US judge dismisses attempt to sue Strava after cyclist killed while trying to recapture segment KoM

Oh, for crying out loud...! This is yet another example of mindless, ignorant, arrogant morons looking to find someone else to blame for their own failings.

It has nothing to do with Strava or anyone else "encouraging" you or me to do something stupid. If certain clowns choose to ride at inappropriate speeds at inappropriate times on inappropriate routes, the blame is entirely theirs. Just because there's a bit of technology which allows comparisons of performance does not justify disengagement of the brain.

The same applies to people getting killed or injured in time trials on wholly unsuitable busy dual carriageways, and to road racers hitting oncoming cars on blind bends when the roads have not been closed. We all have the choice, nay duty, to ride within reasonable limits and it is crass and cowardly to apportion blame to others for our own bad judgements.

I'm playing Devils Advocate here. I do not use Strava (Endomondo user here) but I know how it works, so it does not unqualify me to make comments and observations. Human nature being what it is means we are are fallible bunch, easily encouraged to do things we perhaps shouldn't. Accepting terms and conditions when that App is used doesn't mean Strava is free from a duty of care. I'm sure they do care and I agree they are NOT responsible for that cyclists death, but they could do more in my opinion.

The app has encouraged unsafe competition between cyclists on public roads and routes that are just not safe and it encourages riders to take gambles and risks that I feel wouldn't be taken if they weren't using the app. Of course I am not suggesting this App makes all riders lose all sense of rationale, but it must affect a percentage of riders, who see it as a safe, measured risk, but their judgement is affected by their competiveness.

Just because Strava are not liable for any accident or death in the eyes of the law doesn't mean the use of their app hasn't contributed in some small way to accidents and deaths. It has to, simply.

Strava need to do more to minimise the dangers and one solution might be by 'hotspotting' certain routes (cant say blacklisting any more...) or segments where the dangers and risks are higher than is acceptable, given that there is always some measured risk every time bikes, vehicles and pedestrians mix it up. Accident stats on well know segments are ready and available now, so why aren't Strava doing something like this, where it say "no timings allowed - accident hotspot".

That will encourage riders to find safer routes where they can go all out, and those routes are out there already. Just my musings....

It looks like an easy case because he killed only himself. But actually he splatted to death on an SUV in the oncoming lane after losing control and crossing the line. I don't know who had to clean up the blood but I'm sure it wasn't nice.

But what if he had smashed though a windshield and into a child strapped into a retaining seat and so unable to dodge? Then of course Flint's freedom to kill himself doesn't sound so convincing.

If there's a way to reduce >innocent< people getting killed on the road, should it be considered? Specifically, if that way is "don't encourage bicycle riders to attempt feats beyond their skill level where they may lose control on public roads" is it a moral obligation to enforce that?

The usual "wait until the crisis hits" way to go about it would be to wait until an innocent person is killed and then let the emotional tsunami wash through the court system. Obviously smart people don't wait until the crisis.

There is a new case of a Stanford U team rider killing a elderly pedestrian during a light change in San Fransisco. He was recording on strava via his cellphone in real time; I don't know if he was on a segment or not. But now he has the strava stigma involved in his case, and strava has the stigma of the rider who killed a pedestrian. The rider is healthy and fine.

To anyone who records on strava in realtime via a cellphone, you should consider that if you get in an accident, even if it is somebody elses fault, that strava recording is likely to be used against you if at all possible.

I ride on a number of roads with shared use (only motor vehicles are restricted) and I have to agree, going flat out on them can be quite dangerous. I have a flat 8km ride alongside a river and at peak times, if you were in full TT mode, you'd have problems. I have almost hit kids running out of the treeline and did once hit a pedestrian. I came off worse than she did (she was a bit sore but nothing broken or bleeding) but ploughing into her at 30kmh wasn't really that much fun for either of us.

Shared use means you should really be able to stop in case of the unexpected. Check out some of the times for people along the canals in London.

There are two types of dangerous segments

a) where you're a potential danger to others e.g. Children and pedestrians on shared paths who may wobble in front of you but they get hurt
b) where you're a anger to yourself e.g. Downhill where you may lose control of your bike

Sustrans are quite right to argue against segments in case a) and considering most of the time they've lobbied for the cash to build the paths, they've got more right than most to have a say
Personally, if you want to put yourself at risk downhill, that's all part of the game and fine by me.

Oh, FFS. Give. Me. Strength.

Quote:

...and fails to warn users vying for KOM status that the road conditions are unsuitable for racing.

That just forgoes all common sense that roads are not meant for racing using any kind of vehicle, let alone having to be told this by a website.

Does this mean that Strava will finally stop their pussy-footing with regard to 'hazardous' segments and anything that brings you closer to sea level faster than sinking through solid earth?

Sorry, don't understand why people are slamming Sustrans so much. Sustrans are trying to create an environment where cyclists and pedestrians co-exist.
I use the B2B cycle path 2 or 3 times a week, and have seen other riders on tri bars, trying to eke out speed. Just as racing a Ferrari on a dual carriageway full of normal traffic isn't appropriate, time trialling on a shared path isn't on.

Thank god for some common sense. If not you may as well sue mavic for making wheels as they can make you go fast.

Its down to the individual, I see some strava segments and have no intention of going for them because they are clearly not on a safe section of road.

Sustrans are talking out of their ****

It's ridiculous to blame Strava. I usually agree with Sustrans but they're well off the mark with this one if you ask me.

yee ha for common sense

don't worry they will appeal and be awarded 1 billion dollars and the first born of every Strava employee.
That'll make things right again.

Personally the only segments I think are worth looking at are uphill, all it takes to go down hill fast (on the road at least) is massive nads and a little skill.

Blimey a legal decision in America that allows common sense to prevail.