I agree that it is possible for anyone to be sued for any reason.ituajr wrote:If any of the defending parties
So is this the reason why we are looking at changing the map?
I agree that it is possible for anyone to be sued for any reason.ituajr wrote:If any of the defending parties
The thing is I am not sure it is unusual. If you look at the Moorooka case the southern end of Anson St and the Western end of Hamilton Rd do not have the signs. If you did not "gate" these two streets as well as all the rest then routing would be broken for trips into the area.ituajr wrote: OK, so your point is "We can't always implement the avoid-rat-running system". I agree. I think this is an unusual situation
I think that it is worth continuing as I think we are narrowing down on the issue. This is your reason for wanting to adjust the map. Does anyone else have a different reason for feeling that the map should be adjusted? Who else share's ituajr's concern? For the record I think the risk is very low of the Waze map being blamed (in whatever proportion) for an accident. So I am hesitant to agree with the need to change the map noting the problems with doing so in my previous posts. The risk - reward balance isn't tipping the scale for me.ituajr wrote: My main concern is the risk involved if there is an incident involving death, serious injury, or significant loss, and the injured party says Waze routing through a "local traffic only" street was a contributory factor.
I just don't share your assessment of the likelihood of these outcomes occurring. I have not heard of this happening to anyone. Google maps and Apple maps don't avoid using these streets. We will see what others think though.ituajr wrote:I've presented an example of financial risk (being sued) and an example of criminal risk (manslaughter charges).
Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning