[freejazz]

So, when do you assume that Google isn't taking you over a collapsed bridge? Is it some of the times you cross a bridge? All the time? What to do you to confirm that Google's directions aren't actually ever hazardous, considering it's your own responsibility?

[sfn42]

I don't need to assume anything. I just look at the road in front of me and if there's an obstacle I handle it. I adjust my speed so that I am in control. If Google tells me to drive onto a collapsed bridge I look ahead, see the bridge and choose to drive somewhere else instead because I'd rather not die. It could just as easily be an accident site or a downed tree or a person in the road or anything.

"But it was dark and blah blah" Irrelevant. If you can't see you can't drive. If you can see 10 meters ahead you go slow enough that you can stop in 5 meters. Yes that's slow. Yes it's inconvenient. Guess what. Dying or killing someone is slower and more inconvenient.

That's the end of this discussion. Everyone who thinks these rules are unreasonable are irresponsible drivers who shouldn't be allowed to drive. Yes, I know that's like 70% of drivers if not more. Doesn't change the fact that 99% of traffic accidents are caused by this kind of negligence and entirely avoidable if people would just pull their heads out of their asses and take proper responsibility.

Traffic kills more people than anything else in modern society. Nearly 4000 people every single day. That's 2-3 people every single minute. Multiple people probably died while you were reading this comment. Because people don't pay attention to the road, people don't appreciate the danger they are putting themselves and others in.

The fact that "you should drive safer" is in any way controversial is just a testament to how fucking dumb people are.