Why you would go walking along an interstate highway at 6:00 in the morning is anyone’s guess. Why you would do it in an area you’ve never been? That’s a leap of logic I don’t feel safe making. Yet, that’s what lead to an LA woman being hit by a car in Utah. Now, she’s suing Google–who’s map directions she was following, and the driver of the car who hit her, for upwards of $100000 in damages. Her lawyer’s reasoning? It was dark.
The woman in question was following walking directions from Google, who’s service has for, like, ever had a notice on it that it was in beta and routes may or may not have sidewalks. She chose to try and cross the highway, at 6:00 in the morning, expecting there to be a sidewalk. She could not see the lack of sidewalk, however. Not that that ended up making a whole lot of difference–she didn’t actually make it across the highway before getting hit anyway. The logic behind that decision?
“She was in an area that she’d never been to before. It was pitch-black. There were no streetlights. She relied on Google that she’d cross there and go down to a sidewalk,” Young explained.
So. Basicly. She relied on a beta service. A service with a warning of possible lack of sidewalks. And she just assumed there’d be a sidewalk on the other side. And she had the misfortune of not timing her crossing such that, in spite of the street apparently not being busy at that hour, she still got smoked. And this is Google’s fault? Or the driver’s, for that matter–it’s a highway; there’s going to be fast-moving vehicles.
I don’t want to have to say it. Really, I shouldn’t have to say it. Okay, I’m gonna say it. Your stupid does not constitute an emergency on Google’s–or anyone else’s–part. This lady chose to go for a stroll down an interstate highway. In the dark. In a city she’s never been in. Looking for an apartment building she’s probably never been to. She got run over. Yes, it’s tragic. Yes, it’s a little tiny bit–okay, a lot–frightening. But if she’d used her blackberry to maybe call a cab or something instead of follow map directions that came with a “may not be accurate” disclaimer, she wouldn’t be in the situation she’s in now. Or in court, really. She didn’t. She got hit. And it’s Google’s fault. Somebody explain this one to me. My brain just broke.