The family takes issue with this lack of accountability. “They assume no responsibility,” Kang said. “They don’t put cones out. They don’t have anybody monitor and see whether a course, or a specific segment, is dangerous.”

In today's world, nobody is ever a dumbass of their own accord. It's always somebody else's fault.

Yes, a website that acts as a FREE (for non-Premium members) post-ride repository of training data, is supposed to monitor tens (hundreds?) of thousands of segments in the real world, in real time?
That's a fair expectation.

In today's world, nobody is ever a dumbass of their own accord. It's always somebody else's fault.

So by doing that, and apparently not removing this "dangerous" section, are they opening themselves up for the actual lawsuit to move forward?

I get that people seem to lack personal responsiblity. Just curious from a legal standpoint, if they are known to edit their software on some roads, but not others, if this case has atleast a chance to make it to court?

From the article



LOL, i don't see what the problem is ... Strava should totally be going out to the nation's roadways, putting down cones, waving flags, etc.

THAT's totally feasible and bound to be safer. :-P

man, i feel for these people. somebody died and that sucks.
but this is terrible way to come to grips with it. and probably contrary to the way the deceased lived.

Of course they are suing. Nothing is ever the person's fault, nope it's not me that is the idiot. It's Strava's fault for offering me courses to go for speed records.

Why does it have to be the rider's fault OR Strava's fault? Why can't both have some degree of culpability?

I don't think anyone is disavowing the rider of his responsibility to ride safely, obey traffic laws, etc. -- not even his own family. And in all likelihood a very large percentage of the blame probably falls on him.
.

But does it state you have to race in order to use the software? Does it make you go all out? Does it state you have to go all out or you dont get your time shown, etc?

I'm on Strava but I don't feel the need to constantly take KOM or whatever. If I do a ride and post it on there and see I took a KOM or whatever, then great, but there is no way I feel the need to run red lights and stop signs to break it.

I've yet to report a segment, but the segments I dislike usually include stop lights and/or signs. Just what we need is extra encouragement to blow through a stop....

I am downloading the app now to try it out. I will have complete disregard for my own safety while creating and chasing KOMs. Please sue Strava on my behalf when I wind up dead.

Thanks

Is that like saying...

This goes along with the lawsuit Of a family suing the person who sent a text to a driver who then read the text and was involved in an accident. They are suing the person who sent the text because they were the reason the driver was distracted and the cause of the accident. Crazy world we live in. It nit safe to do anything anymore. These are the types of cases that if the person suing loses they should have to pay 100 percent of all the defense cost.

By the way if you're reading this and driving I hold no responsibilities.[/quote]

ORLY?
You *MADE* me read it!! By posting it!!
The fact that I then plowed thru a school crosswalk and took out a dozen kids is all your fault!!!

And Dan's. Since he created ST, which is what I was reading when the hypothetical incident above occurred!!
So his website facilitated my faux jackassery!!! He should be out in the real world, making sure I'm not a dumbass!
SUE HIM!!! SUE EVERYBODY!!!!!

float , hammer , and jog

Strava doesn't put out cones? WTF?

That's asinine. So can you hold your riding friends legally responsible because you guys do a sprint at the end of every ride and one time you go bananas and end up hitting a tree?

It's amazing to me that when stories like this crop up (almost daily it seems), so many folks take such a black-and-white view of the responsibility issue.

Why does it have to be the rider's fault OR Strava's fault? Why can't both have some degree of culpability?

I don't think anyone is disavowing the rider of his responsibility to ride safely, obey traffic laws, etc. -- not even his own family. And in all likelihood a very large percentage of the blame probably falls on him.

But at the end of the day, Strava is a program that challenges people to ride as fast as they possibly can on public roads. Not hard to see that being a recipe for disaster. Does that create liability under the law? We shall see, but it certainly seems to me like a valid question to ask.

If you're downloading the app, then clearly you've signed their waiver.

Stop a minute and ask yourself why that waiver was necessary in the first place.

But does it state you have to race in order to use the software? Does it make you go all out? Does it state you have to go all out or you dont get your time shown, etc?

I was out for a long hard ride on the weekend. Came up to the major climb on the 100k loop in the middle of nowhere. I wanted to nail this. I bore down, pushed harder than I think I ever pushed up that climb. Felt good. A personal triumph and one to savor. No GPS. No data. no numbers. No computer. No downloads. Just me, the bike, and the hill. No one else knew. No one else saw. It was perfect! ( In truth there were a few cows in a field grazing at the top of the climb!)

There is no difference in what Strava provides than in doing group rides and challenging each other.

How else do you interpret this?

That Strava is setting up quasi racecourses without any of the normal safeguards that are implemented at real racecourses.

Which makes it pretty much like every loop I ride, my own personal TT courses, and every informal group ride I've ever been on.

SUE ME!!! SUE EVERYBODY!!! WE'RE ALL TO BLAME!!! BECAUSE NOBODY IS TO BLAME!!!

If you're riding recklessly and end up killing someone doing a simulated race on a public road, then you probably will get sued. Not sure what the confusion is here.

i get your confusion. you keep equating killing oneself with killing others.

this poor rider got himself killed thru the actions he took.
ML may do the same.

that does not equate to "riding recklessly and end up killing someone"
nobody killed this poor guy. 'cept maybe himself.


kudos for fighting a good fight though

I'm curious on your thoughts.

If I sent an athlete out to do a workout and he killed someone doing that workout, would you be cool with me (the coach) being sued as well?

I'm curious on your thoughts.

If I sent an athlete out to do a workout and he killed someone doing that workout, would you be cool with me (the coach) being sued as well?

I still don't know how much encouraging Strava is doing. They are saying here are the fastest times.

That's it. They aren't saying 'you will be super cool and better than everyone in the world if you go faster'.
(yes - but they are *implying* it. And besides, we all know - it's 100% true!!)

And they certainly aren't saying 'you should definitely eschew all road safety to become the KOM'.

Good lord, I hate the world. Just once I would like to hear a family of a deceased say 'Our son was an idiot. He put his life in danger doing something stupid and it's his own fault that he died.'

I think they should also sue the bike and wheel companies for making equipment that is entirely too fast

I still don't know how much encouraging Strava is doing

Well if there was no Strava there would be no record on the public course.

I just discovered Strava recently, I accidentally took a KOM in a road race and I thought that was pretty cool. I've read some other posts about KOM hunting and that seems pretty ridiculous to me, but apparently some people are into that. There is a time and a place to go fast. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed in ascertaining that a given stretch of road is indeed a good place for a KOM. Maybe the process should be 1. apply to have a section certified 2. have X people agree 3. if anyone disagrees that it's safe then it doesn't get set up. Just speculating.

"The Department of Defense regrets to inform you that your sons are dead, because they were stupid."

In the remake, Maverick & Goose would sue Jester for making them go after him. Then Iceman gets sued for Goose's death.

Wonder what that would do for Navy recruiting.

So what happens when somone dies in that "certified" section, are X people going to be held liable as well as Strata?

I don't know what's worse....
1) lawsuit itself
2) lawyer that takes the case
3) the legal system that allows valuable tax dollars to be consumed by such a frivolous claim.

Should I sue Garmin, if by using my "pacer", I wreck or have a heart-attack trying to keep up?

Y'all seem to think something magical happens during a race that makes everybody safe on the roads?

And what if on said "certified" road somebody has an accident and gets badly hurt or killed??

I don't think anyone should be held liable for any of this, that's not my point. I don't think Strava should let people set up courses that are potentially dangerous. It encourages people to behave like idiots.

People are so fucking stupid....

...

But that's the point - Strava doesn't "know" if a segment is inherently dangerous or not.
They don't vet that, nor do they claim to. It would be impossible for them to do so.

Well if there was no Strava there would be no record on the public course.

Is this actually quoted from the website?

"Here's a segment we know little about, except what we can ascertain from GPS data. Go see if you can ride it in under x:xx!"

You don't see the problem here?

"Here's a segment we know little about, except what we can ascertain from GPS data. Go see if you can ride it in under x:xx!"

You don't see the problem here?

You guys are missing a big point. The lawyer is probably charging the family nothing, and there is a good chance they looked at all options to generate income from this accident. Strava just seemed like the best way to make a quick buck. I'm no expert, but I am pretty sure you can sue anyone for anything.

...claiming "negligence and that the website encouraged him to speed":

http://velonews.competitor.com/...cending-death_224889

---

I don't see them as saying that. I see this. "Here is a segment. Here is the fastest time anyone has done here."

That's it.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the whole point of Strava seems to be to encourage users to go beat that fastest time.

"Track your progress and challenge your friends."
"Compare your performance against friends, locals and pros."
"Set personal records and climb the leaderboards."

Strava is clearly going beyond simply reporting results.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the whole point of Strava seems to be to encourage users to go beat that fastest time.

What if a fitness-tracking app/site had similar language, and in the process of trying to beat a friend's posted time, a user suffered a heart attack or a stroke or some other medical catastrophe?

Flipping it around, what if there was an identical app with an identical premise for drivers of vehicles, and it was called Carva. What would folks say then?

So, do you see a problem with this?

Flipping it around, what if there was an identical app with an identical premise for drivers of vehicles, and it was called Carva. What would folks say then?

Actually, I take back my quote in this instance. I thought this case was referring to the SF rider that killed a pedestrian last week. In that case, I think the example works well.

In this case, no, just tough luck.

I see it exposing Strava to liability. That would be a problem if you're Strava. It's not a problem for me.

Strava's role in both incidents is the same though.

You can't very well say Strava is liable when the victim is an innocent bystander, and not liable when the victim is the user.

We should all sit on couches eating bonbons, and nobody would ever get hurt or die.

They (Strava) ONLY will remove a dangerous segment if it is "flagged" by a Strava user as being dangerous.
That's the only way they'd ever know about it, since, unlike Google, they can't monitor everything about everybody everywhere 100% of the time.

I once contacted Strava because a segment had been "flagged", and I thought that was ridiculous, as it was no more dangerous than any of the other roads in the surrounding area. So I requested that it be "un-flagged" and opened back up again.
Not sure if they ever did, or not.
PS - I just rode that "dangerous" segment last Thurs nite w/ a buddy.
We lived. PHEW!!!

Which I think is the problem. Ultimately, it's up to you or me to do something, but yet someone else is always liable. We've become a total wussified, wow is me, you have to cover your ass society. It's apparently always someone else's fault for our own actions.

Does anyone else just see this falling into the philosophical debate of "if your friends told you to jump off a bridge, would you"?

Some folks seem to think it is up to the individual....others seem to think the friends share the responsibility for the encouragement.

I think it really boils down to, do we have a responsibility as a society to protect stupid people from themselves.....literally.

I think it really boils down to, do we have a responsibility as a society to protect stupid people from themselves.....literally.

Strava's role in both incidents is the same though.

You can't very well say Strava is liable when the victim is an innocent bystander, and not liable when the victim is the user.

If anyone else reading this thread also survived law school, this thread has all of the ingredients for an awesome first-year torts exam hypothetical.

Negligence = duty + breach + causation + damages.

Duty: did Strava owe the plaintiffs any duty of care in these facts? Did operating an online course challenge site create some duty for them to act in some fashion so as not cause the plaintiffs injury?

Breach: If Strava has this duty, did they meet their obligation? Did they act in the manner that a reasonably prudent person in their position would act under the circumstances?

Causation: If Strava did not act reasonably, was that breach of duty the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries?

Damages: was the plaintiff actually damaged? were his injuries economic (medical bills, lost wages, lost earning capacity) and/or non-economic (pain and suffering).

Affirmative defenses Strava could offer: plaintiff understood and assumed all risks of the activity, including the risk that others may act negligently. They may argue that plaintiff was also negligent in failing to control his speed and properly operate his bicycle.

Man, I really don't see this one surviving the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, but crazier things have happened.

I don't know how much liability they should face, if they should face any (assumption of the risk is a pretty solid defense when you have a dope who can't control his bike crash, and I have no clue about their safeguards), but if you have a website who's business model is to capitalize on getting cyclists to compete against each other, without a check on the segments they put up, or at the very least a disclaimer stating that traffic rules need to be followed, then I very well could see them contributorily negligent.

Who gives a shit about downhill KOMs, anyway.

A friend forwarded some text that I think originally came from Velonews, but I thought it was interesting so I'll repeat it here.


The question was what liability Strava might have when you take into account some states Vehicle Codes. Section 23109 of the California Vehicle Code


23109. (a) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits, is not a speed contest.
(b) A person shall not aid or abet in any motor vehicle speed contest on any highway.
(c) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on a highway, and a person shall not aid or abet in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on any highway

Specifically (b) above seems to point directly at Strava.