An accident still could have occurred if someone wasn’t using Google maps. This is sad but IMO Google is the least to blame and the focus should be on the entities responsible for maintaining the bridge and road.

[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't get tricked by the title. The lawsuit isn't only going after Google, they are just one party in the chain of negligence that led to this death.

[–] Snazzy@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve read the article before posting. There's a small section where it mentions other parties in the lawsuit. That’s why I said there should be a FOCUS on the entities responsible for maintaining the bridge and road. The article makes it seem like Google is primarily responsible.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

While I agree other entity have a responsibility to maintain the roads etc. It is thier bloody job after all.

I strongly disagree that they or anyone but the driver have responsibility for watching what they drive onto.

The driver is incharge of the car. If you(for the sake of the point) are driving in any direction. Without knowing what is under your wheels. At the very least you have no right to be driving a car, and should lose your licence. At the worst you can be responsible for killing a child or adult that fell into the road before you arrive, and should lose your freedom.

Transportation authorities etc. Should just lose their job for not doing it. Not take responsibility for you not following the basic legal and moral ruirements of driving a car.

[–] Skunk@jlai.lu -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Consider weather, time of day, visibility, reaction time and all those related incident/accident elements.

Then you’ll understand that you would probably have fallen from the fucking bridge as well.

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

Copnsider as a licenced qualified driver. You are legally responsible for driving a heavy machine that can and dose kill people.

And you will understand. Legally on most of the planet. If condition mean you cannot proceed safely for yourself,. You are risking the life of others and are requiredno to drive. Inconvenience getting wet or being late at your destination in no way excludes you from that legal responsibility.

And as a disabled person with balance and visual impairment ho used to be able to drive. But hnded in my licence as soon as I was unsafe.

I am really getting pissed of with the number of modern drivers who seem to think driving is a right not a responsibility.

When you (for the sake of argument. I am sure you are not this dumb) choose to continue driving when you cannot see if the way ahead is safe. You are clearly indicating that anyone with stability issues of any form. Has in you opinion, no right to be out in public. In case they fall in the road and get knocked out.

Because you are saying if "weather, time of day, visibility, reaction time and all those related incident/accident elements." Mean I should legally stop driving. I consider the risk to your life. Less important then myself getting to my destination at a reasonable time.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Anybody that has ever driven at night in the rain in a rural area would, per your judgement, not be able to have a license. People do sometimes drive off the road into fields in those circumstances, but a maintained road suddenly being non-existent is not even on the radar (and it is maintained until this point as there are resident’s driveways shortly before the bridge).

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 12 points 1 year ago

they are also in the lawsuit, the article just chose to misleadingly play the less juicy bits down