Death by GPS - Why do we follow digital maps into dodgy places?

[vdeane]

....

Apparently GPS devices have a "use major roads" option.  It seems quite clear to me that this option should be mandated by law to be the default, especially since people appear to assume it is anyways.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that perhaps it should be illegal for any kind of driving directions to route someone on a dirt road under any circumstances unless their origin or destination is on one, at the very least if the user doesn't select a "route on minor roads" option that would require the user to read a dialog informing them of the risk that routing entails.  Perhaps we could even go so far as to give the GPS what type of vehicle you're driving every time you turn it on and for the GPS to have data for all types of vehicles (which would help prevent the trucks crashing into bridges because they're using a car GPS).

To me this makes no sense (no offense to vdeane). Part of that, I'm sure, is my distaste for the idea of government inserting itself into everything and for the idea that passing laws is always the solution (and yes, I know some people would consider that second statement odd in view of my line of work). The bigger reason, in my mind, is that I think this is the sort of issue that ultimately falls to personal responsibility. It doesn't matter whether you actually learned how your sat-nav works–it seems to me if you choose to use one, you tacitly accept the responsibility to use it properly and to know how it works.

As it is, I think the one in my primary car can be a bit too nanny-ish. I'd have to go downstairs and turn on the car to confirm, but I believe mine has the following options:

–Direct Route (uses the shortest-distance route to the destination)
–Easy Route (uses the route with the fewest turns, even if it's longer)

Then under each of those you have:
–Maximize Freeways
–Avoid Freeways (it may say "Minimize Freeways," I'm not positive)
–Avoid Toll Roads
....and I think there's one other option I forget, though I think you may be able to avoid surface streets. Then there's "Detour," which is what it sounds like.

What I find nanny-ish is that "Avoid Freeways" is not selectable if the destination is more than 100 miles away because apparently it would take too long for you to make the trip. (Obviously where an all-freeway route is impractical–say, if I'm going from home to Charlottesville–it will typically use the "highest grade" of road available, which in that example is US-29.) I think the same applies to "Avoid Toll Roads," too. I find this to be dumb because it seems to me you might specifically WANT to take a longer route that avoids Interstates for all sorts of perfectly good reasons, and if that's what you want to do, the device ought to accommodate that. I seldom adjust any of those options, BTW. More often than not when I turn on the directions it's because we're on a trip and I want to find a gas station or lunch spot or I want to confirm the routing to lodging or a friend/relative's house we haven't visited in a year or two. In those situations I don't much care how it routes me. (This past Christmas I used it repeatedly for directions to our hotel near Fort Myers because the turn was easy to miss at night.)

What of the personal responsibility of companies to provide the best and most accurate service possible?  I would think routing via a paved road rather than a winding gravel road is just plain common sense and blatantly obvious.  I would say that people expecting the GPS to route them via a navigable route is a reasonable expectation.

[1995hoo]

But what does that have to do with passing a law? Your comment seemed to me to be calling for Congress to try to regulate it, presumably via an exercise of Commerce Clause power (whether that would be a valid use of it is a separate question, of course). I thought, and think, that's serious overkill. We already have a tort system in which someone can go after the sat-nav manufacturer. Depending on where you are, it may not be that hard to convince twelve persons of average ignorance that the manufacturer ought to be liable, given some of the other nonsensical verdicts we've seen over the years.

[kalvado]

But what does that have to do with passing a law? Your comment seemed to me to be calling for Congress to try to regulate it, presumably via an exercise of Commerce Clause power (whether that would be a valid use of it is a separate question, of course). I thought, and think, that's serious overkill. We already have a tort system in which someone can go after the sat-nav manufacturer. Depending on where you are, it may not be that hard to convince twelve persons of average ignorance that the manufacturer ought to be liable, given some of the other nonsensical verdicts we've seen over the years.

There should be some fine print saying that manufacturer is not liable, and user had to acknowledge that on first run.
In fact, here are some quotes from Wase TOC:

Road information prevails . The information provided by the Service is not intended to replace the information provided on the road, such as travel direction, time based restrictions, lane restrictions, road blockades, traffic signs, traffic lights, police instructions, etc.

Cautious driving . Always drive vigilantly according to road conditions and in accordance with traffic laws.
....
Content submitted by users for publication does not reflect the views of Waze. Publishing Content does not warrant its validity, reliability, accuracy, legality or it being up-to-date.

[1995hoo]

Every sat-nav I've used has a nag screen that shows up every time you turn it on that basically says what you suggest. The one in my primary car is notable for containing the word "judgement" spelled as I just put it (which is the standard English spelling outside the USA) when it tells you you must "use your own best judgement."

By referring to the tort system I didn't mean to imply I think the manufacturers should be liable as vdeane suggests or that it's somehow their responsibility to ensure nobody ever gets steered wrong. I do firmly believe common sense has a role to play even if common sense doesn't seem so common nowadays. I don't think the fact that your sat-nav recommended you drive down a gravel road that proved impassable is a reason for you to channel Short Round and say "Not my fault, Docta Jones!!!" when your car gets stuck because you didn't turn around when it became clear it was a dodgy route. BUT I also don't want to say I can't ever conceive of a situation where the directions might be problematic.

Some of this sort of thing is why sat-navs won't route you into Rock Creek Parkway in DC (because it's one-way during rush hour and two-way at other times, and the manufacturers don't want to risk a dipshit jury finding them liable when someone goes the wrong way) or I-66 inside the Beltway (because it's HOV-restricted in peak direction and the sat-nav can't know whether you satisfy the restriction, and again they don't want people trying to foist off traffic tickets on them).

[jeffandnicole]

What I find nanny-ish is that "Avoid Freeways" is not selectable if the destination is more than 100 miles away because apparently it would take too long for you to make the trip. (Obviously where an all-freeway route is impractical–say, if I'm going from home to Charlottesville–it will typically use the "highest grade" of road available, which in that example is US-29.) I think the same applies to "Avoid Toll Roads," too. I find this to be dumb because it seems to me you might specifically WANT to take a longer route that avoids Interstates for all sorts of perfectly good reasons, and if that's what you want to do, the device ought to accommodate that.

But at that point, you're not using the GPS the way it was intended to be used. It can't guess what routes you want, and if you have a specific route in mind, you don't really need a GPS at that point. If you eliminate all highways and toll roads, it's not going to know if you really want US routes, state routes, etc.

[texaskdog]

I find google maps most useful in somehow always knowing where bad traffic is.

[1995hoo]

What I find nanny-ish is that "Avoid Freeways" is not selectable if the destination is more than 100 miles away because apparently it would take too long for you to make the trip. (Obviously where an all-freeway route is impractical–say, if I'm going from home to Charlottesville–it will typically use the "highest grade" of road available, which in that example is US-29.) I think the same applies to "Avoid Toll Roads," too. I find this to be dumb because it seems to me you might specifically WANT to take a longer route that avoids Interstates for all sorts of perfectly good reasons, and if that's what you want to do, the device ought to accommodate that.

But at that point, you're not using the GPS the way it was intended to be used. It can't guess what routes you want, and if you have a specific route in mind, you don't really need a GPS at that point. If you eliminate all highways and toll roads, it's not going to know if you really want US routes, state routes, etc.

Sure, but my point is simply that if you want to "avoid freeways," even on a long trip, there's no reason why it ought to second-guess you on that desire, even if it makes the drive considerably longer time-wise due to lower speed limits and traffic lights. I didn't mean to suggest or imply that it ought to be able to know which roads you want, only that it ought to respect your desire to avoid freeways (or toll roads).

BTW, "avoid" not necessarily meaning "stay off entirely," since obviously there are places where that would be unrealistic or insanely impractical (driving from New Jersey into New York City being a good example).