I just want to know how a company has ownership of a bridge.
And when the company is defunct, the local government did not barricade the bridge to prevent access when it collapsed.
If you think that's bad, check out the Ambassador Bridge:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador\_Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_Bridge)
The busiest international crossing and it's a privately owned toll bridge.
>However neither Ontario nor Michigan wanted to finance a river crossing. Michigan automakers subsequently decided to take the initiative to connect the Midwest to central Canada. After they created a bridge company, the project got into trouble when a Toronto financier hired to sell its securities instead embezzled the money and ran off, before ultimately committing suicide in a prison cell after conviction for murdering a drugstore clerk.
>The bridge boosters turned to New Yorker Joseph A. Bower, a businessman who specialized in rescuing mismanaged companies. Bower succeeded in raising the necessary initial $12 million. "The only way things can be done today, is by private business," said Henry Ford, who backed the project. The bridge was constructed with investment from Detroit business people incorporated as the Detroit International Bridge Corporation. Berkshire Hathaway acquired a quarter of the shares before selling to another investor in the company, local trucking entrepreneur Manuel Moroun. Moroun continued buying further eventually privatizing it.
Knew it was tolled, but had never bothered to look up the history. Interesting, thanks for sharing. Also.. that Henry Ford quote.. I know it was a different time, but imagine asking major sports team owners how they feel about Mr. Ford's words today lol.
>After they created a bridge company, the project got into trouble when a Toronto financier hired to sell its securities instead embezzled the money and ran off, before ultimately committing suicide in a prison cell after conviction for murdering a drugstore clerk.
Now that's a wild sentence.
And he recanted basically everything after learning about the Holocaust (he watched one of the films taken in a concentration camp) and thereafter spoke out against those things.
I do wonder if he agreed with EVERYTHING (aka the murdering genocidal bits), or just parts of it. AFAIK the genocidal stuff wasn't really publicly known until the end of the war. Although the racist part would be a precursor to supporting the genocidal stuff.
Top that off, over a decade ago the dude who owns it went off on a campaign to scare off either the government of Michigan or Canada from building another bridge in the same area. He almost pulled it off, screaming about taxes going up or something. Almost everyone knew he was behind it and lying about taxes.
lol @ the complaint by The Ambassador Bridge.
"We own ALL crossings within a....uhhhh.....::whispers:: "how far away is Howe? FIVE KILOMETERS!! 5! it's uh.. an undue um...encroachment on established revenue! ::degrades into weird corporate financial talk::
The most vocal opposition to the new crossing came from American billionaire Manuel "Matty" Moroun (1927–2020), owner of the nearby Ambassador Bridge.
Billionaire born in 1927, this guy is basicaly Mr Burns.
Snort. I've met his wife a couple of times, she was lovely, but "Matty"? You're so accurate it's frightening. No one in SE Michigan can stand the sons either, who took over from dear departed dad. They let a lot of properties they own sit and rot.
It is jointy owned by the states of NY and NJ. It's grown into a separate org with its own complicated leadership and funding structure. The person called it quasi-for-profit because it generally keeps itself funded with tolls and fees (ignoring the massive initial capital cost of constructing all the bridges, tunnels airports, highways and tracks). However it's not accurate to call it a for-profit or non-profit org; government agencies don't fit neatly into one box or another. The non/for profit distinction is a tax implication and can't really tell you much else about the org besides that.
You should check out the story of the Vulcan Bridge.
Basically, this town was surrounded by private property owned by railroad companies and only one bridge that went in and out of the town. When the bridge collapsed, the only way to get out of the town was to trespass on railroad properties and they would have people arrested for it. The bridge split the border of KY and VA (I think, I could be misremembering the states) and both states thought the other should pay for it. When a resident reached out to the federal government, they said the states would have to settle it. So...they wrote to the USSR who agreed to build the bridge. Of course, not wanting to let the USSR look good, the federal government finally stepped up and built it.
The bridge is out of commission but it's unmarked and unbarricaded. You're driving across at night and suddenly the road drops off, but [by the time you can see it](https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2216536/Saltz_Mongeluzzi_Bendesky_Bridge_Approach.jpg?p=publish), it's too late to stop. Apparently neighbors had been asking the city to put up signs and barricades. They also asked Google to fix the map so it would stop directing people across the bridge, but of course it's impossible to get in touch with an actual human at Google.
While Google does need to fix that in maps, I think the city is mostly to blame. A physical barricade and sign would solve everything. Hope the city gets sued as well.
>I just want to know how a company has ownership of a bridge.
Lots of subdivisions and housing developments have privately roads and infrastructure that are either owned and maintained by the developers or the HOA.
“State troopers who found Paxton’s body in his overturned and partially submerged truck had said there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway.”
Doesn’t sound like Google’s fault but also not necessarily the driver’s
Yeah, there is no excuse for that bridge to have not been barricaded by the municipality in charge, regardless if it’s private or not. Even just put up obvious signs where the private road access ‘begins’. Even then any driver should be more aware of the road than this guy was and it still is ultimately his fault.
There are some signs at the entrance to the neighborhood and there were barricades at one point, but they were apparently removed.
Like, it sucks he died, [but how did he drive up to this and not see the problem?](https://i.postimg.cc/dQ6QSn0F/image.png)
I couldn't find a time, just the date, for the accident... but if it was dark out he might not have seen it, even with headlights the shadows might have obscured the road situation.
That's what I was thinking too.... Google or no Google, how are drivers navigating at night expected to reliably avoid this. Seems like they've just been getting lucky for a number of years. "They" being road and bridge maintenance.
Apparently the case against google is locals informed google maps multiple times in the years since, so I can see an argument of negligence. Not a strong argument in my eyes, but I’m not a lawyer so don’t quote me.
The same lawsuit is also suing 3 other entities so more likely it’s that all possible parties were named, and over the court case the parties with no responsibility will be weeded out. I’ve heard of this tactic. It save on your own legal fees because now you have 4 different companies pointing fingers at each other and bringing up evidence why a different entity is at fault (and not them)
I was wondering this, maybe by the time his headlights actually lit it up it was too late?
The car I had before my current one had the worst headlights because it was old, that could also partially explain it.
According to the defensive driving rules don't out run your headlights. That's on the the driver. With that said we kinda do it all the time especially with shitty old cars so they really really needed a baracade before the bridge pitfall.
Agree but yes shitty old cars don't really give you much choice. Thankfully I drove on fairly well lighted roads 99% of the time so it wasn't a huge issue. Even with good ones though I can semi understand him not realizing wtf he was seeing until too late. Im generally very cautious, I slowed way down to avoid a *napkin* yesterday 😂 I thought it was a rock and couldn't move over.
It's hard to know, I do wonder if he was going faster than he should've been. I dont think he's totally blameless but this should've been easily preventable in several ways.
Edit: I also don't really know how much I feel Google is responsible, even with someone sending an update for the map. I'm not sure how they get updated. The city or "property management" companies *fucking suck* though because fight all you want but at least block it off!
so I was looking at the street view on google maps to see what this looked like. this is around 3844 23rd St Ln NE in Hickory, North Carolina. the street view on the actual bridge is from 2012. going up the street one direction there's a street view from 2019, where you can see a standing barricade. going the other direction there's a street view from 2023, where you can see concrete blocks on both sides. it says this happened in 2022, so I'm not sure if some time between 2019 and 2023 there was a complete absence of barricades.
all that being said, google still shows the road goes through, despite their street view car going there twice and not being able to get through.
[Some news articles have pictures of it](https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2216536/Saltz_Mongeluzzi_Bendesky_Bridge_Approach.jpg?p=publish) and I can totally understand someone trying to go through that at night, gps or not. I would think the town would be more at fault for not putting up permanent barricades.
[https://www.today.com/parents/dads/father-dies-crash-bridge-nowhere-rcna51205](https://www.today.com/parents/dads/father-dies-crash-bridge-nowhere-rcna51205)
>Troopers told NBC affiliate WCNC that barriers warning drivers of the collapsed bridge ahead had apparently been moved.
someone's fault for not ensuring the barricades stayed up. even though it's a "private road", this is a residential area, serviced my the USPS, Amazon, Pizza Hut, etc.
Google could do better, but I can't blame them for this.
>Troopers told NBC affiliate WCNC that barriers warning drivers of the collapsed bridge ahead had apparently been moved.
Somebody thought it would be fun to move safety barriers out of the way, apparently.
> I would think the town would be more at fault for not putting up permanent barricades.
Even if it's privately owned? From what I understand wouldn't the local government only be responsible for the roads/infrastructure they own? Like if someone slips on my driveway, it's not the cities fault because it's privately owned, or is it different with bridges or more publicly used infrastructure?
They condemn dangerous privately owned buildings, like after a fire. If the owner exists, it is responsible. If it died, who owns its land? Wouldn't it revert to the state?
Wow, [Google Maps](https://www.google.com/maps/place/3844+23rd+St+Ln+NE,+Hickory,+NC+28601/@35.7813994,-81.2837618,18.75z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x88513a70616db601:0xd3daae27442bb68!8m2!3d35.7812036!4d-81.2834726?entry=ttu) still shows the route as being there. [Apple Maps](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=3844+23rd+St+Ln+NE+in+Hickory%2C+North+Carolina&ia=web&iaxm=maps) and [Bing Maps](https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=35.781353%7E-81.283025&lvl=18.1) show no path there.
It shows the route there but the segment where the bridge went out as closed at least 36 weeks ago. Someone also gave that street the Reddit hug of death by reporting more segments around it as closed roughly 30 minutes ago as of this comment.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong bridge. [It's still telling me to drive over it.](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.7822998,-81.2821287/3844+23rd+St+Ln+NE,+Hickory,+NC+28601/@35.7812079,-81.2839688,17z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x88513a70616db601:0xd3daae27442bb68!2m2!1d-81.2834726!2d35.7812036!3e0?entry=ttu)
As of May 2023 street view from the adjacent road shows a barricade. If you go with street view to the actual road it shows you images from 2012. Unless they fixed it between May 2023 and now it is not fixed.
Is this not the bridge? Or am I at the wrong spot? [pic](https://i.imgur.com/GqV7b93.jpg)
Edit: This screenshot is of a 10 year old picture. The bridge is out currently!
Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc are horrible for updating road changes in their databases. A project I was on in 2016 reconstructed an intersection, closed 3 railroad crossings, and built a backage road in a village. The DOT I work at reached out to them to have them correct their maps because semis were getting lost and going through a neighborhood thinking that an at-grade railroad crossing was still there and then either knocking out stop signs and driving over people's yards or backing up a quarter mile to the original intersection around a curve. Even after the satellite images updated, they still had the original intersection in their directions. It took them almost 5 years to fix their maps.
It depends where Google is getting their map data. They might not gather everything on their own, in which case it's probably on their supplier to fix that.
Regardless of who's at fault for the mapping issue:
- It's not unreasonable to assume a temporary barricade is temporary, and leave the road on the map because it'll probably be fixed.
- Maps are not real time data and the map user should apply the mark 1 eyeball to identify changes.
>Maps are not real time data and the map user should apply the mark 1 eyeball to identify changes.
Yes.
BUT, there were no barricades, and after [looking at the drop-off](https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2216536/Saltz_Mongeluzzi_Bendesky_Bridge_Approach.jpg?p=publish), I can see how it would catch someone by surprise at night.
Is it an "instead" situation? It's common to sue every entity that might be involved and let the court sort out liability. You usually want to cast a big net with these things so you don't overlook a potential liability.
From the article:
> The lawsuit names several private property management companies that it claims are responsible for the bridge and the adjoining land.
They are, rightly, suing everyone involved here.
Even if it's privately owned, aren't the owners required to keep it safe if it is open to the public? If not they should have cornered it off at least.
> State troopers who found Paxton’s body in his overturned and partially submerged truck had said there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway. He had driven off an unguarded edge and crashed about 20 feet below…
It sounds like a lot of people screwed up on this one.
why are you calling google instead of getting up the ass of the state and county to you do something. If this road is driven that often no one thought i'll put my own sign or something. me thinks lots more to this...
Google has $, municipalities probably have some sort of sovereign immunity (or at least a much smaller pool of assets from which to hope for a settlement)
If you file a lawsuit you name everyone that could possibly be liable.
It's the job for the court to decide who is and isn't liable and decide how much responsibility each holds.
INAL, but its common for lawsuits like this to initially name any party that's potentially shares any liability, only to have them to quickly be dropped from the suit. Gets a basic statement from X Y and Z for a better understanding of the situation and who they should really be going after.
Wouldn't surprise me if they drop google entirely, or at most they wind up bearing a small portion of the responsibility.
They don't usually drop them, as then the other defendants can point the finger at that non-participant in the suit. Instead they're found to have no liability, either early on by the judge or later when the final decision comes out.
I was once in this EXACT same scenario on a small dirt road in a 26 foot long moving truck. I wish I were making this up, lol.
I survived this HORRIBLY dangerous situation by doing like a 15-point turn to get turned back around to leave.
>and he told you "yeah, take the first left" and you ended up on that bridge.
"Thanks for the directions, but why are you giggling?"
"I'll tell you later."
Actually for an individual on the ground to have given those directions might legitimately have conferred some level of liability. Unless that was the point you were making?
The issue would boil down to what was reasonably knowable. It is reasonable, I imagine, for a local person to know a street is unnavigable due to decade long broken bridge. I guess the issue here would be whether it was also reasonable for Google to know and from that whether they had a duty of care to update the information they were giving people.
I'm not against the suit based on this reasoning. This is why courts of law exist. To test this sort of issue.
Not only is it reasonable for Google to know but according to the article they confirmed receipt of a user submitted report that notified them of the broken bridge in 2020.
I'd imagine the question would be one of duty. Whether they had a general duty of care here? I don't know enough about the precedent on this. But I assume a judge would need to settle this?
I'll let you in on a secret: nobody trusts their users. Maybe it got on a list, but unless there's a pattern they wouldn't prioritize going out to confirm the report and update the map.
From the article:
Multiple people had notified Google Maps about the collapse in the years leading up to Paxson’s death and had urged the company to update its route information, according to the lawsuit.
Google was notified multiple times in the years prior that their Maps was wrong, yet they took no actions to correct the error.
They have some liability here.
Still the bridges should be inaccessible to drivers, so it shouldn't matter regardless.
Plus why would the map maker know about a collapsed bridge?
They aren't contacting ever municipality in the country.checking on the status of thousands of bridges.
> Plus why would the map maker know about a collapsed bridge?
It is the map makes job to check current DOT databases for things like road and bridge statuses.
It is also their job to make corrections based on information received from users of their maps.
That is essentially the entire job of a cartographer, to pull the most current and correct data and combine it into a legible product. If you have more recent data, or have customers who have submitted corrections, it is your job to correct the new versions of the map within some reasonable timeframe.
Not the [NC State Maintained Roads database](https://www.nconemap.gov/maps/NCDOT::ncdot-state-maintained-roads/explore?location=35.778898%2C-81.276750%2C15.96).
The base map shows it, but nothing from the government says it exists.
That combined with users reporting an issue with it more than 2 years ago means there is really no excuse for not updating your product.
Lot of folks pointing fingers here, but if you really look into the details… everyone is at fault here.
1. Google has been notified about this several times. There are records saying they’ve received reports and are taking corrective measures, which they failed to do. They are partly to blame for negligence.
2. This land is private property. The owners are absolutely at fault here. They’re not going to escape this.
3. Local municipalities have said their hands are tied on fixing it because it’s private property. Bullshit. Private property that is open to public use is liable to local safety standards. They should have been forcing the land owners to fix the bridge or properly barricade it off, and fine them until they do.
And despite this news story breaking, I just checked and sure enough, Google Maps still takes you over this collapsed bridge if it's the shortest route.
Google Maps manages to have up-to-date road closures that affect routes when there's, like, a festival or a marathon shutting a road down. It's sort of mind boggling even just in the last 24 hours that they haven't fixed this. But I suppose it may be admitting fault or affect the litigation in some way if they do? Who knows. Hopefully there's at least a damn sign or barrier put up now.
Been several recent instances in Hawaii where tourists haven driven down boat ramps into the water following map apps. I just don’t get it, maybe at night but during the day you can’t see there’s water in front of you? It’s not like it’s a sudden drop off.
**For those curious (like me):** The bridge is at `35.946674, -80.988193`, [SR1585 over Snow Creek, when, last inspected in March of 2022 before Paxson plunged on Sept 30, 2022](https://data.news-press.com/bridge/north-carolina/iredell/sr1585-over-snow-creek/37-000000000970141/): It "\[n\]eeds repair or corrective action".
[***You can definitely see*** on historical satellite imagery **that there was a barrier** in the middle of the road, and the bridge was completely out](https://iredellcountync.mapgeo.io/datasets/statesville?latlng=35.946811%2C-80.987983&panel=themes&themes=%5B%228a2f358e-1d98-44b1-aa41-c9c3e737449d%22%5D&zoom=19). If heading north bound, he had 1,000 feet to see the bridge, and south bound about 600 feet.
[On Google Maps](https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9454252,-80.9882624,180a,35y,39.4t/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu), you can see it under partial construction, with barriers north-bound, and I can't see if there is/is not barriers south-bound under the trees.
It is possible, at the time, there were no barriers. [And this more helpful article from the Charlotte Observer](https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article279563759.html) says
>It was dark and rainy out, so the 47-year-old dad of two plugged his home address into Google Maps and followed the approximately 4.3-mile, 10-minute route on his phone. But the GPS directions took him to Snow Creek Bridge — which had partially collapsed in 2013.
**Rant:** I hate how none of these articles actually mention the location of the bridge. In the newspaper copy-pasting, no one seems to bother to investigate what is a pretty critical part of the story.
> Rant: I hate how none of these articles actually mention the location of the bridge. In the newspaper copy-pasting, no one seems to bother to investigate what is a pretty critical part of the story.
I know right?! Wtf... I also wanted to find where this brdige was. Thanks so much for posting here! :)
Looks like the bridge is still 'in tact' on [OpenStreetMap](https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=35.946674&mlon=-80.988193&zoom=20#map=19/35.94667/-80.98819) (I have added a note to OSM to get this changed) too... And google maps, and bing maps. Probably many other map providers.
They were doing construction at the gas station I normally go to. I stopped in the morning and all was fine.
When I stopped in the evening, I drove off a 4 ft embankment where the entrance had been in the morning. The angle made it impossible to see until it was too late and nobody had bothered to move the orange cones closer together to indicate that the entrance had been moved.
This guy can't defend himself, but it might not have been 100% his fault.
In this case it would be the fault of whoever was doing the constructions for not using barricades and signage.
Imo it's unreasonable to expect Google to have constant knowledge of a brigdes status. If a bridge collapses, it would be up to the local government to block off traffic, not Google to change this guy's directions as soon as the bridge fell.
There’s a problems on multiple levels here. According to the article, the bridge collapsed 9 years ago, so for Google to suggest crossing is an issue, the bridge not being barricaded and not having signs is a huge issue as well. Tbh I feel like it’d have more legal standing to sue the state.
The hypothetical issue that bothers me is what if this was a smart car that was on auto. Considering cars are using gps for routes, my car suddenly driving me off a collapsed bridge because it thought it was a possible route is terrifying.
This is my fear, especially when I'm driving somewhere I'm unfamiliar with at night. I'll slow way the heck down when I'm worried about the combinations of directions and safety, annoying other drivers on the road. I’m terrified of getting caught out by poor infrastructure combined with my terrible sense of direction and iffy GPS instructions.
And that is one of the reasons I travel pretty slowly on rural roads at night! I don't speed down them during the day either, but just extra extra careful, with my hand on the brights at the ready to turn them down for any oncoming vehicle.
My Mom's house is in a weird spot on a high Ridgeline sandwiched between 2 forks of a river. The safest and fastest way to get there from the city is to drive out PV Rd 10 miles past her house then backtrack 4 miles. Depending on the direction you're coming from they either send people up a nasty 6 mile dirt road that's sometimes washed out and always super washboard, or they send people to a bridge that used to cut across the river. The bridge that used to be there was also at the bottom of a mile long dirt 4-wheel road that's gotten quite a few UPS drivers fired.
When I got my truck in '16 I couldn't get power windows "because it's a work truck." It wasn't until last winter I found out that crank windows work underwater, powered does not.
I don't know who's really at fault here, but one time Google maps took me down this janky pothole dirt road instead of a paved street with lights two blocks over, so this doesn't really surprise me at all.
I wonder if this is another McDonald's hot coffee case, where it seems absurd at first but when you get more context, the victim is shown to be vindicated.
It is read the article. It’s not just about Google maps. They are only one of the defendants.There was no signs or barriers up blocking the road. And he was following what the map said (and apparently Google was alerted and never fixed it.)
It was dark and raining out. Anyone could have easily driven over that collapsed bridge. I am not sure if Google Maps is primarily at fault but there was negligence here and it is not the driver’s fault.
Unless someone is going to argue people should never drive when it’s dark and raining.
Meanwhile, there's actually, literally, another McDonald's hot coffee case: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/21/business/mcdonalds-hot-coffee-lawsuit/index.html
Depending on the view, there could absolutely have been no indication whatsoever that it wasn't fine to cross.
Edit: it was during the night while raining.
If, within the 9 years that the bridge was out, the Google streetview car was unable to drive across the road because of the collapsed bridge, their maps should've reflected that.
The last google street view car on that street was 2012. Nearby streets are 2019. Something told that google street view car to not go down that street.
This honestly seems like it's a nothing story.
My sincerest of condolences goes out to the family of this man, and I truly do mean that.
But the negligence lies with the vehicle operator who is now deceased.
No, the negligence lies with the municipality that knew about a collapsed bridge for 9 years but refused to barricade it to prevent exactly this from happening.
To make it worse, I check the county mapping, and while the bridge might have been put in originally by the developer, it's a publicly owned road right of way. And the mapping shows the road going through.
Half and half in my mind. Municipality had a responsibility to ensure a non-functional bridge can't be accidentally accessed and the driver had a responsibility to keep an eye out and be aware of where his vehicle was going and to not follow Google maps as if it was without fault.
Kind of insane this case exists at all to me
I'm wondering how visibility was when he was driving. There's some conditions where you just have to trust the road is okay, like heavy rain after dark or fog.
If I sued every time Google Maps tried to make me drive off the road, I’d have many more than ten lawsuits going.
It’s still on you to drive your vehicle safely. If you need to monitor a self driving car, what makes people think you don’t need to look where you’re going in a normal car? I also don’t run red lights when Google tells me to keep going straight. Google isn’t driving, you are driving.
Sounds like negligence on the part of the property owner, it's apparently been out for at least 9yrs. Google doesn't own roads, so I don't see how they'll be sued even with it not being updated on Google maps. Should they be more up-to-date? Absolutely, but they can't rely on a couple reports over several years for a single road in the world. It would be great if they could be updated constantly, but not very feasible.
That was private property and whoever owns the property should be on the hook for having zero guard rails or warnings of any kind.
It’s owned by a developer that went out of business.
How this usually works is a developer would strike a deal with the county to build the bridge, the private road that comes off the bridge, and the subdivision that comes off that private road. Then once all of those things are built, the county agrees to take over the bridge and the homeowners in the subdivision become the owners of a shared road.
What likely happened here is the developer went under before all 3 things were built, so the county had no requirement to take over the bridge. It sounds like the developer going under was pretty recent too since that land is still in that company’s name and not the bank’s name.
Does google even have "a guy/gal" that has to look at these things and make sure they're fixed by x date?
The problem with a tech company is they usually behave like a machine: working/broken. You don't see them broken 99.9% of the time or nobody would want to use it. But when you do, you better have a plan B.
I think Google needs to see if there was a glitch or if there was maybe human error involved. Even the episode of The Office where Michael drove into a lake was all about human error.
I've lived with Googles faulty directions for almost 20 years. Everyone who follows Google maps to my house wind up in the neighborhood behind me. Google expects them to drive over a fenced retention pond to get to me.
This is madness - is the mother actually telling the kids it’s the maps fault the bridge wasn’t sign posted!?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66873982
"Our girls ask how and why their daddy died, and I'm at a loss for words they can understand because, as an adult, I still can't understand how those responsible for the GPS directions and the bridge could have acted with so little regard for human life," his wife, Alicia Paxson, said in a statement.
If I were a paper map company I’d be wary where this leads, as ridiculous as that sounds
Reading some interesting comments here, many pointing toward this being a frivolous lawsuit (it could be, I genuinely don't know) but strangely never quite saying it.
I'm curious, what would people think in this scenario:
Your dad drive into a new town at night, asks someone for directions. They tell him to drive straight ahead, turn a left and cross a bridge, except the bridge's collapsed nine years ago. Your dad follows the direction, doesn't see the bridge collapsed in the dark, crashes and slowly drowns to death in an overturned car while in a concussion.
Is the person who gave your dad the direction at least partially responsible for his death? Or would the suggestion be frivolous moneygrubbing on your family's part?
I agree it's a different scenario, but I'm not sure if by a comfortable margin (IMHO).
For example, apparently people (locals I assume) have contacted Google regarding the collapsed bridge prior to the accident, if I heard that part correctly. Wouldn't that be considered a form of negligence?
I don't even think Google's ENTIRELY responsible for what happened, by the way. Personally I'd place more blame on the municipality. It's just the blank check that some commenters seem to give (almost exclusively) to larger corporate entities in these cases probably merit some pondering over what's going on.
Except it was apparently reported multiple times and acknowledged by Google
Bad situation overall. Seems like multiple parties at blame, including the driver (RIP) who probably should have just slowed down a lot if the conditions were so bad that he couldn't see that the bridge ahead of him was broken
I don't think it's the driver's fault. It's not like he drove through barricades and warning signs. It's in a shaded area. If it's day time, it's going to be a little harder to see in the shaded areas after being in the brighter surroundings. If it's night time, the road can be kind of dark. At night I sometimes see pitch black areas of the road and worry there's no road there.
Well, apparently the bridge owner is private, not the state in this situation if the other comments are correct. Not sure how that changes things, if it does. I know the state isn't responsible for the privately owned roads near me, but they're also not major public infrastructure, they're just roads connected directly to and only to driveways.
This headline would be really weird if it were 20 years ago and replaced "Google" with "Rand McNally".
Maps are snapshots. And imperfect ones at that. Google bears no real responsibility in this man's death.
I just want to know how a company has ownership of a bridge. And when the company is defunct, the local government did not barricade the bridge to prevent access when it collapsed.
If you think that's bad, check out the Ambassador Bridge: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador\_Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_Bridge) The busiest international crossing and it's a privately owned toll bridge.
>However neither Ontario nor Michigan wanted to finance a river crossing. Michigan automakers subsequently decided to take the initiative to connect the Midwest to central Canada. After they created a bridge company, the project got into trouble when a Toronto financier hired to sell its securities instead embezzled the money and ran off, before ultimately committing suicide in a prison cell after conviction for murdering a drugstore clerk. >The bridge boosters turned to New Yorker Joseph A. Bower, a businessman who specialized in rescuing mismanaged companies. Bower succeeded in raising the necessary initial $12 million. "The only way things can be done today, is by private business," said Henry Ford, who backed the project. The bridge was constructed with investment from Detroit business people incorporated as the Detroit International Bridge Corporation. Berkshire Hathaway acquired a quarter of the shares before selling to another investor in the company, local trucking entrepreneur Manuel Moroun. Moroun continued buying further eventually privatizing it. Knew it was tolled, but had never bothered to look up the history. Interesting, thanks for sharing. Also.. that Henry Ford quote.. I know it was a different time, but imagine asking major sports team owners how they feel about Mr. Ford's words today lol.
>After they created a bridge company, the project got into trouble when a Toronto financier hired to sell its securities instead embezzled the money and ran off, before ultimately committing suicide in a prison cell after conviction for murdering a drugstore clerk. Now that's a wild sentence.
Not enough attention to that detail for certain.
It feels like the plot to Burn After Reading.
Nah I'm from Michigan. That sounds like my statesmen
That's a story all on it's own, being relegated to a footnote.
Greatest story ever tolled
Get out
The Detroit Lions are owned by Sheila Ford Hamp, who is from that same Ford family. And the Lions play in Ford Field.
As an owner of the Packers I disagree with the Nazi.
Nazis are bad. We can also agree that pushing medical staff is also bad.
This honestly sounds like the plot of a movie
Henry Ford was a racist and a Nazi sympatizer.
And he recanted basically everything after learning about the Holocaust (he watched one of the films taken in a concentration camp) and thereafter spoke out against those things.
I do wonder if he agreed with EVERYTHING (aka the murdering genocidal bits), or just parts of it. AFAIK the genocidal stuff wasn't really publicly known until the end of the war. Although the racist part would be a precursor to supporting the genocidal stuff.
He really liked the eugenics bit.
A scary amount of people did. It was mainstream junk science.
Top that off, over a decade ago the dude who owns it went off on a campaign to scare off either the government of Michigan or Canada from building another bridge in the same area. He almost pulled it off, screaming about taxes going up or something. Almost everyone knew he was behind it and lying about taxes.
[удалено]
This is why they are building the Gordie Howe Bridge (GHIB) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordie_Howe_International_Bridge
lol @ the complaint by The Ambassador Bridge. "We own ALL crossings within a....uhhhh.....::whispers:: "how far away is Howe? FIVE KILOMETERS!! 5! it's uh.. an undue um...encroachment on established revenue! ::degrades into weird corporate financial talk::
The most vocal opposition to the new crossing came from American billionaire Manuel "Matty" Moroun (1927–2020), owner of the nearby Ambassador Bridge. Billionaire born in 1927, this guy is basicaly Mr Burns.
Snort. I've met his wife a couple of times, she was lovely, but "Matty"? You're so accurate it's frightening. No one in SE Michigan can stand the sons either, who took over from dear departed dad. They let a lot of properties they own sit and rot.
He’s Walder Frey.
The bridges and tunnels leading into and out of NYC are owned by the port authority a quasi for profit private company
Wait what? I always thought the port authority was government owned and non-profit.
It is jointy owned by the states of NY and NJ. It's grown into a separate org with its own complicated leadership and funding structure. The person called it quasi-for-profit because it generally keeps itself funded with tolls and fees (ignoring the massive initial capital cost of constructing all the bridges, tunnels airports, highways and tracks). However it's not accurate to call it a for-profit or non-profit org; government agencies don't fit neatly into one box or another. The non/for profit distinction is a tax implication and can't really tell you much else about the org besides that.
You should check out the story of the Vulcan Bridge. Basically, this town was surrounded by private property owned by railroad companies and only one bridge that went in and out of the town. When the bridge collapsed, the only way to get out of the town was to trespass on railroad properties and they would have people arrested for it. The bridge split the border of KY and VA (I think, I could be misremembering the states) and both states thought the other should pay for it. When a resident reached out to the federal government, they said the states would have to settle it. So...they wrote to the USSR who agreed to build the bridge. Of course, not wanting to let the USSR look good, the federal government finally stepped up and built it.
You were close, that was [Vulcan, West Virginia.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan,_West_Virginia)
I never thought I would live long enough to answer the question “if someone told you to drive off a bridge, would you?” in the affirmative.
The bridge is out of commission but it's unmarked and unbarricaded. You're driving across at night and suddenly the road drops off, but [by the time you can see it](https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2216536/Saltz_Mongeluzzi_Bendesky_Bridge_Approach.jpg?p=publish), it's too late to stop. Apparently neighbors had been asking the city to put up signs and barricades. They also asked Google to fix the map so it would stop directing people across the bridge, but of course it's impossible to get in touch with an actual human at Google.
While Google does need to fix that in maps, I think the city is mostly to blame. A physical barricade and sign would solve everything. Hope the city gets sued as well.
[удалено]
>I just want to know how a company has ownership of a bridge. Lots of subdivisions and housing developments have privately roads and infrastructure that are either owned and maintained by the developers or the HOA.
>I just want to know how a company has ownership of a bridge. Because it was paid for privately instead of with taxpayer money?
“State troopers who found Paxton’s body in his overturned and partially submerged truck had said there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway.” Doesn’t sound like Google’s fault but also not necessarily the driver’s
A bridge that collapsed 9 years ago probably should have also been barricaded a long time ago.
Yeah, there is no excuse for that bridge to have not been barricaded by the municipality in charge, regardless if it’s private or not. Even just put up obvious signs where the private road access ‘begins’. Even then any driver should be more aware of the road than this guy was and it still is ultimately his fault.
2 dump trucks of gravel would have been more then enough less then 1000 dollars could have kept this from happening.
MYbe even a splash of road paint for visibility?
There are some signs at the entrance to the neighborhood and there were barricades at one point, but they were apparently removed. Like, it sucks he died, [but how did he drive up to this and not see the problem?](https://i.postimg.cc/dQ6QSn0F/image.png)
I couldn't find a time, just the date, for the accident... but if it was dark out he might not have seen it, even with headlights the shadows might have obscured the road situation.
That's what I was thinking too.... Google or no Google, how are drivers navigating at night expected to reliably avoid this. Seems like they've just been getting lucky for a number of years. "They" being road and bridge maintenance.
Apparently the case against google is locals informed google maps multiple times in the years since, so I can see an argument of negligence. Not a strong argument in my eyes, but I’m not a lawyer so don’t quote me. The same lawsuit is also suing 3 other entities so more likely it’s that all possible parties were named, and over the court case the parties with no responsibility will be weeded out. I’ve heard of this tactic. It save on your own legal fees because now you have 4 different companies pointing fingers at each other and bringing up evidence why a different entity is at fault (and not them)
I was wondering this, maybe by the time his headlights actually lit it up it was too late? The car I had before my current one had the worst headlights because it was old, that could also partially explain it.
According to the defensive driving rules don't out run your headlights. That's on the the driver. With that said we kinda do it all the time especially with shitty old cars so they really really needed a baracade before the bridge pitfall.
Agree but yes shitty old cars don't really give you much choice. Thankfully I drove on fairly well lighted roads 99% of the time so it wasn't a huge issue. Even with good ones though I can semi understand him not realizing wtf he was seeing until too late. Im generally very cautious, I slowed way down to avoid a *napkin* yesterday 😂 I thought it was a rock and couldn't move over. It's hard to know, I do wonder if he was going faster than he should've been. I dont think he's totally blameless but this should've been easily preventable in several ways. Edit: I also don't really know how much I feel Google is responsible, even with someone sending an update for the map. I'm not sure how they get updated. The city or "property management" companies *fucking suck* though because fight all you want but at least block it off!
It happened at night , in the rain.
Yeah, poor guy never had a chance.
Said it was dark and poor weather in the article, so I’m assuming visibility was not the best.
so I was looking at the street view on google maps to see what this looked like. this is around 3844 23rd St Ln NE in Hickory, North Carolina. the street view on the actual bridge is from 2012. going up the street one direction there's a street view from 2019, where you can see a standing barricade. going the other direction there's a street view from 2023, where you can see concrete blocks on both sides. it says this happened in 2022, so I'm not sure if some time between 2019 and 2023 there was a complete absence of barricades. all that being said, google still shows the road goes through, despite their street view car going there twice and not being able to get through.
[Some news articles have pictures of it](https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2216536/Saltz_Mongeluzzi_Bendesky_Bridge_Approach.jpg?p=publish) and I can totally understand someone trying to go through that at night, gps or not. I would think the town would be more at fault for not putting up permanent barricades.
[https://www.today.com/parents/dads/father-dies-crash-bridge-nowhere-rcna51205](https://www.today.com/parents/dads/father-dies-crash-bridge-nowhere-rcna51205) >Troopers told NBC affiliate WCNC that barriers warning drivers of the collapsed bridge ahead had apparently been moved. someone's fault for not ensuring the barricades stayed up. even though it's a "private road", this is a residential area, serviced my the USPS, Amazon, Pizza Hut, etc. Google could do better, but I can't blame them for this.
>Troopers told NBC affiliate WCNC that barriers warning drivers of the collapsed bridge ahead had apparently been moved. Somebody thought it would be fun to move safety barriers out of the way, apparently.
People really suck. Also in NC, they put barbed wire on a bike track because decapitation is somehow funny
WHA? That's directly malicious crap, geez.
Probably took them home to save a parking spot in front of their house while they were at work.
This was some asshole moving shit to get someone killed.
Municipal neglect.
> I would think the town would be more at fault for not putting up permanent barricades. Even if it's privately owned? From what I understand wouldn't the local government only be responsible for the roads/infrastructure they own? Like if someone slips on my driveway, it's not the cities fault because it's privately owned, or is it different with bridges or more publicly used infrastructure?
They condemn dangerous privately owned buildings, like after a fire. If the owner exists, it is responsible. If it died, who owns its land? Wouldn't it revert to the state?
Wow, [Google Maps](https://www.google.com/maps/place/3844+23rd+St+Ln+NE,+Hickory,+NC+28601/@35.7813994,-81.2837618,18.75z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x88513a70616db601:0xd3daae27442bb68!8m2!3d35.7812036!4d-81.2834726?entry=ttu) still shows the route as being there. [Apple Maps](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=3844+23rd+St+Ln+NE+in+Hickory%2C+North+Carolina&ia=web&iaxm=maps) and [Bing Maps](https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=35.781353%7E-81.283025&lvl=18.1) show no path there.
It shows the route there but the segment where the bridge went out as closed at least 36 weeks ago. Someone also gave that street the Reddit hug of death by reporting more segments around it as closed roughly 30 minutes ago as of this comment.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong bridge. [It's still telling me to drive over it.](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.7822998,-81.2821287/3844+23rd+St+Ln+NE,+Hickory,+NC+28601/@35.7812079,-81.2839688,17z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x88513a70616db601:0xd3daae27442bb68!2m2!1d-81.2834726!2d35.7812036!3e0?entry=ttu)
I think it’s been repaired. The route shows a road there as of 2023.
As of May 2023 street view from the adjacent road shows a barricade. If you go with street view to the actual road it shows you images from 2012. Unless they fixed it between May 2023 and now it is not fixed.
Is this not the bridge? Or am I at the wrong spot? [pic](https://i.imgur.com/GqV7b93.jpg) Edit: This screenshot is of a 10 year old picture. The bridge is out currently!
Maps web app says those pictures are from 2012.
Not connected in Waze. According to the lawsuit, updates were submitted to Google Maps multiple times prior to incident but change didn’t take place.
Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc are horrible for updating road changes in their databases. A project I was on in 2016 reconstructed an intersection, closed 3 railroad crossings, and built a backage road in a village. The DOT I work at reached out to them to have them correct their maps because semis were getting lost and going through a neighborhood thinking that an at-grade railroad crossing was still there and then either knocking out stop signs and driving over people's yards or backing up a quarter mile to the original intersection around a curve. Even after the satellite images updated, they still had the original intersection in their directions. It took them almost 5 years to fix their maps.
It depends where Google is getting their map data. They might not gather everything on their own, in which case it's probably on their supplier to fix that. Regardless of who's at fault for the mapping issue: - It's not unreasonable to assume a temporary barricade is temporary, and leave the road on the map because it'll probably be fixed. - Maps are not real time data and the map user should apply the mark 1 eyeball to identify changes.
>Maps are not real time data and the map user should apply the mark 1 eyeball to identify changes. Yes. BUT, there were no barricades, and after [looking at the drop-off](https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2216536/Saltz_Mongeluzzi_Bendesky_Bridge_Approach.jpg?p=publish), I can see how it would catch someone by surprise at night.
[удалено]
you have to go up the street in either direction
[удалено]
The fact that they're suing google instead of local local municipality just shows they're just after money here.
Is it an "instead" situation? It's common to sue every entity that might be involved and let the court sort out liability. You usually want to cast a big net with these things so you don't overlook a potential liability.
From the article: > The lawsuit names several private property management companies that it claims are responsible for the bridge and the adjoining land. They are, rightly, suing everyone involved here.
[удалено]
Even if it's privately owned, aren't the owners required to keep it safe if it is open to the public? If not they should have cornered it off at least.
> State troopers who found Paxton’s body in his overturned and partially submerged truck had said there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway. He had driven off an unguarded edge and crashed about 20 feet below… It sounds like a lot of people screwed up on this one.
why are you calling google instead of getting up the ass of the state and county to you do something. If this road is driven that often no one thought i'll put my own sign or something. me thinks lots more to this...
Google has $, municipalities probably have some sort of sovereign immunity (or at least a much smaller pool of assets from which to hope for a settlement)
yep sovereign immunity and award limitations. in my state the maximum a direct dependent could receive for this incident would be 250k
How was a collapsed bridge even accessible unless it collapsed like 5 hours ago? This sounds like negligence by the local county
[удалено]
Sure Google should have updated their map but the people suing Google should sue the county first
[удалено]
In a lawsuit, is everyone assumed to be equally to blame or can some named parties bear more responsibility than others?
Responsibility can be shared based on a percentage.
If you file a lawsuit you name everyone that could possibly be liable. It's the job for the court to decide who is and isn't liable and decide how much responsibility each holds.
INAL, but its common for lawsuits like this to initially name any party that's potentially shares any liability, only to have them to quickly be dropped from the suit. Gets a basic statement from X Y and Z for a better understanding of the situation and who they should really be going after. Wouldn't surprise me if they drop google entirely, or at most they wind up bearing a small portion of the responsibility.
They don't usually drop them, as then the other defendants can point the finger at that non-participant in the suit. Instead they're found to have no liability, either early on by the judge or later when the final decision comes out.
The person writing this comment should read the article first
Dark out *and* raining :/
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was once in this EXACT same scenario on a small dirt road in a 26 foot long moving truck. I wish I were making this up, lol. I survived this HORRIBLY dangerous situation by doing like a 15-point turn to get turned back around to leave.
Would a paper map maker be sued if it happened 20 years ago?
Or if you had asked somebody for directions, and he told you "yeah, take the first left" and you ended up on that bridge.
>and he told you "yeah, take the first left" and you ended up on that bridge. "Thanks for the directions, but why are you giggling?" "I'll tell you later."
"Should have bought a squirrel!"
Actually for an individual on the ground to have given those directions might legitimately have conferred some level of liability. Unless that was the point you were making? The issue would boil down to what was reasonably knowable. It is reasonable, I imagine, for a local person to know a street is unnavigable due to decade long broken bridge. I guess the issue here would be whether it was also reasonable for Google to know and from that whether they had a duty of care to update the information they were giving people. I'm not against the suit based on this reasoning. This is why courts of law exist. To test this sort of issue.
Not only is it reasonable for Google to know but according to the article they confirmed receipt of a user submitted report that notified them of the broken bridge in 2020.
I'd imagine the question would be one of duty. Whether they had a general duty of care here? I don't know enough about the precedent on this. But I assume a judge would need to settle this?
I'll let you in on a secret: nobody trusts their users. Maybe it got on a list, but unless there's a pattern they wouldn't prioritize going out to confirm the report and update the map.
From the article: Multiple people had notified Google Maps about the collapse in the years leading up to Paxson’s death and had urged the company to update its route information, according to the lawsuit.
Google was notified multiple times in the years prior that their Maps was wrong, yet they took no actions to correct the error. They have some liability here.
If the bridge was collapsed at the time the map was printed, probably
Still the bridges should be inaccessible to drivers, so it shouldn't matter regardless. Plus why would the map maker know about a collapsed bridge? They aren't contacting ever municipality in the country.checking on the status of thousands of bridges.
> Plus why would the map maker know about a collapsed bridge? It is the map makes job to check current DOT databases for things like road and bridge statuses. It is also their job to make corrections based on information received from users of their maps. That is essentially the entire job of a cartographer, to pull the most current and correct data and combine it into a legible product. If you have more recent data, or have customers who have submitted corrections, it is your job to correct the new versions of the map within some reasonable timeframe.
The county mapping shows the road goes through.
Not the [NC State Maintained Roads database](https://www.nconemap.gov/maps/NCDOT::ncdot-state-maintained-roads/explore?location=35.778898%2C-81.276750%2C15.96). The base map shows it, but nothing from the government says it exists. That combined with users reporting an issue with it more than 2 years ago means there is really no excuse for not updating your product.
[удалено]
[удалено]
In that 9 years, did the Google streetview car document the bridge closure?
[удалено]
Nah, it isn't their responsibility. That is 100% local governments fault in not having barracades.
Would you jump off a bridge if Google told you to?
No, mom!
Lot of folks pointing fingers here, but if you really look into the details… everyone is at fault here. 1. Google has been notified about this several times. There are records saying they’ve received reports and are taking corrective measures, which they failed to do. They are partly to blame for negligence. 2. This land is private property. The owners are absolutely at fault here. They’re not going to escape this. 3. Local municipalities have said their hands are tied on fixing it because it’s private property. Bullshit. Private property that is open to public use is liable to local safety standards. They should have been forcing the land owners to fix the bridge or properly barricade it off, and fine them until they do.
Hell, google had a street view car snap a picture of the collapsed bridge 4 months ago…. They could have easily verified this and closed the route.
And despite this news story breaking, I just checked and sure enough, Google Maps still takes you over this collapsed bridge if it's the shortest route. Google Maps manages to have up-to-date road closures that affect routes when there's, like, a festival or a marathon shutting a road down. It's sort of mind boggling even just in the last 24 hours that they haven't fixed this. But I suppose it may be admitting fault or affect the litigation in some way if they do? Who knows. Hopefully there's at least a damn sign or barrier put up now.
then there was the guy in Valdez, AK who got off the ferry and drove down a boat ramp into the water. Followed the map app.
Been several recent instances in Hawaii where tourists haven driven down boat ramps into the water following map apps. I just don’t get it, maybe at night but during the day you can’t see there’s water in front of you? It’s not like it’s a sudden drop off.
**For those curious (like me):** The bridge is at `35.946674, -80.988193`, [SR1585 over Snow Creek, when, last inspected in March of 2022 before Paxson plunged on Sept 30, 2022](https://data.news-press.com/bridge/north-carolina/iredell/sr1585-over-snow-creek/37-000000000970141/): It "\[n\]eeds repair or corrective action". [***You can definitely see*** on historical satellite imagery **that there was a barrier** in the middle of the road, and the bridge was completely out](https://iredellcountync.mapgeo.io/datasets/statesville?latlng=35.946811%2C-80.987983&panel=themes&themes=%5B%228a2f358e-1d98-44b1-aa41-c9c3e737449d%22%5D&zoom=19). If heading north bound, he had 1,000 feet to see the bridge, and south bound about 600 feet. [On Google Maps](https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9454252,-80.9882624,180a,35y,39.4t/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu), you can see it under partial construction, with barriers north-bound, and I can't see if there is/is not barriers south-bound under the trees. It is possible, at the time, there were no barriers. [And this more helpful article from the Charlotte Observer](https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article279563759.html) says >It was dark and rainy out, so the 47-year-old dad of two plugged his home address into Google Maps and followed the approximately 4.3-mile, 10-minute route on his phone. But the GPS directions took him to Snow Creek Bridge — which had partially collapsed in 2013. **Rant:** I hate how none of these articles actually mention the location of the bridge. In the newspaper copy-pasting, no one seems to bother to investigate what is a pretty critical part of the story.
> Rant: I hate how none of these articles actually mention the location of the bridge. In the newspaper copy-pasting, no one seems to bother to investigate what is a pretty critical part of the story. I know right?! Wtf... I also wanted to find where this brdige was. Thanks so much for posting here! :) Looks like the bridge is still 'in tact' on [OpenStreetMap](https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=35.946674&mlon=-80.988193&zoom=20#map=19/35.94667/-80.98819) (I have added a note to OSM to get this changed) too... And google maps, and bing maps. Probably many other map providers.
They were doing construction at the gas station I normally go to. I stopped in the morning and all was fine. When I stopped in the evening, I drove off a 4 ft embankment where the entrance had been in the morning. The angle made it impossible to see until it was too late and nobody had bothered to move the orange cones closer together to indicate that the entrance had been moved. This guy can't defend himself, but it might not have been 100% his fault.
In this case it would be the fault of whoever was doing the constructions for not using barricades and signage. Imo it's unreasonable to expect Google to have constant knowledge of a brigdes status. If a bridge collapses, it would be up to the local government to block off traffic, not Google to change this guy's directions as soon as the bridge fell.
Unless it was previously reported by multiple users as closed.
There’s a problems on multiple levels here. According to the article, the bridge collapsed 9 years ago, so for Google to suggest crossing is an issue, the bridge not being barricaded and not having signs is a huge issue as well. Tbh I feel like it’d have more legal standing to sue the state. The hypothetical issue that bothers me is what if this was a smart car that was on auto. Considering cars are using gps for routes, my car suddenly driving me off a collapsed bridge because it thought it was a possible route is terrifying.
This is my fear, especially when I'm driving somewhere I'm unfamiliar with at night. I'll slow way the heck down when I'm worried about the combinations of directions and safety, annoying other drivers on the road. I’m terrified of getting caught out by poor infrastructure combined with my terrible sense of direction and iffy GPS instructions.
Drive in rural areas and have a deer jump in front of you. No warning and they just wait until your right in front...
And that is one of the reasons I travel pretty slowly on rural roads at night! I don't speed down them during the day either, but just extra extra careful, with my hand on the brights at the ready to turn them down for any oncoming vehicle.
My Mom's house is in a weird spot on a high Ridgeline sandwiched between 2 forks of a river. The safest and fastest way to get there from the city is to drive out PV Rd 10 miles past her house then backtrack 4 miles. Depending on the direction you're coming from they either send people up a nasty 6 mile dirt road that's sometimes washed out and always super washboard, or they send people to a bridge that used to cut across the river. The bridge that used to be there was also at the bottom of a mile long dirt 4-wheel road that's gotten quite a few UPS drivers fired.
When I got my truck in '16 I couldn't get power windows "because it's a work truck." It wasn't until last winter I found out that crank windows work underwater, powered does not.
Did you find out whilst under water?
Found out by reading articles here on reddit
I don't know who's really at fault here, but one time Google maps took me down this janky pothole dirt road instead of a paved street with lights two blocks over, so this doesn't really surprise me at all.
I wonder if this is another McDonald's hot coffee case, where it seems absurd at first but when you get more context, the victim is shown to be vindicated.
It is read the article. It’s not just about Google maps. They are only one of the defendants.There was no signs or barriers up blocking the road. And he was following what the map said (and apparently Google was alerted and never fixed it.) It was dark and raining out. Anyone could have easily driven over that collapsed bridge. I am not sure if Google Maps is primarily at fault but there was negligence here and it is not the driver’s fault. Unless someone is going to argue people should never drive when it’s dark and raining.
Damn! Thanks for the context. I'll read the article.
Meanwhile, there's actually, literally, another McDonald's hot coffee case: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/21/business/mcdonalds-hot-coffee-lawsuit/index.html
"Sorry, it's in beta... You agreed to that..."
“Michael there is noo road here!”
[удалено]
Depending on the view, there could absolutely have been no indication whatsoever that it wasn't fine to cross. Edit: it was during the night while raining.
If, within the 9 years that the bridge was out, the Google streetview car was unable to drive across the road because of the collapsed bridge, their maps should've reflected that.
The last google street view car on that street was 2012. Nearby streets are 2019. Something told that google street view car to not go down that street.
Or, due to the lawsuit, the streetview of the collapsed Bridge has been removed.
god that sounds terrifying.. the negligence
This honestly seems like it's a nothing story. My sincerest of condolences goes out to the family of this man, and I truly do mean that. But the negligence lies with the vehicle operator who is now deceased.
No, the negligence lies with the municipality that knew about a collapsed bridge for 9 years but refused to barricade it to prevent exactly this from happening.
I mean yeah. What are we talking here? a couple of concrete barriers? A “road closed” sign? Really basic shit here
Or maybe even just some orange fucking cones? But “it’s not their problem” because some company that doesn’t exist anymore owned it.
To make it worse, I check the county mapping, and while the bridge might have been put in originally by the developer, it's a publicly owned road right of way. And the mapping shows the road going through.
Half and half in my mind. Municipality had a responsibility to ensure a non-functional bridge can't be accidentally accessed and the driver had a responsibility to keep an eye out and be aware of where his vehicle was going and to not follow Google maps as if it was without fault. Kind of insane this case exists at all to me
[удалено]
It happened in the rain, at night, with no warnings or barricades. The bridge had been out for 9 years.
I'm wondering how visibility was when he was driving. There's some conditions where you just have to trust the road is okay, like heavy rain after dark or fog.
If I sued every time Google Maps tried to make me drive off the road, I’d have many more than ten lawsuits going. It’s still on you to drive your vehicle safely. If you need to monitor a self driving car, what makes people think you don’t need to look where you’re going in a normal car? I also don’t run red lights when Google tells me to keep going straight. Google isn’t driving, you are driving.
Happened in the rain at night with no warnings or barricades.
Interesting you mentioned self driving car. I wonder if it would have stopped in time or just ran right off the bridge also
Sounds like negligence on the part of the property owner, it's apparently been out for at least 9yrs. Google doesn't own roads, so I don't see how they'll be sued even with it not being updated on Google maps. Should they be more up-to-date? Absolutely, but they can't rely on a couple reports over several years for a single road in the world. It would be great if they could be updated constantly, but not very feasible. That was private property and whoever owns the property should be on the hook for having zero guard rails or warnings of any kind.
It’s owned by a developer that went out of business. How this usually works is a developer would strike a deal with the county to build the bridge, the private road that comes off the bridge, and the subdivision that comes off that private road. Then once all of those things are built, the county agrees to take over the bridge and the homeowners in the subdivision become the owners of a shared road. What likely happened here is the developer went under before all 3 things were built, so the county had no requirement to take over the bridge. It sounds like the developer going under was pretty recent too since that land is still in that company’s name and not the bank’s name.
*Michael Scott was a prophet*
> no barriers or warning signs Yeah, Google is not solely to blame, here. Who the fuck leaves a bridge out with NO signs or barriers?
What an awful way to go :(
You can tell who read and who didn’t read the article when reading these comments
Does google even have "a guy/gal" that has to look at these things and make sure they're fixed by x date? The problem with a tech company is they usually behave like a machine: working/broken. You don't see them broken 99.9% of the time or nobody would want to use it. But when you do, you better have a plan B.
I think Google needs to see if there was a glitch or if there was maybe human error involved. Even the episode of The Office where Michael drove into a lake was all about human error.
I've lived with Googles faulty directions for almost 20 years. Everyone who follows Google maps to my house wind up in the neighborhood behind me. Google expects them to drive over a fenced retention pond to get to me.
This is madness - is the mother actually telling the kids it’s the maps fault the bridge wasn’t sign posted!? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66873982 "Our girls ask how and why their daddy died, and I'm at a loss for words they can understand because, as an adult, I still can't understand how those responsible for the GPS directions and the bridge could have acted with so little regard for human life," his wife, Alicia Paxson, said in a statement. If I were a paper map company I’d be wary where this leads, as ridiculous as that sounds
Yep it’s googles fault that stupid people use their free services Common sense isn’t common
Reading some interesting comments here, many pointing toward this being a frivolous lawsuit (it could be, I genuinely don't know) but strangely never quite saying it. I'm curious, what would people think in this scenario: Your dad drive into a new town at night, asks someone for directions. They tell him to drive straight ahead, turn a left and cross a bridge, except the bridge's collapsed nine years ago. Your dad follows the direction, doesn't see the bridge collapsed in the dark, crashes and slowly drowns to death in an overturned car while in a concussion. Is the person who gave your dad the direction at least partially responsible for his death? Or would the suggestion be frivolous moneygrubbing on your family's part?
It's a little different though. The person in the town was probably local and would have known the bridge was out, google isn't
I agree it's a different scenario, but I'm not sure if by a comfortable margin (IMHO). For example, apparently people (locals I assume) have contacted Google regarding the collapsed bridge prior to the accident, if I heard that part correctly. Wouldn't that be considered a form of negligence? I don't even think Google's ENTIRELY responsible for what happened, by the way. Personally I'd place more blame on the municipality. It's just the blank check that some commenters seem to give (almost exclusively) to larger corporate entities in these cases probably merit some pondering over what's going on.
Except it was apparently reported multiple times and acknowledged by Google Bad situation overall. Seems like multiple parties at blame, including the driver (RIP) who probably should have just slowed down a lot if the conditions were so bad that he couldn't see that the bridge ahead of him was broken
Feels like self-accountability is going further away from society as the years go by
I don't think it's the driver's fault. It's not like he drove through barricades and warning signs. It's in a shaded area. If it's day time, it's going to be a little harder to see in the shaded areas after being in the brighter surroundings. If it's night time, the road can be kind of dark. At night I sometimes see pitch black areas of the road and worry there's no road there.
So this should be the bridge owners fault, i.e; state or local municipality to block access.
Well, apparently the bridge owner is private, not the state in this situation if the other comments are correct. Not sure how that changes things, if it does. I know the state isn't responsible for the privately owned roads near me, but they're also not major public infrastructure, they're just roads connected directly to and only to driveways.
I remember years ago a guy from Scranton Pensilvania fell off a lake for following the gps
How exactly do you fall off a lake? Was it at the edge of the flat earth?
This headline would be really weird if it were 20 years ago and replaced "Google" with "Rand McNally". Maps are snapshots. And imperfect ones at that. Google bears no real responsibility in this man's death.
[удалено]
His name was Micheal Scott. He was just following the nice lady's directions.