Strava data used to ban cyclists from trail

Get a faster horse I say!! 

Make horses register on Strava where they go and how fast and then you can call it fair! They shit in the road and I have to dodge it on my road bike - fine them for that if your going to fine speeding on trails! 

Posted speed limits would be a very useful piece of information.

The open space preserves up on Skyline [within 10 miles of Byrne Preserve] that allow mountain biking all have clearly posted signs mandating helmets are worn and maximum speed of 15mph.

It is not uncommon on Saratoga Gap trail to reach the bottom of a long straight singletrack, where a fire trail cuts through, to find a fellow with a radar gun handing out speeding tickets. 

Byrne Preserve probably could have adopted a similar strategy where fines and points are handed out.  However for a small park with a heavy emphasis on children programs and horses perhaps the county felt this is not worth the hassle.

It is a hard president, using Strava, to show individuals are speeding and therefore revoke access.  Hopefully this is not a trend that catches on in other areas.

The multi use trail solution I liked better than fines and revoked access was the jingle bell system.  In some counties, the trails ask that all mountain bikers attach a bell to their bikes that will ring anytime the bike goes over a bump.  As a hiker you would hear something that sounds like Santa's sleigh and know you have about 30-45 seconds before a mountain bike comes around the next blind turn.  This was enough time to not be surprised.

We need to know: is there a ststutory speed limit of 20 mph; is the trail a public right if way; under what statute does the council have the auauthority to ban anyone from the trail? Without this information the report is pointless.

Was the speed limit mentioned in the article, or does the reader just have to assume that there is a 20mph speed limit?

If there is a 20mph speed limit in place, and it is adequately signposted then the whole article makes a lot more sense. Otherwise it does not:

Clearly dangerous behaviour around horses and other track users is not acceptable but these mountain bikers (I'm more a roadie, so it is an assumption) are out having their fun and trying to improve their skills and fitness. Now that's pretty tricky if they are restricted to pootling and enjoying the view - kind of makes their full-face helmets and body armour redundant!

Of course another solution would have been to ban the horses and hikers (if you don't like hiking there, go and hike somewhere else)!

OK so today I went into work along the canal.  Average 24km/hr Max 41km/hr at no point did I come close to cycling into anyone.  The most dangerous aspect IMHO of my ride is not the speed on straight good visibility empty sections but passing pedestrians who are walking in the middle of the path and I've slowed to walking pace behind because they cannot hear my approach because they are plugged into headphones and are not situationally aware.  Despite high speed when not near people slowing when I am and a warning of "on your right/left" followed by a "thank you" as they acknowledge sees good relations maintained... I recieve and give smiles and have never been shouted or sworn at.  Pretty sure my Strava data would get me banned. 

Hey guys, thanks for quoting Cyclocross Magazine's Andrew on his opposition to the ban. He was just one of many to attend and speak out at the public meeting on the ban. That contradicts your earlier statement that it was passed "with no opposition to the ban made by the local cycling community."

Feel free to reach out if you want the complete picture, or at least one cycling community member's version of the events. Even the Strava data isn't completely accurate, since there are parallel roads to the paths and obvious GPS errors. But explaining that to a city council member who has a few minutes to decide on a topic felt like an insurmountable KOM. 

Can you imagine up roar if you ban all motorist from using a road because some exceed the speed limit. I assume this trail doesn't even have a speed limit posted. 

In reality it's not going to make any difference people will still ride the trail and at whatever speed they feel is appropriate at the time and more power to them, it not like anybody has any real power to stop them. 

Cheeky trails all the way.. 

20mph unacceptable on shared paths. So motons can stfu when I don't use them.

Also waiting for roads to be closed to cars because some of them drive at excessive speeds.

Some people are tools whatever their mode if transport, but only cyclists are trated as a homogenous group.

Yep Strava had this coming.  And about time.  If there's no number on your back it's not a race.

To say that it's ok to ride at what could be taken as inappropriate speed because you're careful doesn't rule out the possibility of something unexpected happening.  Which may or may not involve other people or animals.

And people say that e-bikes, which go much, much faster than regular bikes (often ridden by inexperienced riders), won't lead to getting MTB bikes banned from more trails... hahaha,ya right!

It could, of course,  be argued that Strava simply encourages self-centred pillocks to be even more inconsiderate of the needs of others.  In this case,  they have spoilt things for all cyclists.   

There is plenty of organised competition for everybody,  Strava is just the cycling equivalent of masturbation.

Ouchie... there is a strava segment near me, shared path... KOM is over 30mph. I hold that KOM.

It was achieved in a wholly responsible way... there was no one on the path, visbility is excellent on that route. 

Half the fun of Strava is getting the right circumstances to post a PB, in this case a clear run in the right conditions. 

I mention this as to anyone just looking in at the data, that speed would seem ridiculous, and wildly inappropriate. And i for one wouldn't dream of trying it with other users on that path. 

The point is there is nothing to say if I was riding responsibly, or not riding responsibly, as is the case with any Strava segment / recording.

There is no speed limit on shared paths, only perceptions of what is acceptable or not. 

Its a dangerous precedent creating bans based on a snap shot of time without any context.

What percentage of all strava logs exceeded the limit? and at what time of day were they recorded (I know Strava does not show this.) Setting a PB on most routes is very much dependant on the amount of traffic, motorised or pedestrian. 

Seems a bit excessive; if there was no opposition, is iy because no one told the bikers; they just turn up one day to find a no cycling sign on their favourite trail?

Strava is partly responsible; flagged segments don't actually disappear, you just hit the hazard waiver button to see the segment. If a couple of people flag the segment as dangerous it should deleted and no new segments on that route created.

Can the council prove the ride data hadn't been doctored? Or that it was even authentic data at all? (i.e. that it was in fact taken from rides and the files not merely created in an office to support an argument).

Of course, it is highly likely based on common sense that the data is valid. My point though is that it's probably been accepted by the council because it support a pre-detemined conclusion that they wanted to arrive at. The "evidence" however would be unlikely to stand up to scrutiny in court. 

How many times have we seen court cases relating to motoring offenses thrown out because the data/videos can't be authenticated as accurate or because the data was provided by a cyclist victim who is automatically not seen as impatial?

Given that we know motorists speed on roads which are shared with more vulnerable road users, I guess it makes sense to ban motorised transport from the roads too? Just trying to put this ridiculous ban into context.

When will we see ALL cars banned from residential or other streets because a few (or many) exceed the speed limit?

What's good for the goose...

Seems fair enough,  people on bikes should be considerate to others. 

unfortunately in the digital world we live in things like this will become more common.

I suppose it is a worrying precedent but the honest truth is that Strava is exactly set up for this. If there were a similar system whereby drivers or horse riders could log their speeds and routes, I am sure data could be extracted showing unacceptable behaviour too.

The end situation is that becuase cyclist have demonstrably acted in a way that the local authority found unacceptable, the priviledge of using this particular trail has been removed.

It would help if we knew what would be considered acceptable so that we could moderate ourselved accordingly. I am not sure any of the cyclist logging >20mph would consider that they are being unacceptable.

In addition, this data has no context about what was happening near the cyclists at the time. Perhaps if the stretch of trail was unoccupied with clear visibility this is acceptable, but if there were other users this would not have happened.