🚀 go-pugleaf

Some Guy <Some@Guy.com> wrote in news:4C085C62.6B01073@Guy.com:

> http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_15199273
> 
Trailer park. why is that not a surprise to me.

None if there's signs on that freeway saying "No pedestrians etc" like
there are here. She's an idiot IMHO even *if* her story is completely
true. 


-- 
(setq (chuck nil)  car(chuck) )

Some Guy wrote:
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_15199273
>
> Apparently, this lady wanted to walk from where a trailer rental place
> to the Park Regency Hotel (yes, I checked myself with Google Maps
> since the news article kindly gave her exact departure and destination
> addresses) in Park City, UT.   Part of the "shortest route" took her
> via a busy rural state highway with "no pedestrian sidewalks."  While
> walking there, she was struck and injured by an allegedly negligent
> motorist.   She then sued both the motorist, and Google.  Google?
>
> At first I thought, what's she talking about?   Directions are
> directions are directions.   All they tell you is the shortest route
> from point A to point B.  Then, when I actually went to plot her route
> on Google Maps, I saw that Google offers you the choice of directions
> optimized for driving, walking, bicycling, or public transit.
>
> So, I continued to process the request for "walking" directions from A
> to B.   The default view in my Google window shows an actual aerial
> photo view (easily toggled to a map view).   By enlarging (zooming in)
> the view, ne can clearly see that the roadway in question runs thru
> undeveloped scrubland (low bushes and underbrush) for about a mile, is
> 4 lanes wide, and has what appears to be a paved shoulder as well as
> an adjacent (non-paved) dirt outer shoulder that can also be walked
> upon, along both sides of the roadway.  Google Maps also offered a
> choice between 3 different routings, and gave the estimated walking
> time for each, which varied by only a minute or two.   Plaintiff chose
> the shortest one, which Google said would take her 33 minutes,
> although the longest suggested route, along Park Avenue running
> through town instead of along the edge of town, was only 0.1 miles
> longer and would take 34 minutes.
>
> So, should Google be liable if they direct you to drive your car into
> a river where a bridge is supposed to be, but isn't?   (Somebody did
> that in Holland IIRC, a few years ago, at night, using GPS.   A shame,
> too, as they were driving a brand new Mercedes.)  If there is a
> pothole or a broken sidewalk or some other dangerous condition on the
> route Google selects for you to walk, should they be liable for that
> too?   How much responsibility should the traveler take for his or her
> own choice of route, based on all the known information?   And even
> after choosing a route, who is responsible to alert or warn the
> traveler of hazards that might be encountered?
>
> In other words, what tort duty to avoid injury, if any, does Google
> have toward people who use their free mapping service to obtain
> directions and then get injured due to dangerous conditions they
> encounter along the way?   Discuss.

Google 'directions' can occasionally send you the wrong way on a One-Way 
street: "But officer, GOOGLE said ..."

Can she offer PROOF that she was indeed following Google's output?
Did she have a printout, IP records, etc?

Didn't I hear about someone who requested directions "by auto" to Hawaii 
from Ohio or somesuch?  And Google obliged!?

Was she walking FACING traffic?