Saturday 30th November, 2024

A tragic incident where a car, reportedly guided by Google Maps, plunged off a bridge under construction, killing three persons in India has sparked a debate on whether online navigation apps should be held responsible for such mishaps. There are arguments for and against the culpability of the providers of online navigation services in respect of incidents of that nature, which however are rare.

The above-mentioned accident and the debate thereon are of much relevance to Sri Lankans, many of whom use Google Maps, daily. Those who are engaged in food delivery, e-commerce, ride-hailing transport, etc., cannot do without online navigation. Gone are the days when directions were given verbally; anyone who cannot provide or follow ‘locations’ online is considered a dinosaur, today. Most people across the globe cannot think of a day without Google Maps and other such online navigation platforms.

BBC informs us that Google Maps caters to around 60 million active users and witnesses about 50 million searches a day. The exact number of navigation apps in the world is not known, but it is believed that there are hundreds of them including the ones without a global reach as such.

Incidents like the one reported from India have brought into focus legal and accountability issues concerning net-based navigation services, and the inadvisability of one’s overdependence on technology in activities, such as driving, where human judgement has a vital role to play.

The blame for the traffic accident in India should go to errant road development and local government authorities more than anyone else because the unfinished bridge had not been barricaded. Media reports say the residents of the area avoided that deathtrap because they were aware that the bridge was still under construction. So, it is possible that any outsider would have driven over the unfinished bridge with or without Google aid and plunged to death.

Ideally, navigation apps should be able to provide real-time updates about road conditions accurately, but it is not possible due to their resource constraints, practical difficulties and cost factors. Hence, those who use them do so at their own risk, and should use their judgement and exercise caution, without following online directions blindly.

Whether Google Guru will be put in the dock over the three tragic deaths in India remains to be seen. Public officials and their political masters in this part of the world are known for their adeptness at scapegoating others for their lapses and blunders. So, no one should be surprised even if those who did not care to close the unfinished bridge in India get off scot-free by blaming Google.

However, the lesson that the mishap in question provides should not go unlearnt in this technologically-driven world; it is always advisable to use one’s own judgement without leaving one’s safety entire to Google or any other digital deity, as it were.