They can't ensure their maps are perfect at all times, it's a free service that's best effort.
There are two parties at fault here:
1) the driver, for not seeing a collapsed bridge in front of him.
2) the owners of the road, for not putting a jersey barrier on either side of the collapsed bridge, with signage a few yards before.
Google is a very distant third. It's not great their maps were inaccurate, but there can be no reasonable expectation of flawless mapping.
I can foresee a victory against the property owners because there were no warning signs of the hazard, but a mapping business? I'd be very surprised if they prevail on that aspect, despite the cash-cow they're pursuing. You're always supposed to pay attention to the road no matter what your GPS or map says. Hence my thought that the property owners will be culpable.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
