Strava in the process of being sued?

CRAIGO5000

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17525

News to me? I must add that I use it for it's intended purpose of giving me something to "strive" for whilst out on my mundane commutes and when exploring new roads on training rides. I can't really hold speeds on the flats of over 30mph for too long (i.e. speeding - but then speeding laws only apply to propelled vehicles in this country?)

Seem like it won't stand up in court and I'm sincerely sorry that someone died trying to descend a segment and then lost control. It seems common sense should have intervened but alas with lots of riders I see, they take risks and chances and that's their decision - not that of an app/internet site that records your GPS trace and speeds.

In the same subject, if someone died in a TT through their own negligence on a public road, who would be to blame?

SimonAH

Land of the Lawyers. One of my brothers is a partner in a Washington firm - its a case of locate a dollar and then find something to sue over to get at it.

SteppenHerring

There are some descent segments that, IMHO, are a bit iffy. However, the presence or absence of Strava is immaterial - people like to go fast downhill and sometimes they go too fast.

Like YouTube, it is simply not possible to have staff to monitor everything that users contribute all of the time. They cannot physically police segments and decide what is or isn't dangerous. Stupid lawsuit and (I'm sorry but) stupid guy trying to chase a downhill segment time.

sketchley

Deleted

rolf_f

I was initially a bit disappointed that this was happening - but that's before I discovered that Strava included descents. That's just stupid. Encouraging speed on climbs is one thing - on descents is something else and the way things are with litigation these days this outcome is totally predictable. TBH, it sounds like they might deserve what they might get.

Of course, people should take responsibility for their own actions but encouraging stupidity for no purpose is a bit silly.

Edit - if the rider in this instance was doing 35mph in a 25mph limit, then maybe the onus is on Strava to ensure that all posted segments are legal. That would keep their software engineers busy but, ultimately, if someone has done a already done a descent at the maximum legal speed limit then there should be nothing there to encourage that time to be beaten.

peat

God. That really razzes me off.

Just accept that your son was responsible for his own actions. No amount of money, sorry - 'Justice', will bring him back.

pangolin

Really Rolf? So how steep does it have to be before it's too dangerous? How sharp the bends? How obscured the corners?

Is a route allowed that includes some descents as well as ascents? Or does it all have to be flat or uphill? Come on, think it through. Like SteppenHerring says, they can't police this stuff. It's up to people not to push themselves further than they should.

twist83

Rolf do you live in America? Personally that sounds like an Ambulance chasing comment.

Strava deserve to be sued over someone making a segment (Not Strava!) and then going to fast for his ability and ending up dead. The onus is on the person in control of the bike to ride within his abilitys and/or be sensible about it :roll:

This reminds me very much of the gun debate. The gun doesnt kill it is the person who pulls the trigger after loading the gun that does. How on earth can you police every descent. By removing descents you would essentially kill all routes that involved a hill. Also how do you account for different skill levels, different bikes have better/worse brakes, a larger person will pick up more speed. Too many varilables.

If you fly down a hill at any speed and hit something with little protection your going to get hurt. If you are not prepared to accept that risk then do not do it. Too much cotton wool wrapping going on these days.

I have noticed however a segment (Uphill!) has been removed near me as apparently it is too dangerous so some ninny has flagged it for weird reason as it isnt that dangerous.

mudcow007

Ha brilliant, feel bad for the poor sod who died but it wasn't Strava that told him to ride that fast - it was him who wanted to beat a time

meanredspider

Next we'll be getting riders in the TdF to get off their bikes and wheel them down the mountains. Oh and at every timed sportif too. I know - let's fit bike with limiters - 15 mph max!

This is a complete nonsense - ever since the first bike speedos, people will have been riding as fast as they can down hills to see what number they can reach. Hell, I was pulled over by a bobby as a kid as I was riding as fast as I could to see how bright I could get my dynamo light. If Strava are to be sued, then let's sue Garmin, Apple, Samsung etc for providing the measuring tools. And, whilst we're at it, the bike companies. Oh, and how about the government for building steep roads?

I think Strava have been more than responsible by providing the "dangerous" flag. Leave the rest to the nut on the bike.

peat

twist83 wrote:

I have noticed however a segment (Uphill!) has been removed near me as apparently it is too dangerous so some ninny has flagged it for weird reason as it isnt that dangerous.

That smacks of 'That's the only ascent in the area that i don't hold the lead for and i keep coming up short. No problem, i'll just get it removed.'

twist83

It does. I smashed it the other day only to be told there was no longer a leaderboard when I got home. This makes baby jesus cry

Two nights ago when cleaning my bike. I closed the bike stand on my finger and it bled. I am going to sue them as this should not have happened!

notsoblue

They may as well go and sue Garmin and any other producer of cycle computers as well then.

peat

Well, for whatever reason, i have now signed up and installed Strava.

Perhaps this is all a marketing rouse?

rolf_f

pangolin wrote:

Really Rolf? So how steep does it have to be before it's too dangerous? How sharp the bends? How obscured the corners?

Is a route allowed that includes some descents as well as ascents? Or does it all have to be flat or uphill? Come on, think it through. Like SteppenHerring says, they can't police this stuff. It's up to people not to push themselves further than they should.

I honestly just don't see the point. I can see the point of trying to push for a fast climb as that encourages you to develop skills that really make a big difference to your overall ability and riding experience. I'm not convinced that encouraging people to razz down hills is such a great idea. And I said myself that people should take responsibility for their own actions. I never said otherwise - I wish people would read what I say

twist83 wrote:

Rolf do you live in America? Personally that sounds like an Ambulance chasing comment.
This reminds me very much of the gun debate. The gun doesnt kill it is the person who pulls the trigger after loading the gun that does.

No - but some people do and so does Strava does it not? We are living in the world we are living in and this case is a fairly predictable outcome and one that will be repeated. And I don't think the gun comment really helps your argument. Lots of guns = lots of people using guns. If there are no guns, nobody gets killed by them. There is a correlation between number of guns in circulation and number of people getting killed by them.

twist83

I mean your whole Strava deserve to be Sued comment! Or the insane statement about no need for hills to be included thus making all longer rides impossible to map or the fact that we as humans are responsible for our own actions. Hence my gun comparison.

I agree the more of something there is then the more likely hood there is off people falling foul of either a gunshot or in this case getting killed while cycling. But I am sorry as has been said people still go flat out down hills with or without Strava. It is just in this case he had Strava, if he did not he would be just another statistic of which I am sure there are plenty.

Same again there are less guns in this country than say the US so we just stab each other and stamp on each others head instead. It is still the same end result. With or without Strava people will go fast and will unfortunately kill themselves however all sueing Strava does is possibly destroy one of the most popular and helpful cycling tools for a vast majority because of one persons actions.

Also descending is a pretty handy skill. The more you do something the better you get at it, this does not mean just speed but also control. Going fast does not always mean it is dangerous. People with more skill can safely descend more efficently than someone with less skill. There is a chance that someone else would have seen the hazard this American chap didnt and avoided it. If it was unavoidable I suspect doing 20, 30 or 40mph the end result would have been the same.

it frustrates me that we as humans seem unable to be held accountable for our actions and would rather blame someone else for them. You play with danger and you have to accept the consequences simple as that. I am sure he and most others are intelligent enough to understand this and make a decision based on it.

rolf_f

twist83 wrote:

Same again there are less guns in this country than say the US so we just stab each other and stamp on each others head instead. It is still the same end result.

No it isn't - it really isn't and it's a bit silly to suggest that it is. Look at the data and then go to America and watch the news. The results are far from the same. You make some good arguments but this isn't one of them.

twist83 wrote:

Also descending is a pretty handy skill. The more you do something the better you get at it, this does not mean just speed but also control. Going fast does not always mean it is dangerous. People with more skill can safely descend more efficently than someone with less skill. There is a chance that someone else would have seen the hazard this American chap didnt and avoided it. If it was unavoidable I suspect doing 20, 30 or 40mph the end result would have been the same.

I do agree that it is a handy skill but I may be wrong here but I still don't think it is that clever to encourage competitive descending and I think developing skill in descending is probably best not done by reference to overall time of descent anyway - I think most of the time that is likely to be fairly meaningless in a way that it isn't on climbs. But, as I said before, my primary point is simply that I think it is foolish of Strava to encourage this based on the reality of the modern world and the legal systems we have.

And iI hope it is obvious that I am specifically referring to descent segments rather than general routes with ups and downs.

twist83

I think you also missed my point being that a Gun is a tool if someone does not have a gun to kill someone with they will likely use a knife or there foot. Same with if someone does not use Strava to map a descent they will use a cycle computer or one of the other methods of doing so.

I am not getting into semantics of gun deaths, they are a means to an end is my point. I shoot so am well aware about the impact of firearms as it is something that effects the sport I do.

Strava is a tool to map rides, they do not put the segments on there. We as riders do. It takes someone to then ride that segment like an idiot. This is NOT Stravas fault someone made this segment and died. The overall point of segments is indeed to map your progress or pace however as I keep going back to, if you know a road is dangerous then have the intelligence to ride within your limits. Should also the bike manfacturer be responsible as they create a bike capable of 50mph+? Where does it end.

I stand by my point that you saying Strava should get what they deserve i.e a lawsuit is frankly stupid.

So is ok to map a descent as part of a long ride but not as a single descent... As if that makes a difference. What about rides on closed roads, sportives etc etc?

jds_1981

Rolf F wrote:

No it isn't - it really isn't and it's a bit silly to suggest that it is. Look at the data and then go to America and watch the news. The results are far from the same. You make some good arguments but this isn't one of them.

From when I used to be interested in this sort of thing I seem to recall there's more gun crime/gun murders per capita here than in America.

SimonAH

Although I am broadly in favour of private gun ownership (suitably licensed of course) and would like it not to be a case that a large ratio of legal guns to population should lead to higher rates of gun crime, it does. Look at Switzerland.

On the other side of the coin I wholeheartedly agree with Prince Charles (or Phillip's, not sure) statement regarding something along the lines of "next they'll have to ban cricket bats" following the Dunblaine incident.

.....anyway, back on track.

Suing Strava over this is a patent nonsense, but in my original response I said that someone spotted some cash so they will try to get hold of it.

We have arrived in a world where, at least in the UK and the USA, everything has to be someone else's fault. Fall over your feet in the supermarket? Sue 'em Pour hot coffee in your lap? Sue McDonald's for not warning you that coffee is hot. Put your mobile home in cruise control and then leave the driver's seat to go back to make yourself a sandwich and crash? Sue the manufacturer for not making it totally clear that cruise control is not autopilot.

We need lawyers, and we need due dilligence - but it has got completely out of hand.

bails87

1. The US murder rate per 100,000 is about 4 times that of the UK

2. Would the 'no descents' policy extend to mountain biking?

SimonAH

And actually, getting it further off my chest, because we are in this climate of nuisance lawsuits and compensation culture the institutions and companies have put in massive strategies to counter it. As a result, when they really have been negligent and someone is injured or suffers loss the machine is ready making it very much harder to obtain redress.

In my opinion we should immediately ban personal injury type solicitors from advertising again.

pangolin

Lets sue 'em

twist83

SimonAH wrote:

Although I am broadly in favour of private gun ownership (suitably licensed of course) and would like it not to be a case that a large ratio of legal guns to population should lead to higher rates of gun crime, it does. Look at Switzerland.

On the other side of the coin I wholeheartedly agree with Prince Charles (or Phillip's, not sure) statement regarding something along the lines of "next they'll have to ban cricket bats" following the Dunblaine incident.

.....anyway, back on track.

Slightly OT but do you by chance or were you a shooter? If not I would be very surprised with a response like that. I was young when Dunblaine happened. But shot at the time, we lost our Handguns we used for target shooting (My father and I). He also remembers the Hungerford incident where self loaded rifles were lost.

However it seems that the past few incidents involving licensed weapons have been dealt with like Dunblaine and Hungerford should have. i.e the Lord Cullen report for Dunblaine not a knee jerk legislation.

There is no logic to to Firearms legislation in this country. I shoot Practical Shotgun for this you require a Semi Automatic high capacity shotgun and slug ammo (Solid ounce of Lead). The UK Government deem it fine for us to shoot with these but not a handgun..... Figure that one out.

Anyway sorry for the off topic nature of the post.

I REALLY hope Strava does not come a cropper through this.

SimonAH

twist83 wrote:

Slightly OT but do you by chance or were you a shooter?

Yes I was. I shot .22 pistol at university (central London, but indoor basement range where all weapons we stored in a manner that made Fort Knox look like a market stall - lost my pistol in the Mothers Against Dunblaine hysteria. Also had my shotgun crimped by Douglas Hurd too (there was a man who was his own rhyming slang if ever there was one).

I don't shoot any more, bar a social clay fest every year or so (borrowed gun)

The real problem with gun regulation is that if I wanted an illegal weapon it would be enormously simple to get one and generally speaking it's not the legal and regulated owners who commit gun crime.

Unfortunately however I have to succumb to the numbers, and it is true that Switzerland, with an assault rifle in every house, has one of the highest rates of domestic shootings with a legal weapon in the western world. You could of course take a combined number of, say, domestic stabbings, shootings and violence with a cricket bat or other blunt object and probably find that the total is broadly similar per capita to that of, say, the UK and that the gun is merely the opportune weapon to hand..............oh it's all so depressing.

twist83

I thought you might be!

I do agree about the Switzerland thing. Even though I shoot myself and would love to see us able to own Handguns etc again I do realise that if a gun is accesible it will likely be the first thing used to commit a murder. Far less 'personal' than stabbing someone!!

As you say the illegal weapons are a big problem and easier to obtain than a FAC. After pistol shooting was banned we gave up shooting for some time and only just got back into it about 5-6 years ago and the hoops I had to jump through were rather long winded.

Relating back to Strava the other problem is if we do not fight for our right to use something like Strava eventually we will be left with nothing. Every victory to restrict or ban something leaves something else open to it once a precident has been set. However it is not until something that is personal is threatened that people will jump to the defence. I would have thought ALL bikers would recognise while tragic that this mans death was his own doing Strava or no Strava.

Reminds me of the NRA in the UK turning there back on Pistol shooters because they didnt really use or want pistols. People that dont use Strava even though they are cyclists are not prepared to say hang on this is stupid.

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

twist83 wrote:

Slightly OT but do you by chance or were you a shooter?

Yes I was. I shot .22 pistol at university (central London, but indoor basement range where all weapons we stored in a manner that made Fort Knox look like a market stall - lost my pistol in the Mothers Against Dunblaine hysteria. Also had my shotgun crimped by Douglas Hurd too (there was a man who was his own rhyming slang if ever there was one).

I don't shoot any more, bar a social clay fest every year or so (borrowed gun)

The real problem with gun regulation is that if I wanted an illegal weapon it would be enormously simple to get one and generally speaking it's not the legal and regulated owners who commit gun crime.

Unfortunately however I have to succumb to the numbers, and it is true that Switzerland, with an assault rifle in every house, has one of the highest rates of domestic shootings with a legal weapon in the western world. You could have course take a combined number of, say, domestic stabbings, shootings and violence with a cricket bat or other blunt object and probably find that the total is broadly similar per capita to that of, say, the UK and that the gun is merely the opportune weapon to hand..............oh it's all so depressing.

FWIW (and it's probably not that much) I think guns are an 'easier' method of despatching someone than the more up-close and personal blunt/sharp objects. I agree that law abiding registered owners are less of a problem, but apparently upstanding pillars of the community do horrendous things every now and then too.

meanredspider

We've probably strayed a little OT (as sympathetic as I am to the gun argument - an ex-shotgunner myself)

The key point is that Strava isn't enabling illegal activity (using a gun to murder someone is, I believe, still illegal)

rolf_f

twist83 wrote:

I stand by my point that you saying Strava should get what they deserve i.e a lawsuit is frankly stupid.

So is ok to map a descent as part of a long ride but not as a single descent... As if that makes a difference. What about rides on closed roads, sportives etc etc?

I don't think it is stupid to say Strava deserve what they get. If you make a reckless business decision then you can't complain about the consequences. In a litigious society, this lawsuit was always likely to happen.

And obviously there is a difference between a downhill segment and a long ride. Over any distance greater than the descent itself, you aren't going to be able to tell much about the quality of any one descent. I'd still maintain that, unlike with climbing, descent time is a pretty meaningless tool for determining descending ability. There are just too many variables.

SimonAH wrote:

In my opinion we should immediately ban personal injury type solicitors from advertising again.

+1 x 100..........

bigmat

Strava don't create the segments. They have a disclaimer and warnings on (some) potentially dangerous segments. I think they may need to do something to cover their arse a bit, particularly in the US, but I don't see on what logical basis they could be blamed for an incident such as the one giving rise to this claim.

Re shooting - why do people feel the need? I'm sure its a bit of fun, but why not just go paintballing / play call of duty? What is it about the feel of a loaded gun in your hands? All strikes me as totally unnecessary and inviting trouble. I appreciate I'm talking largely from ignorance but I would happily see gun ownership banned with the exception of those who need them to earn a living e.g. some farmers.

Team4Luke

There are many speed record attempts around the globe for various sports supported by their respective bodies.