Family sues Strava for causing cyclist's death

Darwinism also applies to cyclists.

Only in America.

With all due respect, this is a joke.

Why not sue the bike manufacture for making a bike that goes fast? or the bike shop that sold him the bike because surely without the bike he wouldn't have been tempted to get KOM.

Woah woah woah. Strava only creates segments on climbs, this downhill segment was created by a user, how is it anything to do with Strava, other than the fact that it was on their website. Also, does Kang have any idea how many segments there are on Strava? They're a small company who run a web app, not a multi billion dollar organisation who could afford to send teams out checking segments and "putting cones out". What a f**king moron. As "Manglier" said, it's Darwinism.

It's not really Darwinism, it's familial greed and seeing a fast buck! Just like PPI and personal injury companies here!

Trying to get KoM does not mean you should ignore basic safe riding. I hate the ridiculous litigation culture.

This is what scares me the most about America. You live in the real possibility that you can be sued for practically anything. What utter nonsense: I feel sympathy for the family who lost their loved one but to sue Strava?? Surely it would better to sue the bloke driving the car?

One of the things that Strava promotes is the removal of "dangerous" segments. A dangerous segment could be construed as one where the pace achievable exceeds that of the roads designation thus having that segment removed for public "competing" and making it Personal Best only.

They will probably get something unless strava have a good disclaimer/notice reminding users to ride safely and not break the law

While I sympathise with the deceased and the families, there is no substitute for personal responsibility. Only you can make a decision as to the safety of a particular road/speed etc on a given day.

I would also be interested to know the details of this incident, because I don't know my Strava results until I press the 'finish ride' button, which I don't do until I get home, so Strava can't be held accountable for my speed in a real-time sense.

"His family basically wants justice for him,"

Don't see what this has to do with justice. Very sad story though.

I have a strava segment I am trying to get KOM on, it has a set of traffic lights in the middle. Sometimes I get caught by the lights, sometimes I am lucky I get through. The nights I get through I go for it the nights I don't I give up the attempt. If I jumped the lights and got killed it would be my own stupidity to blame. People get killed that's terribly unfortunate stop trying to blame someone else.

I'd try suing God for creating the hills in the first place. Surely the fact that the hill exists is God's fault and I bet he doesn't put disclaimers on them all...

I wonder why they don't try and sue the police for not having a speed trap there that day or the local council for building such a fast stretch of road or for that matter, as it is america, some celestial deity for making the place so hilly. Sad that he died but the family are vermin trying to make a buck. Shame on them.

Damn you drheaton you beat me to it;)

Only in America!! Why not sue the bike manufacturers??? Ridiculous!!

Watch out Endomondo!!

Ditto - Only in America

It's very sad that a cyclist loses their life doing something they obviously loved doing. However, cycling safely must be in the hands of the cyclist.

Similarly, if you go hang gliding, and end up in difficulties because you don't know your limits, is that the fault of the hang glider manufacturer?

I have a segment that runs up to a roundabout. If that roundabout is too busy, a judgement made by me not Strava, then I save my energy for another day. If it takes several days or weeks before I can safely attempt the segment so be it. My life is more important than a segment.

Ridiculous. Sad for the death of the cyclist and their family, but smacks of people trying to make some easy money, ruining everyone else's enjoyment.

Blaming Strava for this has no more merit than suing Casio because I got run over while trying to beat my PB using my stopwatch.

Like every other person here I feel for the family and friends of Mr Flint, who have lost a loved one.

However, their contention that Strava bares responsibility for his death appears to disregard the fact that Mr Flint was a moral agent. He not Strava made the decision to to exceed the speed limit on this hill. Assuming he had full command of his mental faculties he would be aware of both his abilities, the risks he was taking, the possible consequences of his decision and actions.

Strava are no more to blame than say helmet manufacturers are for the Risk Compensation behaviors of cyclists who choose to use their products.

Strava is encouraging people to race bicycles unsupervised on on open roads. Every jurisdiction on earth has laws in place to control racing precisely because it can be dangerous.

Strava's not wholly or even largely responsible for this guy's death in my opinion, but I can see how a court might well decide that they bear *some* responsibility, especially as it would be pretty easy for them to prevent users from creating downhill segments.

Strava is encouraging individual time-trialling, something that usually happens on open roads anyway, certainly in the UK.

Sorry, but that's total crap. Strava provides a service which allows you to record your time over a specific route or section of a route and then compare it against other people riding the same route. It is entirely the riders choice to try and better their time or try and beat other times on the same route.

If I were to post on the road.cc forum my time for a section of road and some numpty went and got themselves killed trying to beat it is road.cc at fault? No, it is the fool ignoring the rules of the road.

I seriously hope nothing comes of this. It's tragic that this guy has died, but it's also tragic that his family are just looking around for someone to blame (or even try and cash in on this) and have plumped for a service provider like Strava.

BigDummy - yep, and time trials have marshals, and police notifications etc etc.

Anyone who has ever been involved in racing knows that racers do dumb things in the heat of competition.

drheaton - are you aware that Stava sends you an email if someone beats your time on a segment?

This is very unlikely to succeed if it gets to court, even in the US. Even if Strava were found negligent in not warning people to take care on the roads (which wouldnt be the case in the UK, but might be in the US), there wouldnt be any causation because Mr Flint's own actions intervened.

Might end up with a settlement though, which is probably what they are going for (and hence the publicity). If you are sued in the US courts, you have to pay your own costs, even if you win. That's one of the reasons they have such a culture of litigation - there's much less to lose in suing someone if you'll never have to pay their costs.

I wonder if strava has any fans in the US legal profession who'd be prepared to donate some time to help out with the defence? I seriously doubt the claimants would pursue it if they thought they'd end up in court...

Yes, I am, but it's your own choice to go out and try and beat their time and it's not as if the emails says:

Once again, it's the riders own stupidity that's at fault, not the system.

Racers also sign disclaimers accepting responsibility for their own safety. As do Strava users, it seems:

I wonder how long that wording has been up there? Incidentally, I dont think the US has the same restriction on excluding liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence (that wording would be unenforceable in the UK).

A TT local to me are not allowed to put out signs out due to some bylaw, same applied for the national TT a few weeks ago I believe?. In our case the police have taken some interest... by suggesting riders run rear lights, they certainally dont stand there and watch. So essentially, its exactly the same as timing a ride by Strava.

Since yesterday, apparently.

'I'd try suing God for creating the hills in the first place. Surely the fact that the hill exists is God's fault and I bet he doesn't put disclaimers on them all...'

God doesn't exist, Strava does. Simple.

The point here is that the family are suing Strava for "encouraging" not for forcing him to go fast, the decision was his. However, it's hard to see how a system that automatically sends you an email - however it is worded - when someone beats your time is doing anything other than encouraging you to make a decision - what is the email for otherwise?

Any good laywer is going to view it as information that is meant as a call to action however neutrally it is delivered. Not very different from seeking someone out to casually mention that they've been insulted out of earshot. You've only passed on information, but you know there s a good chance that the person will act upon it - could you have anticipated they had a gun or were likely to over-react? If you didn't anticpate that before giving them the information you were surely being careless and possibly even negligent.

The family's lawyer will also no doubt argue that the makers of a system that allows users to upload what might be considered 'dangerous routes', times to be set on those routes, and then riders to be automatically emailed when their times over those dangerous sections are beaten have acted in a negligent manner particularly when certain over-competitive personality types are likely to be over-represented amongst their user base.

No doubt the lawyer will also argue that if you create an online environment that encourages people to ride fast in the real world, and in which competition is the compelling component you can't be insulated from the consequences when things go wrong as a result of people competing to post the best time.

Just sayin'

I wonder if Strava's disclaimer is at all relevant anyway, since the people suing have not agreed to it.

i tried strava for a bit but haven't used it for a while. i'm not convinced its algorithms are clever enough right now to give you a truly accurate time, there's too many accounts of two riders riding the same climb together and being given significantly different numbers. GPS is great for lots of things, but the consumer signal isn't really accurate enough for timing short segments.

even when i was using it, i didn't go after the downhill segments. on a climb the limitation is basically your own fitness. on a descent there's too many other factors in play, some of which you can't control. if you're racing downhill, you really need a managed environment to mitigate the risks. I'm saddened by this story, but I can't say I'm really surprised. I'm no racer, but I'm competitive enough that i'd be prepared to take risks to do better when in a racing environment. if that's on a marked, managed, marshalled course then things can still go wrong but at least someone's looked at the risks.

There's a downhill segment on my ride in, down North Road in Bath. without knowing it I posted the second fastest time down it (case in point: I'm pretty sure I didn't average 42mph down it, but there i am) and there was a time in my life when i'd have gone after the speed needed to get to the top, down a steep road with parked cars and some limited visibility exits from side roads. now it just doesn't seem too clever. maybe i'm getting old...

Tony, I can see that you are deliberately being objective as possible here and I concur with many of your points. However, Strava emailing you to advise you your time has been beaten isn't really the same as being insulted.

When you sign up to Strava or anything else it's to track your training and possibly to 'compete'. Competing in a sporting context in the knowledge other will target your times, isn't the same as facing an unsolicited insult or affront.

You've hit the nail on the head though. Strava encourages you to make a decision. It doesn't make it for you.

I think I'm a good lawyer, and I don't see it as a call to action to put myself in danger But seriously, the person giving information in your scenario is not negligent - they had no duty to stop the other person from committing a crime. Just like strava, giving information, have no duty to stop people acting on the information in a way that endangers them or others.

Why should strava be responsible for people, of their own volition, creating danger on the roads? It's pefectly possible to compete on strava without creating danger beyond the general background risk of riding a bike on the road. There's no reason to suggest Strava were telling him to push beyond his skill level. If he chose to, that's up to him. He is free to make the decision and take the risk, and must also accept the consequences.

Not relevant after the fact! But the family are likely suing through Mr Flint' estate, and would therefore be bound by the terms of use he agreed to.

Tony, I take your point and I guess if you look at it as enabling or encouraging the person to compete in an unsafe environment then there may be a case to answer. Personally though I still feel like it's a tool for recording your ride and comparing yourself against others, not a virtual racing system, and that if it went to court Strava would win.

However, I doubt it'll get that far. I suspect the family will be looking for as much publicity as possible (on the back of the other safe in SF where a rider using Strava ran down a pensioner) and settle out of court. Settling will still likely be cheaper for Strava than taking it to court and winning so it'll probably go that way.

Try suing continental drift. That's what created the mountains, fact

I expect this to go away quietly. Considering that this action was filed in the US legal system, Strava should settle out of court. I suspect that they will settle for an undisclosed sum and make an public statement that they will do more to remove dangerous segments, while admitting no fault. While they would likely win if they took it to trial, they don't want to open themselves up to any possibility of liability related to their core business activities, or the floodgates of additional litigation could open.

Agree that for small companies avoiding lawsuits is a good idea.

Anyone else remember the Halson Inversion mountain bike fork?

Halson wasted a year defending a patent on part of their design, by which time everyone else had a) figured out how to circumvent it and b) improved other aspects of their forks dramatically.

Can we sue the law firms for creating a suing culture and encouraging us to chase money and try to sue people? Ive wasted a lot of time and effort thinking up scams which have never come to fruition! this time couldve been spent on something worthwile like chasing Strava records or becoming a pro cyclist. Therefore I am suing every legal team in the world for 450,000 Euros - the prize money paid to the winner of the Tour de France.

Surely the manufacturer can't be held responsible for how fast someone wants to go, this is just madness ...

Wow! What a surprise! Another moron dead in San Fran? Even better, the moron's family has "lawyered-up".

Actually the family should have to pay us for the time we've wasted listening to their argument. Common sense is not so common in California.

LIKE BUTTON!

Talking of Strava, what is everyone's username?

This is why I try to create more "sensible" Strava segments that take into account traffic intersections, safe braking distances, etc.

There are a few user-created climb segments on my favorite roads that are nearly impossible to complete without stopping for a red light, yield, etc. so the KOTM is often the guy who is willing to blow a red light, fly through cross-traffic, etc. and not necessarily the strongest climber who has taken that route.

Similarly there are some idiotic descent segments that cross intersections, or the segment ends 20 feet from a wall or house so you'd have to nail the brakes long before the segment ends if you want to live.

The thing is, any sensible person would ride the way they normally ride--maybe digging a little deeper where they can, but not riding with blinders on. If you are cutting through cross-traffic or risking death or injury on yourself or others in the hopes of getting internet bragging rights, you are just a jackass, plain and simple.

Should we all follow each other?!

Mine is Dan flower

I use Strava now and again to see how i am improving (or not) on a specific route but it doesn't mean that i go balls out every time to become 'Number 1'. It is unfortunate what has happened and no doubt it will happen again because some people always want to push the boundaries.

By the way, Strava have just updated their T&C's

Just remember, use your head to think, not to stop.....

Yeah, just got the updated Terms, this part is particularly relevant:

its crazy that Strava should even be worried - dont you just wish a judge would throw the case out on day one and get the claimant to pay all costs - stupidity and vindictiveness by the family - I read elsewhere that it was the wife who bought him the garmin for a present? then she is implicated too!

American system has no way for Strava to win and have the other party pay their costs, hence why so many of this litigations occur (no risk of having to oay defendents costs) and why so many are settled (because it's cheaper than paying for it to go to court and winning).

What absolute sheee-iiiite. Shameful.

Don't think I'd try suing the old bearded One but I would strongly suggest to him that he fire down one of those thunderbolt thingies and incinerate the ambulance chasing attorney ***k who doubtless suggested this dastardly course of action to the grieving relatives in the first place. Assuming, of course, I believed in such things......

well put

I hope common sense prevails in all of this and personal responsibility, and that those of us who use Strava don't let it interfere with cycling sensibly or the fun of cycling.

In my own experience Strava became a bit of a bossy parrot on my shoulder. I learnt that it needed a cage! Sometimes I just want to go and ride simply for 'feel' and at those times when I choose to let it out and it measures me up I am no less a person for losing a KOM or not gaining one.

I wonder if Strava will change its messages/messaging as a result of this?

If you know a segment to be dangerous (goes through traffic lights, major junctions etc) then I suggest reporting them. It's a bit alarming when folk are saying they give it a go and hope to get through lights, even if they do yield to them. A minority are bound to chance it even if you don't. I know you're not responsible for them but let's all try and keep each other alive, eh? There will still be plenty of other segments around.

Re following each other, RoadCC could create a "club" on it and people could join...

I'm pretty sure the email that so and so has taken your KOM is a new thing as I've only been getting them for a few months. Yet 1 or 2 of my KOMs were taken without Strava informing me. So maybe not part of the service 2 years ago.

Anyway my sentiments are the same as the majority here...

My Strava name is Taylor Phinney

I've tried leaving notes on the KOM/segment pages warning about the safety issues, so perhaps people would focus on safer alternate segments instead (I don't make segments that go through intersections or descents that end at some point well-after you should have applied the brakes) but there doesn't seem to be any way to do that. You click the button and nothing happens. And people usually prefer to focus on the climbing segments that go all the way to the summit rather than the ones that stop short because of an intersection. C'est la velo!

I don't use the Strava App at all while I'm riding. I use my Garmin Edge to log my ride, and I ride how I want, when I want, where I want. When I get home, I upload my ride to the Strava website and see my performance data there. I can see how some moron would be sitting there, head down, eyes glued to their smartphone screen while barreling right into a busy intersection, but the same thing happens in the car with GPS units, Facebook updates, etc. You just have to hope these idiots take themselves out of the gene pool without taking someone else out at the same time.

Psyclyst >They have changed the email when you lose a KOM from 'Now show them who is boss' 'to Now get out there, have fun and be safe.' Perhaps changed in last day or two!

No, DRHEATON, you can't sue God--she doesn't exist. But the aforementioned family could sue the dad for siring the lad---no lad, no accident, innit.
Or possibly the hills might be sued for being aggressively big'n'lumpy. Honestly, these Lycra psychlists!
P.R.