But again, what does Google consider responsible use? Is it to drive 5 mph just in case that bridge they say is open is really non-existent or that road really has a cliff that cuts it off?
I wasn’t ignoring that. I just left it off my quote since I wanted to focus on the idea that companies make claims in terms & conditions that they feel (hope?) will absolve themselves of responsibility.
Reasonable use would be to drive like you weren’t following the map directions. That doesn’t mean 5 mph in most conditions.
This is ridiculous. There could be another vehicle stopped in the road ahead of you, there could be a child riding their bike, and there is certainly no expectation that Google warn you about those things. Obviously Google has the same expectation as a driving test examiner or anyone else sharing the road with you, that you continue only if you can see clear and safe road ahead of you, otherwise that you slow down or stop.
Not that diligent drivers cannot be caught out, obviously they can, and we’re discussing where liability should fall for this dangerous situation. But the expectation of what drivers should be doing when they use a mapping app is obvious, even without Google’s disclaimers.
Not ridiculous. They said the bridge was open when it didn’t exist. Not at all like your strawmen.
AND you ignore the fact that unlike kids in the street or a sudden sinkhole, Google knew the bridge was out and chose not to update their app.
This is a good description. Legalities aside it irks me that Google (and competitors) have these massive products and almost no customer support. It was understandable when everything was free and in beta, but these are now paid and profitable services. I realize they get a flood of feedback comments – so spend some money and put the processes into place (human or automated) to deal with it.
I was refuting your ridiculous suggestions that Google’s terms of service imply that people should be driving around at 5mph in case the Google map is wrong. The fact that there are are many road hazards other than whether a road exists is not a straw man, it speaks to the obvious expectation that any driver should always be using their eyes, not Google maps, to determine if the road ahead is safe to proceed.
And even with your eyes wide open, bad stuff can still happen because it’s the real world.
Without Google maps, a decision to drive down that road, by that driver, in those conditions, would likely have resulted in the same outcome.
Google maps is not anyone’s nanny.
That was not my suggestion. It was a rhetorical question as to what Google thinks is reasonable care especially when to only hazard is one that Google says doesn’t exist. That’s why I compare it to the trucks that have crap flying out of the bad saying reasonable care is staying 150 ft behind. That doesn’t absolve you of your responsibly if I am driving normally because YOU choose not to be responsible.
Google doesn’t “know” anything in absolutes. Google “knew” the bridge was there because their GIS provider told them so. Google also “knew” there was at least one report of the bridge being out. Google also “knows” that users report maliciously or at least erroneously report closures to modify local traffic many times a day. There is no way to easily reconcile all that information. As far as I can tell, the only time Google acts quickly and decisively to show road closures is when the updates come from a governmental agency updating status in their GIS tools. Otherwise I could destroy LA traffic by reporting the 405 closed at LAX.
Google also “knows” that users honestly report closures far more often than they honestly report re-openings.
As such, they ought to have some process to decide whether a closure is real and permanent and worthy of an update, versus real and long-term enough to warrant an update but with a tickle to somehow recheck that reality weeks or months later to re-re-update, versus maybe real and if so maybe temporary so therefore worth a “wait and see” for some interval before making an update if ever.
ISTM that some folks using these apps have some cognitive dissonance because some aspects, such as urban traffic, are updated in near-real time whereas other aspects can be months or years out of date versus reality on the ground. In the very same city block at the very same time.
As I said upthread, people make serious mental errors the moment they say a corporation “knows” something or “does” something. They are not simply large immortal single humans.
Thought experiment:
The driver isn’t using Google maps or any other map. He’s relying on his sense of direction.
He turns down what appears to be a road where the bridge is out. For one reason or another, he does not see it in time and meets with a fatal accident.
Who is to blame?
As above but as he waving goodbye and turning away, his host says “oh hey the bridge is out”. He doesn’t hear this clearly as its a windy evening and unfortunately meets the same accident. His host did not issue the warning at the top of their voice. They knew the bridge was out but didn’t stop him or shout loud enough. Are they to blame?
As above, and his host knew the bridge was out, but just neglected to tell him about it. Are they to blame?
As above but in this case, before setting off, he consults a paper map that was printed before the bridge collapsed. He meets the same accident. Who is to blame?
There’s no ‘gotcha’ behind any of these. I just think they might help to unpick the debate here.
I suppose the questions behind those, for me, are: does Google owe me any duty to save me from myself?
Do google’s services permit me to be less careful than I would otherwise be?
Is Google Maps a paid service ? I don’t use it so I’m not sure - but I know Waze ( owned by Google) is free to use.
Free for me here in the UK. Not sure if that’s the same everywhere.
I don’t think anything hinges on payment. Per the precedent linked above - people pay money for books, yet there is clear legal precedent (to Supreme Court) that publishers do not have a duty to ensure that everything they publish is correct, because this would be so onerous that nobody would risk publishing anything. What would makes a difference in duty (i.e. liability) is not payment, but whether something is offered as a personal service rather than published data. This argument has failed in the past for mapping services, but it could be advanced again.
Do they though? No snark intended, but the ability of end-users to flood an online with garbage information still amazes me many years on.
I’m sorry. My comment wasn’t stated well. I meant that Google Maps is monetized: companies pay to promote themselves via the service and users provide their data to support Google’s ad business – not that users pay a fee for the app.
Also I apologize for the hijack. My comment was more of a gripe than on-topic.
I thought about posting this the other day. This issue existed in the era of standalone GPS devices. Below is a story about a ranger working with map vendors to update their maps of Death Valley.
I don’t think this is true. I think in general people are just reluctant to pay anything, and they get what they pay for. I pay $12 a month for Google Workspace “Business Basic” (although I don’t use it for business purposes), which gets me google email & apps that you can get in free versions, plus extra functionality and 2TB cloud data. When I tell people this, they always ask me why I’m paying anything for gmail when I could get it for free. But for what I’m getting, I think $12 a month is a trivial amount of money, and I have always been able to get a human being on chat within minutes to resolve any issues.
There’s a subtext here that “big companies are rich, they should give us more for the same price”. But you have to look at the economics of each product. If Google hired thousands more staff to deal with mapping feedback, it would be a more expensive product. We would have to pay for those staff. I think the product is fantastic right now, there are very few errors, and I’m highly skeptical that anyone wants to be paying significantly more for the same product just for the assurance that there are absolutely zero errors.
I think anything that forces you to look at ads should be considered a paid service. Waze does. I’m not sure about Google Maps.
Right. So “paying more” can mean “more ads”.
Do we want (say) twice the number of ads on Google Maps in return for Google reducing the probability that they will direct you down a road that is closed from 0.1% to 0.001%? I certainly don’t.