# Strava Countersues



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Looks like Strava is going to dish it out:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ng-no-responsibility-in-cyclists-death_261902

Good for them!


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Outrageous, when will Strava come forward and accept responsibility? I have a case pending against them too. I was on the trainer and experienced a malfunction that resulted in my bike dismounting... I was launched several inches from my bike and had a bruise on my right hip. The only reason I was on the trainer was because Strava sent harassing e-mails night and day demanding, no threatening, that I ride - or else. Did they inspect my equipment? Did they check the conditions in my house? Did they even put up cones? No. They neglected all the above.


----------



## BikesOfALesserGod (Jul 22, 2012)

The guy played stupid games and he won stupid prizes. That's all.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Ah America. Land of the frivolous lawsuit.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Strava won't be so lucky with the inevitable suit from the family of the man killed on Castro Street. No one has much sympathy for someone who kills himself but an innocent person crossing the street is a different story.


----------



## brady1 (Aug 18, 2011)

This is such a ridiculous lawsuit.

If Strava is somehow responsible for what happens to cyclists on the road, can I sue Mapquest or Google Maps if I ever get in an auto accident?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

trailrunner68 said:


> Strava won't be so lucky with the inevitable suit from the family of the man killed on Castro Street. No one has much sympathy for someone who kills himself but an innocent person crossing the street is a different story.


I have no sympathy for the rider in that situation either (sad that an innocent pedestrian was the victim, but again, not the fault of Strava." The rider is the one at fault; he couldn't think through the consequences and chose to act recklessly? It's all Strava's fault, right? He NEVER would have done anything stupid without there being a segment there, right?

Personal responsibility is at an all time low in this country.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

As others have noticed, there is no Strava countersuit. The linked article uses the word "countersuit" incorrectly and the thread title here is misleading. Strava is merely getting their defense options together.


----------



## nealric (Jul 5, 2007)

Generally, a defendant in a lawsuit can submit counterclaims without filing a separate lawsuit. In fact, under the federal rules, certain counterclaims must be submitted to avoid waiving them.

Once you sue someone, it's basically open season. When the media says that someone "countersues" they usually don't mean that they filed a separate law suit- it's part of the same proceeding. 

Wouldn't be surprised if Strava wins on summary judgment.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

I'm with Wim. As I read the article it sounds like an answer was filed to the suit, not a counter suit. The article does not make any reference to any thing other than denials to the family's allegations. A counter suit would include some sort of an allegation against the family. I suppose it is possible that Strava could file an allegation that the family has damaged Strava's reputation through the filing of a true counersuit, but I doubt any decent defense attorney would be a party to fanning the flames in this manner.

I do think that there is a good chance of summary judgement, and that personal responcibility in this country is at an all time low. Shame on the family for filing the suit, and shame on the lawyer who took the case.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> Strava won't be so lucky with the inevitable suit from the family of the man killed on Castro Street. No one has much sympathy for someone who kills himself but an innocent person crossing the street is a different story.


If the bicycle had not been invented that accident would never have happened. It's all the fault of whoever invented the bicycle.

Or maybe whoever invented the wheel.

But the guy riding the bike was completely innocent. He had nothing to do with it. Not his fault. :cryin:


----------



## AlphaDogCycling (Sep 18, 2011)

The whole suit from the family is stupid, and the epitome of what's wrong with America today: nobody takes responsibility for their actions. Everything is someone else's fault.

I really hope the judge in this case finds for Strava in a summary motion, and hits the family with a huge bill for attorney fees + damages. Ideally I'd like the attorney who filed the suit referred to the bar association for disciplinary action (nothing would happen).

My $0.02


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

This is the second death related to Strava use that I am aware of. Encouraging people to race downhill at illegal speeds in an attempt to post the best time on Strava is promoting a dangerous activity. We have laws in this country to protect against such actions. Imagine if, instead of bikes, there was a product out there that encouraged drivers to go as fast as possible out on the road. Society would clearly have an issue with that. But, since it is bikes we are talking about, it suddenly is acceptable. Not by my standards. As cyclists we keep fighting for our rights, including the right to be treated the same as a vehicle under the law. Products that encourage vehicles to go as fast as possible, at illegal speeds, are unsafe. 

I am not saying that Strava is fully responsible. However, when you talk about personal responsibility, you must also include Strava's "personal responsibility" in the mix. Just because it is a company, that does not mean it is exempt from taking personal responsibility. In my mind, it is fairly simple. Encouraging people to break the law and go as fast as possible should be punished. The rider may have been as stupid as it gets, but that does not release Strava from its own actions and its own responsibilities.

When people yap about people not taking responsibility for their actions, they seem to leave out the fact that there often is another party, the company, that also must take personal responsibility for its actions.

I am not sure what should happen to Strava, but in my opinion it needs to take steps so that it no longer encourages people to ride downhill as fast as possible. Perhaps it should adjust its focus to fitness.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Going by your logic, why are cars allowed to a max speed of 160+mph an hour. No where on our streets is there a posted sign above 100mph here in NA.

So if a car is traveling above the mph limit and kills someone, are the car companies responsible for allowing the speed to happen? Cause in reality, they are attempting me to go faster with all that extra speed.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> This is the second death related to Strava use that I am aware of. Encouraging people to race downhill at illegal speeds in an attempt to post the best time on Strava is promoting a dangerous activity. We have laws in this country to protect against such actions. Imagine if, instead of bikes, there was a product out there that encouraged drivers to go as fast as possible out on the road. Society would clearly have an issue with that. But, since it is bikes we are talking about, it suddenly is acceptable. Not by my standards. As cyclists we keep fighting for our rights, including the right to be treated the same as a vehicle under the law. Products that encourage vehicles to go as fast as possible, at illegal speeds, are unsafe.
> 
> I am not saying that Strava is fully responsible. However, when you talk about personal responsibility, you must also include Strava's "personal responsibility" in the mix. Just because it is a company, that does not mean it is exempt from taking personal responsibility. In my mind, it is fairly simple. Encouraging people to break the law and go as fast as possible should be punished. The rider may have been as stupid as it gets, but that does not release Strava from its own actions and its own responsibilities.
> 
> ...



What a bunch of nonsense!



> Imagine if, instead of bikes, there was a product out there that encouraged drivers to go as fast as possible out on the road.



There is such a thing, it's called fast cars.

By your argument the bicycle manufacturer should also be liable for making a bike capable of going too fast. Perhaps they should only make single speed beach cruisers to keep everyone from making a bad choice

And certainly the other cyclists participating in the Strava segment should be liable, after all their ability to beat the victims times also created the challenge.

So where do you draw the line? Blenders, baseball bats, golf clubs, frisbees, kitchen knives, chairs, etc. can all hurt or kill people if one chooses to misuse the product.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> I have no sympathy for the rider in that situation either (sad that an innocent pedestrian was the victim, but again, not the fault of Strava." The rider is the one at fault; he couldn't think through the consequences and chose to act recklessly?


That is for a judge and jury to decide. If you think you can act as an organizer for unlicensed races on public streets, maintain the results, and give people brownie points for winning then escape all responsibility for the forseeable consequences by blaming the participants then you will quickly learn different.

Strava lucked out in the current case because the rider only killed himself. For the pedestrian death incident Strava will be forced to settle. There is no way they will want that to go near a jury. If Strava then does not change policies then they will bent over in future litigation because they ignored the initial incidents. It is only a matter of time before a mountain biker gunning for a KOM on a narrow multi-use trail runs down and kills a child. The optics on that for a jury will be terrible.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

r1lee said:


> Going by your logic, why are cars allowed to a max speed of 160+mph an hour. No where on our streets is there a posted sign above 100mph here in NA.
> 
> So if a car is traveling above the mph limit and kills someone, are the car companies responsible for allowing the speed to happen? Cause in reality, they are attempting me to go faster with all that extra speed.


This is all wrong. Please address my specific contention rather than obscuring the issue with a "going by your logic" response. Again, if there was a Strava for automobiles, what would people think? I am suggesting that such a product would not be acceptable by our society. Max speeds, posted speed limits, designed for "extra speed" and the like are all irrelevant factors.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> What a bunch of nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have also missed my point. By my argument there would be a Strava for cars. Please address that argument and why a Strava for bicycles would be different than a Strava for cars.

My argument does not include making a bike capable of going too fast, single speed beach cruisers, other cyclists, blenders, bats, golf clubs, knives, chairs etc. I never mentioned any of these things.


----------



## poff (Jul 21, 2007)

At the end of the day I may or may not do something while riding because of Strava, but if it is beneficial to me I can always blame Strava since my decision making is not verifiable.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

trailrunner68 said:


> That is for a judge and jury to decide. If you think you can act as an organizer for unlicensed races on public streets, maintain the results, and give people brownie points for winning then escape all responsibility for the forseeable consequences by blaming the participants then you will quickly learn different.
> 
> Strava lucked out in the current case because the rider only killed himself. For the pedestrian death incident Strava will be forced to settle. There is no way they will want that to go near a jury. If Strava then does not change policies then they will bent over in future litigation because they ignored the initial incidents. It is only a matter of time before a mountain biker gunning for a KOM on a narrow multi-use trail runs down and kills a child. The optics on that for a jury will be terrible.





> YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT YOUR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES, WHICH GENERATE THE CONTENT YOU POST OR SEEK TO POST ON THE SITE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CYCLING) CARRY CERTAIN INHERENT AND SIGNIFICANT RISKS OF PROPERTY DAMAGE, BODILY INJURY OR DEATH AND THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY ASSUME ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE ACTIVITIES EVEN IF CAUSED IN WHOLE OR PART BY THE ACTION, INACTION OR NEGLIGENCE OF STRAVA OR BY THE ACTION, INACTION OR NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS. YOU ALSO EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT STRAVA DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INSPECTION, SUPERVISION, PREPARATION, OR CONDUCT OF ANY RACE, CONTEST, GROUP RIDE OR EVENT THAT UTILIZES STRAVA’S SITE.
> 
> YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE TO RELEASE STRAVA, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES, EMPLOYEES, PARTNERS AND LICENSORS (THE “RELEASED PARTIES”) FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY CONNECTED WITH YOUR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES, AND PROMISE NOT TO SUE THE RELEASED PARTIES FOR ANY CLAIMS, ACTIONS, INJURIES, DAMAGES, OR LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES. YOU ALSO AGREE THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL THE RELEASED PARTIES BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH (a) YOUR USE OR MISUSE OF THE SITE, (b) YOUR USE OR MISUSE OF EQUIPMENT OR PROGRAMS CREATED OR LICENSED BY STRAVA WHILE ENGAGED IN ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES, (c) YOUR DEALINGS WITH THIRD PARTY SERVICE PROVIDERS OR ADVERTISERS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SITE, (d) ANY DELAY OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE EXPERIENCED BY YOU, (e) ANY INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES OR CONTENT OBTAINED THROUGH THE SITE, WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF STRAVA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGES. BECAUSE SOME STATES/JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
> 
> ...


Just because it's THERE doesn't mean you HAVE to act like an ass. It's not the fault of Strava that a pedestrian is killed. It's fully the responsibility of the moron who was riding the bicycle that killed the pedestrian.

I understand you want to excuse people from their personal responsibility, but that's just unacceptable.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> This is all wrong. Please address my specific contention rather than obscuring the issue with a "going by your logic" response. Again, if there was a Strava for automobiles, what would people think? I am suggesting that such a product would not be acceptable by our society. Max speeds, posted speed limits, designed for "extra speed" and the like are all irrelevant factors.


And posted speed limits apply to bikes as well.

If you exceed those, you're technically breaking the law. So by your logic, Strava is the devil because they "encourage" someone to break the speed limit.

In reality, it's no different than your idiot friend egging you on to go faster downhill. So do you sue your buddy when you run over a pedestrian?


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> You have also missed my point. By my argument there would be a Strava for cars. Please address that argument and why a Strava for bicycles would be different than a Strava for cars.
> 
> My argument does not include making a bike capable of going too fast, single speed beach cruisers, other cyclists, blenders, bats, golf clubs, knives, chairs etc. I never mentioned any of these things.



No, it is you who misses the point. You said that Strava is promoting a dangerous activity, well a car company producing a high performance car and showing advertisements of it speeding, skidding around streets, etc. is also "promoting dangerous activities". The very fact that the car is capable of such things is temptation.

Ultimately it is the end users choice to use common sense. Many thousands of people manage to use Strava without killing themselves or others. Strava is just a database, they are not forcing anyone to ride beyond their abilities or in unsafe places. 

And no, you didn't mention those other things, I brought them up as illustrations to ask you where do you draw the line? If Strava is liable, why not the bike manufacturer for providing such a speed capable bike? Why not the other riders who this person was trying to beat?

What about movie studios, should they be responsible for the actions of the viewers, after all, they also promote dangerous activities?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> And posted speed limits apply to bikes as well.
> 
> If you exceed those, you're technically breaking the law. So by your logic, Strava is the devil because they "encourage" someone to break the speed limit.
> 
> In reality, it's no different than your idiot friend egging you on to go faster downhill. So do you sue your buddy when you run over a pedestrian?


Again, the same old responses without addressing my point. How would society feel if there was a Strava for cars? It seems no one has an answer for this because all I am getting in response is irrelevant scenarios.

As to suing my buddy, that is an entirely different area of the law. With Strava, we are talking about consumer protection and product liability. Not the acts of some dude.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> Again, the same old responses without addressing my point. How would society feel if there was a Strava for cars? It seems no one has an answer for this because all I am getting in response is irrelevant scenarios.
> 
> As to suing my buddy, that is an entirely different area of the law. With Strava, we are talking about consumer protection and product liability. Not the acts of some dude.


Honestly, they probably wouldn't give a crap. The same way they don't give a crap about Strava.

As for consumer protection and product liability, see above. If said moron chooses to break the law, that's on them, not on Strava.

Should people sue Facebook when someone posts "go kill yourself" and they do?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> No, it is you who misses the point. You said that Strava is promoting a dangerous activity, well a car company producing a high performance car and showing advertisements of it speeding, skidding around streets, etc. is also "promoting dangerous activities". The very fact that the car is capable of such things is temptation.
> 
> Ultimately it is the end users choice to use common sense. Many thousands of people manage to use Strava without killing themselves or others. Strava is just a database, they are not forcing anyone to ride beyond their abilities or in unsafe places.
> 
> ...


Geez. None of the above have anything to do with my point. I have no idea why you keep repeating the same thing. My point is would society permit a Strava for cars? My answer is no. I would then follow that up with why would it be any different with bikes. My answer is it would not. That is the point you need to address. A car company producing fast cars, advertising them and the like is a completely different comparison. Also, as I state above, this has nothing to do other riders the person is trying to beat. We are talking consumer and product liability issues, not claims against an individual. That is totally different. So the entire "where does it end" argument is really not the issue.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> Honestly, they probably wouldn't give a crap. The same way they don't give a crap about Strava.
> 
> As for consumer protection and product liability, see above. If said moron chooses to break the law, that's on them, not on Strava.
> 
> Should people sue Facebook when someone posts "go kill yourself" and they do?


Your Facebook analogy is way off point.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> Your Facebook analogy is way off point.


So is every analogy you've used thus far.

Stop trying to deflect the responsibility of the RIDER to not act like a doosh. You have to make a conscious decision to ride dangerously, recklessly and outside the letter of the law. Nobody's forcing you.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

I don't believe a Strava site for cars would be permitted to last long. The idea of Strava is to provide an online & global means for people to compete with others in the public arena and post the results of their competition. Speed & recklessness wins the day. Strava is tolerated because most people ignore bikes, or feel that it's the cyclists themselves that are most at risk. If you started having high performance cars racing down twisting roads in the mountains & then posting their times on a Strava-like forum and competing to be the KOM it would not last for long. And if there were accidents the Strava for Cars site would be included in any lawsuits. Of course every individual has to be responsible for their own behavior but companies that promote illegal or dangerous activities will inevitably be liable for the behavior of their followers.

If you want the Facebook analogy to be comparable, it would be like Facebook rewarding their users for telling another user to "go kill themself" or for having the best putdown or promoting such behavior. Facebook is a blank slate that users operate within. Strava sets the rules of the road for their site, and KOM competitions mean that the fastest cyclist, the cyclist who takes the most risks, is the king.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DaveWC said:


> I don't believe a Strava site for cars would be permitted to last long. The idea of Strava is to provide an online & global means for people to compete with others in the public arena and post the results of their competition. Speed & recklessness wins the day. Strava is tolerated because most people ignore bikes, or feel that it's the cyclists themselves that are most at risk. If you started having high performance cars racing down twisting roads in the mountains & then posting their times on a Strava-like forum and competing to be the KOM it would not last for long. And if there were accidents the Strava for Cars site would be included in any lawsuits. Of course every individual has to be responsible for their own behavior but companies that promote illegal or dangerous activities will inevitably be liable for the behavior of their followers.
> 
> If you want the Facebook analogy to be comparable, it would be like Facebook rewarding their users for telling another user to "go kill themself" or for having the best putdown or promoting such behavior. Facebook is a blank slate that users operate within. Strava sets the rules of the road for their site, and KOM competitions mean that the fastest cyclist, the cyclist who takes the most risks, wins the day.


Except they expressly state that the activities you partake in carry risks. I don't see anywhere that "you must break the law to register a time."

So should you choose to ignore that, it's on you.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Except they expressly state that you're to ride within the letter of the law.
> 
> So should you choose to ignore that, it's on you.


Got it. So if there was a site that pitted car drivers against each other on a stretch of highway from one city to another and rewarded the fastest driver as the KOM you think that site would be ok so long as they warned their followers not to speed? It doesn't make sense. In a court of law all the accuser would have to do is show examples on Strava where people were deemed the KOM and exceeded the legal speed limit. The fact that Strava tolerated & rewarded illegal behavior would probably be sufficient to show that they don't take their own rules seriously.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

btw, I don't believe Garmin Connect would suffer the same fate. The service they provide is an individual service, that of recording your trip. There is no competition between users, no means of comparing one user's trip with the rest. You can do it on your own outside of their site, but that's all on you. There is also no need for Garmin to warn you about cycling in a legal manner as they are doing nothing to promote or reward illegal activity.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> So is every analogy you've used thus far.
> 
> Stop trying to deflect the responsibility of the RIDER to not act like a doosh. You have to make a conscious decision to ride dangerously, recklessly and outside the letter of the law. Nobody's forcing you.


My analogy is on point. The only difference is that the vehicle is a car and not a bike. People, now even cyclists, just can't seem to take bikes seriously. 

I never said the rider is free of responsibility. However, Strava may also not be free of responsibility. We will have to see the outcome. It is an interesting issue because Strava's product is something different than we have seen in past legal cases.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> My analogy is on point. The only difference is that the vehicle is a car and not a bike. People, now even cyclists, just can't seem to take bikes seriously.
> 
> I never said the rider is free of responsibility. However, Strava may also not be free of responsibility. We will have to see the outcome. It is an interesting issue because Strava's product is something different than we have seen in past legal cases.


And the difference between a car and a bike is absolutely significant. They are only comparable in that they have two wheels.

A more appropriate analogy would be a skateboard or Razor scooter. 



DaveWC said:


> Got it. So if there was a site that pitted car drivers against each other on a stretch of highway from one city to another and rewarded the fastest driver as the KOM you think that site would be ok so long as they warned their followers not to speed? It doesn't make sense. In a court of law all the accuser would have to do is show examples on Strava where people were deemed the KOM and exceeded the legal speed limit. The fact that Strava tolerated & rewarded illegal behavior would probably be sufficient to show that they don't take their own rules seriously.


What reward are they receiving? There's no transfer of anything material as a "reward" so there's no incentive other than your own desire. That means you alone are guilty of breaking the law.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> I don't believe a Strava site for cars would be permitted to last long. The idea of Strava is to provide an online & global means for people to compete with others in the public arena and post the results of their competition. Speed & recklessness wins the day. Strava is tolerated because most people ignore bikes, or feel that it's the cyclists themselves that are most at risk. If you started having high performance cars racing down twisting roads in the mountains & then posting their times on a Strava-like forum and competing to be the KOM it would not last for long. And if there were accidents the Strava for Cars site would be included in any lawsuits. Of course every individual has to be responsible for their own behavior but companies that promote illegal or dangerous activities will inevitably be liable for the behavior of their followers.
> 
> If you want the Facebook analogy to be comparable, it would be like Facebook rewarding their users for telling another user to "go kill themself" or for having the best putdown or promoting such behavior. Facebook is a blank slate that users operate within. Strava sets the rules of the road for their site, and KOM competitions mean that the fastest cyclist, the cyclist who takes the most risks, is the king.


Exactly. In this case, even the cyclists are ignoring the bikes. Strange since we are constantly trying not to be ignored when it comes to traffic laws and the like. I think the Strava for Cars vs. Strava for Bikes is the valid comparison, and so far no one has actually addressed that issue specifically except for you and we seem to be arguing the same thing.

Also, just to be clear, I don't know how the case will end. It could very well be over quickly on summary judgment. Products like Strava have not been tested in the legal system. If it is dangerous, we as cyclists should all want it to be remedied for the safety of us all.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> And the difference between a car and a bike is absolutely significant. They are only comparable in that they have two wheels.
> 
> A more appropriate analogy would be a skateboard or Razor scooter.


So far you have not distinguished why Strava for Cars would be different. You just say it is. 

In any case, Strava for Skateboards and Strava for Razor Scooters are in fact very valid comparisons. These actually underscore more point, perhaps more than the car comparison. I suspect that most skateboard and scooter users are teenagers and the like. Strava for such products would be a very bad idea. Very bad.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> Geez. None of the above have anything to do with my point. I have no idea why you keep repeating the same thing. My point is would society permit a Strava for cars? My answer is no. I would then follow that up with why would it be any different with bikes. My answer is it would not. That is the point you need to address. A car company producing fast cars, advertising them and the like is a completely different comparison. Also, as I state above, this has nothing to do other riders the person is trying to beat. We are talking consumer and product liability issues, not claims against an individual. That is totally different. So the entire "where does it end" argument is really not the issue.



:mad2: No, "strava for cars" was merely one element of your post and was not your point. Your analogy was absurd and not worth wasting time responding to, you should be able to recognize that there is big differences in the amount of speed/danger/harm a car can cause vs a bicycle
And unlike in a car, it is not easy to break the speed limit on a bicycle sometimes even impossible. There is no requirement to break the speed limit to participate in Strava. 




> That is the point you need to address. A car company producing fast cars, advertising them and the like is a completely different comparison. Also, as I state above, this has nothing to do other riders the person is trying to beat. We are talking consumer and product liability issues, not claims against an individual. That is totally different. So the entire "where does it end" argument is really not the issue.



No, where it ends is the issue and it is you who keeps avoiding the question! I pointed out several scenarios of consumer/product liability that are very much relevant. If someone kills another with a baseball bat should the bat company be liable because the murderer misused their product? What about the movie studios who promote car chases, violence and stunts?


You pulled the same thing last time we had a discussion about liability, you seem to only want the argument to fit within your neat little box.
If you think that a company like Strava is liable in a situation like this, than it has to go all the way down the line, corporate and personal. The bike company is liable for making a bike capable of going dangerous speeds, the state should be liable for making the hill too steep or for not providing a bridge for pedestrians, the other riders on Strava for beating this guy, garmin for providing a gps to track this stuff, Any place that accepted ads for Strava, the bike shop for not telling him cycling is dangerous, the helmet company for not protecting him, his best friend for not talking him out of it, mother nature because gravity was too strong, etc. 

Basically, if you think that these types of lawsuits are justified and making companies liable for every stupid thing that consumers do with their product, then it's going to suck the fun out everything (more than it already has) for the rest of us who know how to be responsible.

Now there very well be some legal argument that will have Strava liable, but most of the time it is about going after the ones with the most money not the one who is truly responsible


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> So far you have not distinguished why Strava for Cars would be different. You just say it is.
> 
> In any case, Strava for Skateboards and Strava for Razor Scooters are in fact very valid comparisons. These actually underscore more point, perhaps more than the car comparison. I suspect that most skateboard and scooter users are teenagers and the like. Strava for such products would be a very bad idea. Very bad.


Are you really so thick that you don't see the difference between a car and a bike? I'd like to see you run down a schoolyard full of children on a bike. Unless you're a 1500 pound sloth, I don't see that happening.

If you can't see the difference (or won't because it's convenient to your ridiculous argument) then there's no point in further discussion. See MoPho's post above mine.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

I will answer your question, if there was a Strava for cars, I would not blame Strava for a driver's negligence. No one forces anyone to try and set some sort of record. We all should be responcible for our own conduct.

I also think many of the others did answer your question. If you blame Strava because they publish times over a set route, then you can also have to blame the manufacturers of cars etc for advertising the fact that their cars are fun to drive in an irresponsible maner. zoom zoom

I;m going to blame NASCAR the next time someone passes me by an inch. Surely they saw drivers doing the same thing on sunday.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> :mad2: No, "strava for cars" was merely one element of your post and was not your point. Your analogy was absurd and not worth wasting time responding to, you should be able to recognize that there is big differences in the amount of speed/danger/harm a car can cause vs a bicycle
> And unlike in a car, it is not easy to break the speed limit on a bicycle sometimes even impossible. There is no requirement to break the speed limit to participate in Strava.
> 
> 
> ...


It has already been shown that, regardless of the alleged greater speed, danger/harm cars may impose, bikes are also dangerous. There have been two deaths and I believe both, if not at least one, of the riders was exceeding the speed limit. Yes, cars may be more dangerous, but bikes are also dangerous. 

As to going down the line, that is not how the law works. Each legal case is decided based on a very specific set of facts. The potential liability of the bike company, the state, the pedestrians and so on and so forth would be based on different facts. For example, the bike company did not encourage KOM's, so the facts regarding the bike company are much different. Moreover, there is a legal doctrine that specifically addresses the "going down the line" scenarios and cuts off liability. This doctrine is applied in each case.


----------



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n (Mar 3, 2012)

AlphaDogCycling said:


> ... and the epitome of what's wrong with America today: nobody takes responsibility for their actions. Everything is someone else's fault ...


And the UK as well.

It is the 'not knowing the contents of a hot cup of coffee is hot syndrome'. And stupid judges will deliberate over it ... Those deemed to be 'more' knowledgeable. 

I just do not understand why this is more so in the UK and US. They just want to do things the 'right' way and seem to forget the more important things in life.

Kids may have been educated in responsibility from young but not consequences and paying for it.

Why should you be warned that the edge of a high cliff is dangerous? You should know it is! :mad2: Or that if you climb a tree, and if you fall, it might hurt.  Why do you need a sign for it?

Just seem to happen more so here in the 'West'.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n said:


> And the UK as well.
> 
> It is the 'not knowing the contents of a hot cup of coffee is hot syndrome'. And stupid judges will deliberate over it ... Those deemed to be 'more' knowledgeable.
> 
> ...



Maybe see this thread.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> It has already been shown that, regardless of the alleged greater speed, danger/harm cars may impose, bikes are also dangerous. There have been two deaths and I believe both, if not at least one, of the riders was exceeding the speed limit. Yes, cars may be more dangerous, but bikes are also dangerous.
> 
> As to going down the line, that is not how the law works. Each legal case is decided based on a very specific set of facts. The potential liability of the bike company, the state, the pedestrians and so on and so forth would be based on different facts. For example, the bike company did not encourage KOM's, so the facts regarding the bike company are much different. Moreover, there is a legal doctrine that specifically addresses the "going down the line" scenarios and cuts off liability. This doctrine is applied in each case.




So two out of many thousands of Strava users who have managed to grasp that there is a time and a place for going fast and to not ride beyond their abilities. How many cycling related deaths have there been without the "encouragement" of Strava? And how can you be so sure these people wouldn't have been partaking in this risky behavior had Strava not been a factor?



I wasn't asking about the legal doctrine, I was asking where YOU draw the line on responsibility? 

Had the bike company not made a bike capable of going such speeds this might never have happened, so certainly they bare some responsibility....

And by the way, there was an incident a couple of years ago here where at a Track day the driver of a Porsche killed himself and a passenger who had asked for a ride. The family of the passenger sued anyone and everyone, iirc there were something like 15 defendants including the family of the driver, Porsche, the track and even the flag workers who volunteered to work the event. Porsche was liable because they didn't include stability control in a high performance car ( ironically the car was desirable because it didn't have any of the nannies). You can name anyone you want in a lawsuit


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Just because it's THERE doesn't mean you HAVE to act like an ass. It's not the fault of Strava that a pedestrian is killed. It's fully the responsibility of the moron who was riding the bicycle that killed the pedestrian.
> 
> I understand you want to excuse people from their personal responsibility, but that's just unacceptable.


Their disclaimer is not worth the pixels it's printed with. If you organize contests where you are aware the contestants are breaking laws (and Strave is) and innocent, non-involved people get killed as a result, you will be sued. Count on it. Once you start organizing such contests, you have a responsibility to keep the public safe. Trying to blame the contestants won't get you very far. Having people sign a disclaimer when you know your contestants are regularily violating it will be next to worthless. All parties share responsibility. You are trying to excuse Strava's responsibility. Since Strave is the entity making money from this, it will be the biggest target for the lawyers.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> Are you really so thick that you don't see the difference between a car and a bike? I'd like to see you run down a schoolyard full of children on a bike. Unless you're a 1500 pound sloth, I don't see that happening.
> 
> If you can't see the difference (or won't because it's convenient to your ridiculous argument) then there's no point in further discussion. See MoPho's post above mine.


Of course there is a difference, but the legal analysis is the same. A dangerous product is a dangerous product even if one kills more than another.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> Of course there is a difference, but the legal analysis is the same. A dangerous product is a dangerous product even if one kills more than another.


By your example, rollerskates are a dangerous product. Better sue everyone when you crash into someone on the MUT on rollerskates.




Lawyers. Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em (MarkS being the exception. I can live with him. He takes up very little space and smells nice.)


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> By your example, rollerskates are a dangerous product. Better sue everyone when you crash into someone on the MUT on rollerskates.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By my example, Strava's product may be dangerous and may need to be changed. I am not commenting on the danger of any particular mode of transportation, whether it be skates, cars, bikes or whatever.


----------



## BikesOfALesserGod (Jul 22, 2012)

It's a good thing lawyers didn't preview the internet.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Just because it's THERE doesn't mean you HAVE to act like an ass. It's not the fault of Strava that a pedestrian is killed. It's fully the responsibility of the moron who was riding the bicycle that killed the pedestrian.
> 
> I understand you want to excuse people from their personal responsibility, but that's just unacceptable.


I don't use Strava, so I never signed this. If a Strava competitor injures me in an action encouraged by Strava, you can bet I'll use the legal system to discourage illegal behavior. 
Strava only has their customers sign this. Innocent, non-participants never signed their life away, agreeing to live with the risks of events Strava organizes, enables, and encourages. There are countless examples of an organizing party being held legally accountable for actions involving participants. You can bet the people who wrote up Strava's disclaimer know this, but decided to wait till the first court case to test it out.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Tschai said:


> My analogy is on point. The only difference is that the vehicle is a car and not a bike. People, now even cyclists, just can't seem to take bikes seriously.
> 
> I never said the rider is free of responsibility. However, Strava may also not be free of responsibility. We will have to see the outcome. It is an interesting issue because Strava's product is something different than we have seen in past legal cases.


Ok, Strava is a tool people use to complete against each other. You might not disagree but car companies use different tools. Better handling, Faster acceleration, Higher top speed, better braking. Different way to compete, it all comes down to the individual making the choice.

And competing does happen. When person A pulls up in to a light in X car vs person B in competition B car. We all know that it's not the human engine, it's going to be which car is faster. You see it in commercials etc, with a little disclaimer that states professional driver on closed circuit, do not to try this at home.

Same $hit, different story.


----------



## AlphaDogCycling (Sep 18, 2011)

So by the same token The Guinness Book of World Records is a dangerous product because it encourages people to compete against what others have done? Any sports governing body is inherently a dangerous product because it keeps records and encourages people to compete against other people? 

Where does this line end? Would telling a buddy your time on a particular route open you up to a lawsuit if your buddy injured themselves or someone else trying to beat your time?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Can we nominate this thread for containing the most nonsensical analogies ever?

I dub thee The Chewbacca Thread.


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

While I understand that Strava sending out a message that encourages a rider to "go get their KOM back" sounds like it's encouraging reckless riding I think they are in the clear because they don't monitor route safety and encourage users to "flag" dangerous routes. Since the routes are user generated and user monitored Strava assumes no liability. They also have some safety cautions on their site, but maybe those are new?


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

GUMBALL!

Non-internet versions of Strava have existed for decades. They are legal, even though the actions of individual drivers may not be. The car analogy sucks. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

Tschai said:


> This is the second death related to Strava use that I am aware of. Encouraging people to race downhill at illegal speeds in an attempt to post the best time on Strava is promoting a dangerous activity. We have laws in this country to protect against such actions. Imagine if, instead of bikes, there was a product out there that encouraged drivers to go as fast as possible out on the road. Society would clearly have an issue with that. But, since it is bikes we are talking about, it suddenly is acceptable. Not by my standards. As cyclists we keep fighting for our rights, including the right to be treated the same as a vehicle under the law. Products that encourage vehicles to go as fast as possible, at illegal speeds, are unsafe.
> 
> I am not saying that Strava is fully responsible. However, when you talk about personal responsibility, you must also include Strava's "personal responsibility" in the mix. Just because it is a company, that does not mean it is exempt from taking personal responsibility. In my mind, it is fairly simple. Encouraging people to break the law and go as fast as possible should be punished. The rider may have been as stupid as it gets, but that does not release Strava from its own actions and its own responsibilities.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but your logic is flawed in paragraph 3.

Strava is not there on the bike assisting in this action. It's all the rider. If we follow you line of thinking.........Shimano, Trek, Vittoria, the road paving company, the City of SF should be named.

All these companies had a hand in this too, if, and a big IF, we follow your line of thinking. 

And to continue with that line, I should sue the race organizers for my rib injury when I was training for that race and hurt myself. That was my motivation to go hard a fast that time, NOT STRAVA


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

That's it, I'm filing a lawsuit. I'm sueing James Taylor. Yup, his music as I was growing up caused me to be a *****. After reading this thread, and taking it's advice, that's what I'm gonna do. If that doesn't work, I'm sueing this thread for giving me bad advice! Yup, that's what I'm gonna do. 


_The above should not be taken seriously and is intended to be dramatic in a comedic way. There is no intent to sue implied of otherwise issued. It's a joke, a simple joke, to get a point across. Laugh dammit!_


----------



## CoLiKe20 (Jan 30, 2006)

Tschai said:


> This is the second death related to Strava use that I am aware of. Encouraging people to race downhill at illegal speeds in an attempt to post the best time on Strava is promoting a dangerous activity. We have laws in this country to protect against such actions. Imagine if, instead of bikes, there was a product out there that encouraged drivers to go as fast as possible out on the road. Society would clearly have an issue with that. But, since it is bikes we are talking about, it suddenly is acceptable. Not by my standards. As cyclists we keep fighting for our rights, including the right to be treated the same as a vehicle under the law. Products that encourage vehicles to go as fast as possible, at illegal speeds, are unsafe.
> 
> I am not saying that Strava is fully responsible. However, when you talk about personal responsibility, you must also include Strava's "personal responsibility" in the mix. Just because it is a company, that does not mean it is exempt from taking personal responsibility. In my mind, it is fairly simple. Encouraging people to break the law and go as fast as possible should be punished. The rider may have been as stupid as it gets, but that does not release Strava from its own actions and its own responsibilities.
> 
> ...


best times are posted in all sports at all levels.
right now I'm training for a marathon with my wife. I pushed myself a little too much and my knee is hurting. Need to take a couple of days off. 
Who corporation do I sue b/c they posted marathon times for different age groups?


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

Tschai said:


> Encouraging people to race downhill at illegal speeds in an attempt to post the best time on Strava is promoting a dangerous activity.


To claim that Strava "encourages people to race at illegal speeds" is no different from claiming that when a car GPS device says "continue straight for 5 miles" it actually encourages drivers to ignore red lights and run over pedestrians.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Here's something different to consider wrt Strava lawsuits...

Use Strava, Get Sued? - Bike Rumor

As a Strava user you're indemnifying Strava against lawsuits like this. If you are involved in the making of or you are a current KOM of the route that the lawsuit is based on. If they get sued they can turn around & sue you. Clearly Strava takes this kind of lawsuit seriously or they wouldn't try to protect themselves, at your expense. 

*You agree to indemnify and hold Strava and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, representatives, employees, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit or otherwise seek to make available through the Site, your use of the Site, your athletic activities which generate the Content you post or seek to post on the Site (including, but not limited to, athletic activities in connection with any contests, races, group rides, or other events which Strava sponsors, organizes, participates in, or whose Site is used in connection with), your connection to the Site, your violation of the Terms, or your violation of any rights of another person or entity.

What does that mean? That means that if you do something and Strava gets sued as a result, you agree to not only pay Strava’s legal fees…you also pay any judgment entered against them. So in the ‘real’ Strava lawsuit, Strava could file a suit against the faster KoM Rider. The ‘real’ Strava lawsuit arises out of a KoM time and related content that the user posted to Strava, and is a third party claim based on that posted material…that’s enough to invoke the indemnity. So at least in theory, the faster Strava user is on the hook to defend Strava and to pay any judgment entered against them.

If Strava incurs $500,000 in legal fees defending the case, they could go after the faster KoM rider to pay those fees. If a $10,000,000 judgment is entered against Strava, they could go after the faster KoM rider to pay it. Folks, this isn’t far-fetched. This is exactly how the plain language of their terms of service read.*


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

No, it doesn't. Thoroughly discussed and debunked here a while back.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

ddimick said:


> No, it doesn't. Thoroughly discussed and debunked here a while back.


Really? I couldn't find a thread, can you point me in the right direction?

Never mind, found it.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

What's this mean then? (from the article in question): "That response now also consists of a countersuit, filed this week in the San Francisco Superior Court. "


wim said:


> As others have noticed,* there is no Strava countersuit*. The linked article uses the word "countersuit" incorrectly and the thread title here is misleading. Strava is merely getting their defense options together.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Jesse D Smith said:


> I don't use Strava, so I never signed this. If a Strava competitor injures me in an action encouraged by Strava, you can bet I'll use the legal system to discourage illegal behavior.
> Strava only has their customers sign this. Innocent, non-participants never signed their life away, agreeing to live with the risks of events Strava organizes, enables, and encourages. There are countless examples of an organizing party being held legally accountable for actions involving participants. You can bet the people who wrote up Strava's disclaimer know this, but decided to wait till the first court case to test it out.


In a thread full of dumb stuff you have proven yourself to be at a higher level again.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

martinrjensen said:


> What's this mean then? (from the article in question): "That response now also consists of a countersuit, filed this week in the San Francisco Superior Court. "


As almost anyone else would do in these circumstances, Strava filed one or several affirmative defense(s). These are defenses in fact or law that would prevent the plaintiff from winning. They're not a countersuit. Admittedly, "countersues" makes for a more interesting headline than "responds to allegations."

/w


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

This issue is not nearly as cut-and-dried as some are making it out to be. What we as a public think should be right is not necessarily the same as legal responsibility. I am personally a big fan of personal responsibility. I think that the cyclist who dies and now his family is suing is ridiculous. Now a pedestrian dying... that is a different matter and in issues such as these the lawyers will sue everyone they can and let the legal system sort it out.

The fact that Strava makes you sign a waiver doesn't mean a whole lot. Those waivers are all well and good, but will not protect a company if the court deems they have been negligent it will not protect them either from civil liability or criminally charges (not saying either is necessarily applicable but commenting on waivers as a whole). All the waiver does is document that you are aware that the activity is inherently risky and if you get hurt you cannot automatically turn to them as being responsible. It will not protect a company if there was negligence involved.

As for the responsibilities of Strava to public welfare, that is a sticky issue. They do not ask for anyone to break the law, but at the same time it can be argued that a reasonable person will know the law will have to be broken in order to win the contests. Even if you are not talking about normal traffic laws like speed limits and stop signs, there is a more overarching issue. Strava is basically setting up unorganized street racing. In most jurisdictions, bicycles are considered vehicles with the same or similar rights and responsibilities as cars. It is not legal to hold unregistered races on public streets, and you would have to think that the organizers of these races would be at least partially responsible if an outside party is injured or died. Obviously I am aware there are differences, but there are enough similarities that it could at least be argued and heard. As the world moves to more and more online services, we are going to see more of these kinds of "similar but not quite the same" legal issues pop up.


----------



## kokothemonkey (Jul 7, 2004)

Tschai said:


> This is the second death related to Strava use that I am aware of. Encouraging people to race downhill at illegal speeds in an attempt to post the best time on Strava is promoting a dangerous activity. We have laws in this country to protect against such actions. Imagine if, instead of bikes, there was a product out there that encouraged drivers to go as fast as possible out on the road. Society would clearly have an issue with that. But, since it is bikes we are talking about, it suddenly is acceptable. Not by my standards. As cyclists we keep fighting for our rights, including the right to be treated the same as a vehicle under the law. Products that encourage vehicles to go as fast as possible, at illegal speeds, are unsafe.
> 
> I am not saying that Strava is fully responsible. However, when you talk about personal responsibility, you must also include Strava's "personal responsibility" in the mix. Just because it is a company, that does not mean it is exempt from taking personal responsibility. In my mind, it is fairly simple. Encouraging people to break the law and go as fast as possible should be punished. The rider may have been as stupid as it gets, but that does not release Strava from its own actions and its own responsibilities.
> 
> ...


You can do this on your own, it's what I do. I use strava to time myself and track my times going uphill or over undulating terrain. I could care less how fast I get down something. Do I look and compare? Sure. Do I go super fast crazy dangerous downhill to possibly "win" a downhill segment? Nope.


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

Assuming that argument is valid, shouldn't the rider who created the segment be ultimately responsible instead of Strava? After all, they have first-hand knowledge of the traffic rules whereas Strava does not.


----------



## CHARLES M (Oct 17, 2012)

brady1 said:


> This is such a ridiculous lawsuit.
> 
> If Strava is somehow responsible for what happens to cyclists on the road, can I sue Mapquest or Google Maps if I ever get in an auto accident?


 
If your cars GPS were encouraging you to go faster, you bet your ass.

And you would be in a HUGE pool of people in a class action.



If there were a street racing App, the company would have been front page news across the country and more folks would already be dead.

Not saying people shouldnt also be responsible, but deaths are a natural progression and came to mind the second I heard about Strava being developed.


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

Why won't this car analogy go away? It's terrible, and I'll give you two specific reasons why.


Gumball 3000 is an annual, unsanctioned rally race held on public streets. Drivers are often cited for illegal driving, even though the Gumball rules specifically prohibit breaking any vehicular laws. In 2007 there was an accident that resulted in multiple deaths of non-participants. The driver was held liable. The organizers were not.

Waze (a free navigation and traffic avoidance app) frequently urges me to make illegal turns to save time. Waze doesn't know they're illegal turns, but I do. Because I'm a rational, thinking human being, I don't take those turns. EDIT: Unless I'm absolutely sure I can get away with it. And even then I wouldn't sue Waze if I got a ticket or into an accident, because I would know I was breaking the law. As did this cyclist.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

ddimick said:


> Assuming that argument is valid, shouldn't the rider who created the segment be ultimately responsible instead of Strava? After all, they have first-hand knowledge of the traffic rules whereas Strava does not.


Maybe, maybe not. I am no lawyer but I could see an argument on both sides. The problem is people are looking at this issue far too singular. There is nothing saying that there cannot be multiple parties held responsible to some degree. Just because the riders were wrong does not also mean that Strava cannot also be found negligent.

As for the creator of the segment, I imagine a lot of factors would come into play. If you create a segment, make it public, and especially if you share it I could see you being held as part of promoting a race event. At the same time I could see a lawyer saying that the person who created the segment had no way of knowing the legal ramifications, and that Strava as the organizer and also appearing to be a legit company should have done better of informing people instead of potential legal/civil liabilities.

The way I look at Strava is that in certain uses, it is creating more-or-less a time trial race. The event simply is tracked online via gps instead of in person via timing chips, and there is no start/end time/date. I could see a lawyer grabbing that argument and flushing it out, and I could see a judge giving it at least enough room to move forward to trial.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

AndreyT said:


> To claim that Strava "encourages people to race at illegal speeds" is no different from claiming that when a car GPS device says "continue straight for 5 miles" it actually encourages drivers to ignore red lights and run over pedestrians.


Not so much, your second case with the car GPS is more an issue with the connotation of an expression. The better comparison would be if the car GPS said, "Continue straight for 5 miles. This segment has a best time of 4:12 set by John Smith last week. Your best time is 4:37 and you are ranked #11 overall. During your past best time, you were initially ahead of John Smith's pace but then lost time."


----------



## CHARLES M (Oct 17, 2012)

bingo...


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

ddimick said:


> Why won't this car analogy go away? It's terrible, and I'll give you two specific reasons why.
> 
> 
> Gumball 3000 is an annual, unsanctioned rally race held on public streets. Drivers are often cited for illegal driving, even though the Gumball rules specifically prohibit breaking any vehicular laws. In 2007 there was an accident that resulted in multiple deaths of non-participants. The driver was held liable. The organizers were not.
> ...


I have a few comments on this
1) You say they were not found liable (though I do not have any details to see if settlements were reached) but this implies there was at least enough to pursue the information further. I do not have time to research, but even you statement makes it seem as though there is enough possibility of review further
2) The Gumball 3000 is a rally not a race, and no official time is kept. This changes a lot with regards to the point of encouraging people to obey traffic laws
3) This is an organized event and I am sure numerous permits are obtained and thorough planning occurs
4) The costs of entry and vehicles entered means that the participants likely have very deep pockets. This will often have an impact on the focus of a judge, jury, and the arguments from lawyers. It may not be right, but it is what it is.
5) Gumball 3000 cancelled the event, now has as part of their website a section talking about road safety, and is being very public in trying to educate people and prevent future incidents (including altering the course to try and keep it from happening again). Strava is not, and in some ways is not able to, doing this.
6) As much as people don't like to admit it, the comparison to a car racing app is very applicable. I am not pretending that a car poses the same risk as a bike, but from a legal perspective they are both vehicles. If it makes you feel better, make it a motorcycle racing app instead so it is a little closer. Anyone who wants to look at this reasonably has to at least admit there is some risk when you start a system that basically allows one person to create an unauthorized race, and you become the source for timing, officiating, declaring winners, and advertising this race. Especially when after incidents start happening to outside parties and you take no action.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

The way I see it, Strava doesn't organize anything other than a database of information. Unlike other events that are being compared here, strava doesn't create the route for one to follow, it merely overlays information. And since you don't actually sign up and agree to stay within a set course in order to complete the challenge nor are you issued any number or proof of participation, how does one prove the cyclist was even "competing"? The cyclist at fault could have just happened upon the segment and might have been speeding/running lights regardless.

People on this forum give tips on how to go faster and tell people to HTFU, so perhaps RBR is liable too

A few weeks ago I was out riding minding my own business when I caught and passed another rider who was unknown t me, he proceeded to jump on my wheel and then made an attempt to pass me but we came upon a light that turned red, I slammed on the brakes to stop and he ran it nearly getting hit by a car.
Had he been killed would I have been liable if his family tried to seek revenge* after all I could be construed as being the "strava"?


* make no mistake, these lawsuits are about revenge and finding the scapegoat with the most money not about seeking responsibility


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

If you are KOM on a Strava route and that record is beaten, Strava sends you an email telling you that your record has been beaten & suggests that you'd "better get out there and show them who’s boss!" They will do this regardless of whether the new record exceeds speed limits (i.e. breaks their rules). Their role is not as passive as has been described here. Imagine getting the same email from a company that hosts car racing coaxing you to drive your car faster from one city to another on public roads regardless of the laws being broken.


----------



## thalo (Jul 17, 2011)

ddimick said:


> GUMBALL!
> 
> Non-internet versions of Strava have existed for decades. They are legal, even though the actions of individual drivers may not be. The car analogy sucks. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.


that is what i was thinking
Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Oh god, yet MORE auto analogies that just don't apply...


----------



## thalo (Jul 17, 2011)

just trying to stir the pot.:wink:

note on subject: I believe that each of us is responsible for our actions and the outcomes of those actions.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> If you are KOM on a Strava route and that record is beaten, Strava sends you an email telling you that your record has been beaten & suggests that you'd "better get out there and show them who’s boss!" They will do this regardless of whether the new record exceeds speed limits (i.e. breaks their rules). Their role is not as passive as has been described here. Imagine getting the same email from a company that hosts car racing coaxing you to drive your car faster from one city to another on public roads regardless of the laws being broken.



First off that is an automated email that I highly doubt even looks at the where, when or how it was achieved. While this may be the "smoking gun" loophole that allows such a lawsuit, the real point here is that it is just plain morally wrong to be making such suits. They are displacing the blame from the person who made bad decisions and is truly to blame to go after the company that is going to be able to compensate them the most for their loss, it is revenge and it is greed and they are going to ruin it for the rest of us who manage to use Strava responsibly


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Of course it's automated but there is nothing stopping Strava from creating code that compares speed on the course with speed limits. They have a second by second speed record. It really just shows that their suggestion to users that they obey all laws is meaningless. It would take seconds for Strava to remove records that included illegal speeds. The fact that they don't shows that they aren't concerned with the legality of the courses submitted, compared and their recommendations that users show other uses who's boss. If a KOM record includes illegal speeds, and they suggest that another user beat that record, how can you not deem that they are suggesting that you also exceed the speed limit? Are automated emails above the law even if they recommend unlawful behavior?

I don't suggest that Strava is solely responsible for someone speeding, driving erratically and killing/injuring themselves or someone else. That would be stupid. But it's not a hard case to make that they are jointly responsible. You can make the case that a cyclist who speeds and kills another is solely responsible. The injured party can make the case that a cyclist who is told to get out there and show us who's boss & beat a previous record is jointly responsible for his actions, along with the company that pushed him to go faster & ignore laws.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> Of course it's automated but there is nothing stopping Strava from creating code that compares speed on the course with speed limits. They have a second by second speed record. It really just shows that their suggestion to users that they obey all laws is meaningless. It would take seconds for Strava to remove records that included illegal speeds. The fact that they don't shows that they aren't concerned with the legality of the courses submitted, compared and their recommendations that users show other uses who's boss. If a KOM record includes illegal speeds, and they suggest that another user beat that record, how can you not deem that they are suggesting that you also exceed the speed limit? Are automated emails above the law even if they recommend unlawful behavior?
> 
> I don't suggest that Strava is solely responsible for someone speeding, driving erratically and killing/injuring themselves or someone else. That would be stupid. But it's not a hard case to make that they are jointly responsible. You can make the case that a cyclist who speeds and kills another is solely responsible. The injured party can make the case that a cyclist who is told to get out there and show us who's boss & beat a previous record is jointly responsible for his actions, along with the company that pushed him to go faster & ignore laws.



And yet every day thousands of people manage to put aside beating a strava time in order to stop for a light or not put themselves at risk by riding too fast for skill/conditions. It is operator choice to do such things, Strava didn't make them do anything. Those people were likely to break laws and perhaps kill or injure someone regardless of Strava. As a matter of fact, there are FAR more accidents that had absolutely nothing to do with Strava but were under the same kind of conditions (speeding running lights etc) and the only difference is there is no company to sue for financial gain. 

Again, regardless if there is a legal argument it is just wrong and the only reason these people are going after Strava is money, not to make them fix the way the run their business


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

And to add, people keep going on about breaking the speed limit, aside from the fact that it is hard to break the speed limit on a bicycle in many places, the guy died because he lost control of his bike not because he broke the limit. He could have just as easily been doing 35mph on a road where the speed limit was 50mph or even doing 25mph in a 25 and still died and there wouldn't be any argument that Strava "made" him break the law 



> Flint Jr.’s GPS data indicated that he had been traveling 35 mph in a 25 mph zone


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

MoPho said:


> Again, regardless if there is a legal argument it is just wrong and the only reason these people are going after Strava is money, not to make them fix the way the run their business


That's a valid opinion. It's also valid to state that it should be unlawful for a company to knowingly recommend that people break laws in order to protect inane speed records. The % of people dumb enough to put society at risk is irrelevant. Any company that recommends illegal behavior is at risk of lawsuit and in my opinion they should make changes to protect themselves. It's not rocket science to suggest that when Strava receives uploaded files they compare the speeds recorded with published speed limits and exclude those uploads that exceed these limits from KOM championship standings.

You could say that the only reason people are going after Strava is that the behavior that caused the death was illegal and Strava is the only party that profited financially from promoting that illegal behavior.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

MoPho said:


> And to add, people keep going on about breaking the speed limit, aside from the fact that it is hard to break the speed limit on a bicycle in many places, the guy died because he lost control of his bike not because he broke the limit. He could have just as easily been doing 35mph on a road where the speed limit was 50mph or even doing 25mph in a 25 and still died and there wouldn't be any argument that Strava "made" him break the law


No. The reason people go on about breaking speed limits is because Strava includes downhill courses in the KOM contests and knowingly allow (or are blissfully ignorantly looking the other way) illegal speeds to be included in KOM records and then they coax other members to defend their records against these challenges.

There's no doubt that if this cyclist was not speeding when he died this would have a different look. But he was. So you're right, if the man wasn't breaking laws when he died the issue of breaking laws wouldn't be discussed.


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> Of course it's automated but there is nothing stopping Strava from creating code that compares speed on the course with speed limits.


Nothing stopping them but the non-existence of a massive database containing the posted speed limits of every street in the world. That's a bit of a show-stopper. There's been progress towards the creation of this type of data but it's nowhere near complete enough to be practical for what you're suggesting.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

ddimick said:


> Nothing stopping them but the non-existence of a massive database containing the posted speed limits of every street in the world. That's a bit of a show-stopper. There's been progress towards the creation of this type of data but it's nowhere near complete enough to be practical for what you're suggesting.


I guess one of the risks of coaxing members to go ever faster on public roads is that they'll break laws and you'll be included in a lawsuit for your perceived contribution to their behavior. It's up to the courts to decide if Strava is blameless.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

ddimick said:


> Nothing stopping them but the non-existence of a massive database containing the posted speed limits of every street in the world. That's a bit of a show-stopper. There's been progress towards the creation of this type of data but it's nowhere near complete enough to be practical for what you're suggesting.



Exactly, they base the segments off of google maps which as far as I can tell gives no information about speed limits or what kind of intersections one would be riding through


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

I was under the understanding that Google did have this type of info. How do they determine estimated times for routes without knowing the speed limits for the various roads?

This link suggests the info is available;
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cz.jhg.gmapsspeed&hl=en


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> I was under the understanding that Google did have this type of info. How do they determine estimated times for routes without knowing the speed limits for the various roads?
> 
> This link suggests the info is available;
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cz.jhg.gmapsspeed&hl=en



I don't know, but I don't see speed limits posted on google maps, do you?


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

Google taps into traffic speed sensors that are embedded into most major streets. They indicate how fast traffic is flowing at any point in time, not how fast the posted speed limit is.

EDIT: These aren't Google's sensors; they're installed and maintained by whoever built the road. In California, Caltrans installs them on most of the freeways and usually in each lane.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

MoPho said:


> I don't know, but I don't see speed limits posted on google maps, do you?


Nope, I don't see it. I don't profit from the use of maps or map info either so I'm not in the market of covering my a$$ by using that kind of info. If I was, I'd look into it more.


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> I was under the understanding that Google did have this type of info. How do they determine estimated times for routes without knowing the speed limits for the various roads?
> 
> This link suggests the info is available;
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cz.jhg.gmapsspeed&hl=en


If you actually read the description of the app you'd know that it alerts based on a threshold the user sets and that automatic alerts are "planned". They're planned because there isn't enough of a dataset available yet to make it possible.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> No. The reason people go on about breaking speed limits is because Strava includes downhill courses in the KOM contests and knowingly allow (or are blissfully ignorantly looking the other way) illegal speeds to be included in KOM records and then they coax other members to defend their records against these challenges.
> 
> There's no doubt that if this cyclist was not speeding when he died this would have a different look. But he was. So you're right, if the man wasn't breaking laws when he died the issue of breaking laws wouldn't be discussed.


You do realize that Strava is a database, they don't create the routes, riders do. You might as well sue Excel for teaching us how to use a database. Or, you could go after the riders who created that route. Oh, and there is something to the effect that the rider needs to obey the rules of the road last I checked. 

There's a few KOM's here that are laughable because the GPS line is straight across terrain, or there's sections on th flat hwy where a downhiller is doing 45mph, because he was in his truck doing a car shuttle. There's so many varibles, it would be impossible for a data base company, that is mostly free, to control or monitor traffic laws.

It's supposed to be fun. It's supposed to help motivate the rider to ride more..

It's not supposed to..


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> There's no doubt that if this cyclist was not speeding when he died this would have a different look. But he was. So you're right, if the man wasn't breaking laws when he died the issue of breaking laws wouldn't be discussed.



Right, but the point was the speed limit had nothing to do with his death it just gave lawyers a potential legal opportunity to sue. But again, you are trying to argue the legality of it and I am arguing the morality of it. The cyclists chose to ride at the speed he did, The family suing are only doing so to extract money in an attempt make themselves feel better not because Strava "made him" break the speed limit.

People suing over crap like this is why we can't have nice things


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Garmin Connect is a database too. It also does not create routes, the users do. But Garmin does not contest its user against one another to go the fastest on these user defined routes. Nor does Garmin email its users to warn them that someone has beaten their speed record & suggest that they get out there and go faster.

If someone died while riding their bike and they typically uploaded their results to Garmin after the ride, I don't think you'd see anyone suing Garmin.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

MoPho said:


> Right, but the point was the speed limit had nothing to do with his death it just gave lawyers a potential legal opportunity to sue. But again, you are trying to argue the legality of it and I am arguing the morality of it. The cyclists chose to ride at the speed he did, The family suing are only doing so to extract money in an attempt make themselves feel better not because Strava "made him" break the speed limit.
> 
> People suing over crap like this is why we can't have nice things


The legality is the issue once you've been sued.

I have nice things.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> I have nice things.


And if this trend of people looking for scapegoats to sue instead of taking responsibility for their actions continues, someday you won't be able to have those nice things


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

MoPho said:


> And if this trend of people looking for scapegoats to sue instead of taking responsibility for their actions continues, someday you won't be able to have those nice things


I'm guessing that if you had a child that died because some cyclist hit him/her while trying to beat a Strava KOM time you might feel differently regarding Strava's shared blame. In some cases there are more than one defendant because there is a shared culpability.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

I don't think it is reasonable to expect Strava to review the speed limit on routes (many of which may not have the info available or there may even not be one). I also am not so much concerned with the speed limit angle, but the unregistered racing side of it. On a personal level, I don't have any problem with what Strava does, but what I personally feel and what they are potentially legally responsible for are very different. To me, they could mitigate a huge portion of their risk simply by not pushing the competition anymore. If you make it a database of routes and comparing the routes then it is just information. When you have people setting records, people then trying to beat them, and emails egging you on then it gets a little sticky.

BTW, I wouldn't be so sure on the Garmin Connect one either. They have implemented personal records now, which while not competing against others could have the same implications. They do not filter out based upon safety, speed limits, or the such. So if it tracks you best time/pace/speed over a certain distance and updates when you beat that, it is not far off. Not saying I agree with it, but I could see someone going after Garmin over that, especially considering the pockets they have vs. Strava.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> I'm guessing that if you had a child that died because some cyclist hit him/her while trying to beat a Strava KOM time you might feel differently regarding Strava's shared blame.


Perhaps, but it would be for the reasons I mentioned, because I was angry and looking to get revenge. Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. People go after the companies because you can't get blood from a stone. 

I enjoy Strava and don't take it too seriously other than for the entertainment value it is, it would be a shame if a couple of bad apples and some knee jerk reactions ruins it for everyone else who uses it responsibility.





> In some cases there are more than one defendant because there is a shared culpability.


Yes, but I don't think this is one of those cases. These accidents could have happened and have happened without Stravas existence, so I find it hard to point the finger at them even if there is a legal opportunity for the suit



---



MoPho said:


> A few weeks ago I was out riding minding my own business when I caught and passed another rider who was unknown to me, he proceeded to jump on my wheel and I picked up the pace. He then made an attempt to pass me but we came upon a light that turned red, I slammed on the brakes to stop and he ran it nearly getting hit by a car.
> Had he been killed would I have been liable if his family tried to seek revenge* after all I could be construed as being the "strava"?




I posted this earlier, by many of the arguments here I should be partially responsible because I "egged him on" to try and beat me just the same as Strava does. This scenario could happen to any one of us who is out there pushing our pace and having fun little "unsanctioned races" with strangers on the road. So do feel you should be responsible if this scenario had happened to you



I will take my answer off the air, I need to get some work done :mad2:


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

MoPho said:


> I posted this earlier, by many of the arguments here I should be partially responsible because I "egged him on" to try and beat me just the same as Strava does. This scenario could happen to any one of us who is out there pushing our pace and having fun little "unsanctioned races" with strangers on the road. So do feel you should be responsible if this scenario had happened to you


When a company/group hosts a race they are subject to different rules/regs than you & your friends would be when you ride your bikes. Surely you recognize that there is a different level of diligence & regulations regarding companies & organizations when they do this kind of thing vs. individuals who are out riding casually. I believe Levi made the statement regarding carbon wheels on his Gran Fondo because of potential legal liability. Should he have just compared his Gran Fondo with a bunch of guys getting together for a ride & suggest that he had no more responsibility than that?

So the question comes down whether Strava is acting as a host wrt these routes by giving the cycling community a forum to compare their results & by sending emails to past KOM leaders warning them that they need to get out there & defend their previous time. If Strava is deemed to be nothing more than a databank of routes & times & it is totally up to the individual how they use this data, then the lawsuit against Strava will fail. If they are held up to higher standard because of their interaction with their users & the fact that they are a company who profits from their members' activities, then they could be found liable.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

How is Strava the "host" of a segment created by users? I have a KOM on a segment by my house but only because nobody else has ridden on it (I created the segment). I fail to see how Strava could be a "host" on this self created segment that only I ride?

A while back, I had a conversation about this case with my brother in-law who is a Judge here in the State of California, he said the case had no merit of LAW and would get thrown out. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

You know what will really set DaveWC off? The website that performs head-to-head analysis of Strava rides to plan your KOM attack. Which, for the record, I'm totally fine with.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

None of this will set me off. I thought we were just exchanging ideas and waiting to see how the courts act.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> When a company/group hosts a race they are subject to different rules/regs than you & your friends would be when you ride your bikes. Surely you recognize that there is a different level of diligence & regulations regarding companies & organizations when they do this kind of thing vs. individuals who are out riding casually. I believe Levi made the statement regarding carbon wheels on his Gran Fondo because of potential legal liability. Should he have just compared his Gran Fondo with a bunch of guys getting together for a ride & suggest that he had no more responsibility than that?



Sure the rules may be different but you can still be held personably liable for your actions. But the point of my story is that the scenario I described is similar to what Strava does, there is no "hosted race"


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> None of this will set me off. I thought we were just exchanging ideas and waiting to see how the courts act.


I knew there was something I liked about you! Enjoy the cred, more people need to "get it" when it comes to internet banter!:thumbsup:


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> If someone died while riding their bike and they typically uploaded their results to Garmin after the ride, I don't think you'd see anyone suing Garmin.


At this point yes, but, as Garmin Connect gains popularity, and becomes more visible in social media, it will be a target.

Bottom line, when people are hurting, they go after what they think will help. Suing Strava wont bring back anyone, infact, the way it was done only hurts those people more. Now the attorneys will drag the departed's choices through the mud. "He was riding beyond his ability, recklessly, breaking the law.."

It's sad because he died doing something he loved, and that should be what he's remembered for.

It's not Strava's fault. You can't say they baited him into doing it. He was an active Strava user, he had data, chose to be notified when people gave him kudos, followed him, or when he lost a KOM. But to say that it was anyone elses fault, that's just plain wrong.

Let him rest in peice, chasing speed, wanting to be faster!


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

Some argue that Strava should be liable because they "promote" (more like, a user created) segments that go downhill that "inevitably" encourage breaking the law (speeding) and dangerous activity. And so they should be sued, and the cyclist shouldn't bear the responsibility.

I say nonsense. There is a kom not far where I live; it is a descent, and the kom speed is 38 mph. I only go about 25 mph or less because 38 is crazy on that road - the road is steep, windy, and very poorly maintained. If I went 38 down that road, and died in the process, I don't think my family should be suing Strava. For that matter, if I went 38 down that road, and somehow managed to hit someone (not likely as it is super-rural) and killed them, they should sue me, but not Strava. I'm an adult and able to make the decision not to go so fast. I have, of course, attempted the kom UP the mountain, and the average for that is only just over 10 mph.


----------



## Red Brixton (Apr 4, 2012)

I've enjoyed reading DaveWC's points about possible liability for Strava. As someone who uses Strava, and likes to see how I'm doing compared to others, I'm biased toward Strava.

Regardless, someone suing Strava for contributing to pedestrian or cyclist deaths has a tough case legally.

In the U.S., the Communications Decency Act in 1996 states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Strava is further protected by the clause that says "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

So if I create a ride segment that is dangerous, or post a ride that breaks the law, I'm the one who's liable, not the provider Strava.

DaveWC's theoretical Strava For Cars is impossible because the police would use it to convict racers of speeding and reckless driving. In fact, police could do the same for cyclists posting times that exceed the speed limits. The fact that they haven't yet doesn't mean they can't. 

This is important because it shows where the actual liability lies: with the driver/cyclist.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

I predict that it is only a matter of time before a Stravatard kills a child. It will probably happen on a MUT or a hiking trail. The kid will be with his family and killed while they look on. It will probably involve a blind corner. If it is paved then there will likely be several cyclists involved because that is how you set fast segments that are not bombable descents. When it is determined that the riders were racing for Strava accolades, Strava will be fcuked in court. They will make a huge settlement, have difficulty getting insurance, and the principals of the company will then be looking down the barrel of personal liability if the company continues without fundamental changes.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

This is close... 

"On March 29, a cyclist named Chris Bucchere was riding down Castro Street in San Francisco at about 35 miles per hour when he hit 71-year old Sutchi Hui crossing Market Street. Hui died four days later. Bucchere later wrote about the accident on his Strava account. The San Francisco District Attorney has filed vehicular manslaughter charges against Bucchere."

"In the city, Strava faces criticism because bicyclist Chris Bucchere was tracking his speed on Strava - on a route known as the Castro Bomb - on March 29 when he struck and killed a 71-year-old pedestrian at Castro and Market streets. The district attorney's office says video evidence shows Bucchere had run several stop signs before the accident.
Kang's law partner, Richard Meier, says Strava bears responsibility, even if it can't control cyclists' behavior.

"If there was a contest to see how much alcohol you could drink - knowing the dangers - and someone died, the people that ran the contest would be responsible," Meier said."


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> This is close...
> 
> "On March 29, a cyclist named Chris Bucchere was riding down Castro Street in San Francisco at about 35 miles per hour when he hit 71-year old Sutchi Hui crossing Market Street. Hui died four days later. Bucchere later wrote about the accident on his Strava account. The San Francisco District Attorney has filed vehicular manslaughter charges against Bucchere."
> 
> ...


That is the pedestrian case people including me have referred to. No suit yet but you have to think one is coming.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> I predict that it is only a matter of time before a Stravatard kills a child. It will probably happen on a MUT or a hiking trail. The kid will be with his family and killed while they look on. It will probably involve a blind corner. If it is paved then there will likely be several cyclists involved because that is how you set fast segments that are not bombable descents. When it is determined that the riders were racing for Strava accolades, Strava will be fcuked in court. They will make a huge settlement, have difficulty getting insurance, and the principals of the company will then be looking down the barrel of personal liability if the company continues without fundamental changes.




.... Or perhaps it will be determined that the riders were't using Strava when the family lost control of their bratty kids who ran out onto the road in front of the cyclists, so they won't have some deep pockets company to sue for making the cyclists ride fast (because we all know they wouldn't have been going fast all on their own) and you will have to get off your high horse


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

DaveWC said:


> This is close...
> 
> "On March 29, a cyclist named Chris Bucchere was riding down Castro Street in San Francisco at about 35 miles per hour when he hit 71-year old Sutchi Hui crossing Market Street. Hui died four days later. Bucchere later wrote about the accident on his Strava account. The San Francisco District Attorney has filed vehicular manslaughter charges against Bucchere."
> 
> ...




So I just read up a little more on this story and it appears that Bucchere was attempting to beat his own personal record which means he never got any notice from Strava encouraging him to go out and take a KOM back. One could certainly track their own record without the help of strava so it is a bit of a stretch to say that Strava encouraged him to break the law.

Also there is apparently some question as to whether the victim (and others) had proceeded into the crosswalk early and Bucchere may have had the yellow.

Of interesting note was the accusation that the whole story was being sensationalized because a death from a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is so rare. In 2010 in San Francisco there were 811 cases where cars hit pedestrians and only 18 cyclists hitting pedestrians. In the first 6 months of 2012 one pedestrian was killed by a cyclist but in just one week in april 9 cyclists were killed by hit and run drivers. It would seem the outrage is statistically misplaced 


.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

MoPho said:


> So I just read up a little more on this story and it appears that Bucchere was attempting to beat his own personal record which means he never got any notice from Strava encouraging him to go out and take a KOM back. One could certainly track their own record without the help of strava so it is a bit of a stretch to say that Strava encouraged him to break the law.
> 
> Also there is apparently some question as to whether the victim (and others) had proceeded into the crosswalk early and Bucchere may have had the yellow.
> 
> ...


I think that is interesting. I have stated all along I think the speed limit angle is less the issue than encouraging dangerous behavior without knowledge of the conditions and being a defacto race organizer. In this particular situation these issues are not present and anyone using any speed tracking device could have done the same thing. 

I personally feel Strava is not responsible as people should know what is safe or not. But as a person who regularly tries to look at things from the opposing perspective in order to formulate my own courses of action... I can see it getting stick for Strava. I think from a liability standpoint they would be very well served to stop stop emphasizing the record keeping and competition side of things. Being a database for comparison is not responsible for what happens when people start reviewing and interpreting the information. Pushing people to outperform others and the waters become murky.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Someone texting on the phone, drives over a kid. The driver is responsible, not the phone manufacturer.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

YamaDan said:


> Someone texting on the phone, drives over a kid. The driver is responsible, not the phone manufacturer.


Well according to some members on this forum, if the person above is replying to a text we should share the culpability to the person who sent the text, because that person was encouraging the driver to respond to said text.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Maybe look into contributory negligence. Bars serve liquor to the pubic. Thousands of people buy liquor at bars and go away happy & lawfully, no one gets hurt. Some idiot drinks too much, the bartender happily serves them, they drive home drunk & kill someone, the bar owner gets sued for selling liquor to a drunk. No analogy is perfect, this one isn't either. 

But the idea that Strava can still be liable even though thousands of users use their service & kill no one is addressed. 

The idea that the drunk is responsible for his/her own actions yet the bar owner is sued is addressed. 

The idea that if the bar owner is deemed liable then if your buddy buys you a drink and you drive drunk you must be liable is addressed too. 

It doesn't have to be cut & dried, only one person to blame. There are cases where there is contributory negligence.


----------



## homebrewevolver (Jul 21, 2012)

Cableguy said:


> Outrageous, when will Strava come forward and accept responsibility? I have a case pending against them too. I was on the trainer and experienced a malfunction that resulted in my bike dismounting... I was launched several inches from my bike and had a bruise on my right hip. The only reason I was on the trainer was because Strava sent harassing e-mails night and day demanding, no threatening, that I ride - or else. Did they inspect my equipment? Did they check the conditions in my house? Did they even put up cones? No. They neglected all the above.


lol:thumbsup:


----------



## homebrewevolver (Jul 21, 2012)

lol i read the article. what a retard... he was going 10 over left of center.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

arai_speed said:


> Well according to some members on this forum, if the person above is replying to a text we should share the culpability to the person who sent the text, because that person was encouraging the driver to respond to said text.


Both your comparison as well as the one you responded to are ridiculous. Hopefully you can tell the difference between what people are saying and these comparisons even if you don't agree. Otherwise I feel sorry for you with the apparent complete lack of ability to rationally analyze opposing opinions.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

the bar is liable for serving intoxicated people because there are specific statutes addressing the subject. Those statutes do not apply in this case. 

I think we get distracted because we are talking about two entirely different issues, but they are getting mixed.

The first issue is the cyclist that died as a direct result of his actions. I don't sense much support for a suit by his family.

the second issue is the pedestrian hit by a cyclist. There is no evidence showing that the pedestian contributed to the accident. There is more of a split over liablility which might attach to Strava in this situation. 

Situations involving negligence are very fact specific, so regardless of decision of either a judge or jury in either of these cases, we wil be able to argue the point for a long time.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

gte105u said:


> Both your comparison as well as the one you responded to are ridiculous. ...


As is the idea that Strava shares culpability in the actions William Flint!

I don't have to try and see if from the other side because it makes no sense. If a 40 year old man can't be held responsible for his own actions then I don't know where things are headed. Lastly, spare me your pity (rolleyes).


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

I thought Strava only counted uphill rides for KOM's?


MoPho said:


> So I just read up a little more on this story and it appears that Bucchere was attempting to beat his own personal record which means he never got any notice from Strava encouraging him to go out and take a KOM back. One could certainly track their own record without the help of strava so it is a bit of a stretch to say that Strava encouraged him to break the law.
> 
> Also there is apparently some question as to whether the victim (and others) had proceeded into the crosswalk early and Bucchere may have had the yellow.
> 
> ...


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

No, they definitely count/rank downhills, too: Strava Segment | Hawthorne descent Crest - PVDW


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

ziscwg said:


> Sorry, but your logic is flawed in paragraph 3.
> 
> Strava is not there on the bike assisting in this action. It's all the rider. If we follow you line of thinking.........Shimano, Trek, Vittoria, the road paving company, the City of SF should be named.
> 
> ...


I have tried to explain that there is a legal principle that cuts off liability and directly addresses the "when does it end" scenario. It is called proximate cause. No one seems to get that. There is a difference between a bike and a product that encourages someone to behave dangerously. A bike, in and of itself, does not encourage its rider in the same manner. 

If we followed your logic, which is known as "but for" causation, no one could ever be sued because it would never end. That is why there is proximate cause. It has been around for hundreds of years. It came from Europe. Look it up.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

ddimick said:


> Why won't this car analogy go away? It's terrible, and I'll give you two specific reasons why.
> 
> 
> Gumball 3000 is an annual, unsanctioned rally race held on public streets. Drivers are often cited for illegal driving, even though the Gumball rules specifically prohibit breaking any vehicular laws. In 2007 there was an accident that resulted in multiple deaths of non-participants. The driver was held liable. The organizers were not.
> ...


This analogy does not work. Strava is not operating a one time Gumball Rally. Try Strava for Skateboards or Roller Blades. That might make it more clear.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> And yet every day thousands of people manage to put aside beating a strava time in order to stop for a light or not put themselves at risk by riding too fast for skill/conditions. It is operator choice to do such things, Strava didn't make them do anything. Those people were likely to break laws and perhaps kill or injure someone regardless of Strava. As a matter of fact, there are FAR more accidents that had absolutely nothing to do with Strava but were under the same kind of conditions (speeding running lights etc) and the only difference is there is no company to sue for financial gain.
> 
> Again, regardless if there is a legal argument it is just wrong and the only reason these people are going after Strava is money, not to make them fix the way the run their business


As with most product liability cases, the vast majority of users and/or related third parties are never harmed by the product. Your logic simply fails.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> As with most product liability cases, the vast majority of users and/or related third parties are never harmed by the product. Your logic simply fails.




Your comprehension simply fails. You miss the point 

You're a fool if you think that Strava made these people bomb down that hill as fast as they could or run a red light.
These lawsuits are simply about finding a scapegoat for which to extract money from and only gain traction because our legal system is F/U. If you think it is justifiable to make such lawsuits than you are part of the problem.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

So you are saying that the message I read is not true or a lie? Just tmaking sure


wim said:


> As almost anyone else would do in these circumstances, Strava filed one or several affirmative defense(s). These are defenses in fact or law that would prevent the plaintiff from winning. They're not a countersuit. Admittedly, "countersues" makes for a more interesting headline than "responds to allegations."
> 
> /w


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> Your comprehension simply fails. You miss the point
> 
> You're a fool if you think that Strava made these people bomb down that hill as fast as they could or run a red light.
> These lawsuits are simply about finding a scapegoat for which to extract money from and only gain traction because our legal system is F/U. If you think it is justifiable to make such lawsuits than you are part of the problem.


I am tired of hearing about how our legal system is F/U. It is one of the best, maybe the best, legal system in the world. People love to crap on it, but they have no clue what else it out there.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> I am tired of hearing about how our legal system is F/U. It is one of the best, maybe the best, legal system in the world. People love to crap on it, but they have no clue what else it out there.


I am tired of frivolous lawsuits ruining fun things for those of us who have common sense


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> I am tired of frivolous lawsuits ruining fun things for those of us who have common sense


Misconception. The war on drugs is effecting your life 1,000,000,000 times more than frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> Misconception. The war on drugs is effecting your life 1,000,000,000 times more than frivolous lawsuits.



Um.... no


----------



## tom93r1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Strava isn't organizing or hosting any races, whoever created the segment is the race organizer. Strava is just a web page for event organizers to post their races. If you create a segment that runs through traffic lights, stop signs, and MUP's then somebody gets injured you should be prepared for a lawsuit. 

That makes exactly as much sense as any of these lawsuits against strava.


----------



## beeristasty (Jan 1, 1970)

DaveWC said:


> This is close...
> "If there was a contest to see how much alcohol you could drink - knowing the dangers - and someone died, the people that ran the contest would be responsible," Meier said."


I like this guy's thinking. So Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, TMobile, and any company that makes cell phones can be sued due to distracted drivers talking on the phone/texting/web surfing/angry birding that cause accidents.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

beeristasty said:


> I like this guy's thinking. So Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, TMobile, and any company that makes cell phones can be sued due to distracted drivers talking on the phone/texting/web surfing/angry birding that cause accidents.


Ridiculous comparison. Either you know it, or you should know it.


----------



## beeristasty (Jan 1, 1970)

gte105u said:


> Ridiculous comparison. Either you know it, or you should know it.


It was meant to be ridiculous. Both provide the medium for potential misuse/abuse. Same as Strava. The underlying point was that when someone _decides_ to use a tool in an unsafe/reckless manner or environment, the culpability lies with the user.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

beeristasty said:


> It was meant to be ridiculous. Both provide the medium for potential misuse/abuse. Same as Strava. The underlying point was that when someone _decides_ to use a tool in an unsafe/reckless manner or environment, the culpability lies with the user.


The difference IMO lies in the encouragement. Mind you I do not think Strava is liable, but when Strava is sending out emails encouraging the act it opens a door that at least gives wiggle room in court. A cell phone does not encourage the potentially dangerous activity. I personally think that though it is sad it is needed, Strava could help stave off a lot of liability talk simply by not telling people to go out and beat someone's time. Simply stating a fact that a new top time exists is enough to serve the function while not being linked as much to the risks.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Tschai said:


> I have tried to explain that there is a legal principle that cuts off liability and directly addresses the "when does it end" scenario. It is called proximate cause. No one seems to get that. There is a difference between a bike and a product that encourages someone to behave dangerously. A bike, in and of itself, does not encourage its rider in the same manner.
> 
> If we followed your logic, which is known as "but for" causation, no one could ever be sued because it would never end. That is why there is proximate cause. It has been around for hundreds of years. It came from Europe. Look it up.


Yes, Pfalsgraf and all that. And there is another legal principle at work here as well that ought to answer the Strava suit question: superseding cause. It's why gun manufacturers aren't liable for all the deaths caused by idiots and wackos. Here, the cyclist on Castro Street is your intervening idiot, and tort liability rightly ends with him and his personal assets.

The "Car Strava" analogy is inapposite, seems to me. Racing cars on public streets is itself illegal and can be cited even if you do not blow a light or exceed the speed limit while doing so; racing road bikes, on the other hand, isn't a per se violation.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

worst_shot_ever said:


> Yes, Pfalsgraf and all that. And there is another legal principle at work here as well that ought to answer the Strava suit question: superseding cause. It's why gun manufacturers aren't liable for all the deaths caused by idiots and wackos. Here, the cyclist on Castro Street is your intervening idiot, and tort liability rightly ends with him and his personal assets.
> 
> The "Car Strava" analogy is inapposite, seems to me. Racing cars on public streets is itself illegal and can be cited even if you do not blow a light or exceed the speed limit while doing so; racing road bikes, on the other hand, isn't a per se violation.


I agree. Superseding cause is an issue. However, as to guns, my argument would be that there is a difference in that gun manufacturers are not encouraging people to shoot others. As we know, each legal case hinges on a very specific set of facts. The fact that gun companies are not proactively encouraging gun owners to shoot someone is a very significant distinction. 

I suspect that racing bikes, since they are vehicles, may also be illegal in many places. But, even if racing bikes is legal, that does not necessarily change the analysis that Starva may be encouraging dangerous behavior proactively. Whether the behavior is a race or not, or whether it is illegal or not, does not change things in my mind. 

Overall, all I not saying that Strava will lose. But, it is an interesting issue and probably a case of first impression. It is not a cut and dry personal responsibility case.

I would distinguish Strava for Cars vs. Strava for Bikes on the basis that the danger with cars is exponentially greater. Other than that, I am not sure there is a relevant difference.


----------



## Data_God (Oct 9, 2012)

Tschai said:


> Again, the same old responses without addressing my point. How would society feel if there was a Strava for cars? .
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Data_God said:


> Tschai said:
> 
> 
> > ... Strava doesn't allow, at least that I have seen the ability to Flag a segment as "unsafe". That will undoubtedly happen as a result of this litigation.
> ...


----------



## beeristasty (Jan 1, 1970)

Tschai said:


> I agree. Superseding cause is an issue. However, as to guns, my argument would be that there is a difference in that gun manufacturers are not encouraging people to shoot others. As we know, each legal case hinges on a very specific set of facts. The fact that gun companies are not proactively encouraging gun owners to shoot someone is a very significant distinction.


For this argument to work, Strava would have to explicitly encourage cyclists to disregard traffic laws and to use pedestrians as their preferred method of braking.

Here's a Strava-esque example with guns: a shooting range emailing it's customers that 'Jimbo fired off 25 rounds in 10 seconds, with each shot being a bulls eye. You should see if you can beat it!' Then someone goes out, misjudges their shooting abilities, and lands a round in someone in the next range.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> This is close...
> 
> "If there was a contest to see how much alcohol you could drink - knowing the dangers - and someone died, the people that ran the contest would be responsible," Meier said."


Let's make this a relivent example, if it was a drinking contest, and the contestent left and was killed in an auto accident, while driving under the influence, is it the promoters fault?

Can the kid who was tweeting how drunk he was and how fast he was driving right up to the point he hit a pole and died parents sue Twitter?


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

It is frustrating when people cannot try to see things from the other perspective and keep saying the same thing over and over that is not applicable. No one here is saying that Strava is at fault for tracking or sharing the information. People using social media is fine. The reason that Strava could possibly find themselves in a jamb is the encouragement side of it. They blindly send out emails encouraging people to go and break the records of other people without regard to laws and/or dangers doing so may encounter. While people should know better, the liability can still be passed in cases like these


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

beeristasty said:


> For this argument to work, Strava would have to explicitly encourage cyclists to disregard traffic laws and to use pedestrians as their preferred method of braking.


If we applied the pro-Srava, personal responsibility line of thought, even if Strava did exactly as you say above, it would still not be liable.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

gte105u said:


> It is frustrating when people cannot try to see things from the other perspective and keep saying the same thing over and over that is not applicable. No one here is saying that Strava is at fault for tracking or sharing the information. People using social media is fine. The reason that Strava could possibly find themselves in a jamb is the encouragement side of it. They blindly send out emails encouraging people to go and break the records of other people without regard to laws and/or dangers doing so may encounter. While people should know better, the liability can still be passed in cases like these


+1. In my opinion, whether Strava is held liable or not, I think it is a bad idea to encourage people to break records in the manner it seems to be doing. We have two deaths that seem to be directly related to the encouragement side to Strava.

Although I don't think scooters and skateboards are considered vehicles under the law, if my kid came home with a Strava for Skateboards, it would go right back to the store. I would think that most posters on this thread would agree with that. I don't think Starva for Bikes is very distinguishable. I could come up with some ideas, but I would feel I have the weaker side of the case. One idea is perhaps limiting Strava to uphills, if that is possible. 

Another thing. People assume that our legal system is ridiculous. They read a blurb about a hot coffee case or a ski lodge closing down its chair lifts to mountain bikers and they assume that their freedoms are being restricted as a result of frivolous lawsuits. The fact is that our legal system is excellent. I am not sure we could come up with a better system. Most cases that are frivolous get thrown out. Most judges are intelligent and try to do the right thing within the law. As I mentioned earlier, the war on drugs would be the first thing I would fix if I had the ability to do so.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Would it make a difference if we replaced the "biker" with a "runner"? Strava works for both, what if a runner was going for a CR and died because he ran a red light and got hit by a car. Would you still feel the same shared culpability?


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> +1. In my opinion, whether Strava is held liable or not, I think it is a bad idea to encourage people to break records in the manner it seems to be doing. We have two deaths that seem to be directly related to the encouragement side to Strava.


Stop kidding yourself, the guy who crashed on the downhill was going to go as fast as he could regardless of Strava and people who run red lights do it regardless of Strava, it happens all the time and it has happened long before Strava (or the internet) was invented. As I've said repeatedly putting the blame on Strava is merely looking for the scapegoat with the money 





> Another thing. People assume that our legal system is ridiculous. They read a blurb about a hot coffee case or a ski lodge closing down its chair lifts to mountain bikers and they assume that their freedoms are being restricted as a result of frivolous lawsuits. The fact is that our legal system is excellent. I am not sure we could come up with a better system. Most cases that are frivolous get thrown out. Most judges are intelligent and try to do the right thing within the law. As I mentioned earlier, the war on drugs would be the first thing I would fix if I had the ability to do so


.

Our legal system may be "the best in the world" but you are naive to think it isn't flawed in many ways. 
And despite what you may think frivolous lawsuits happen all the time. 

Companies often have to design stuff in a way that deters them from being sued (or as a result of being sued) when people fail to use common sense.

Two words: Lawyer tabs


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

arai_speed said:


> Would it make a difference if we replaced the "biker" with a "runner"? Strava works for both, what if a runner was going for a CR and died because he ran a red light and got hit by a car. Would you still feel the same shared culpability?


Interesting counter-point, and the types of posts that facilitate actual discussion. I think there are some key differences, but potentially I could see a court hearing liability for a runner as mind. I would also like to point out I don't think that Strava is responsible, and would have a hard time finding them at fault if I were a juror (biker or runner). But in situations like these I find it best to divorce your personal opinion on the matter from what the law and lawyers may be able to argue.

1) The biggest liability concern has been the encouragement of Strava to do dangerous activities and the potential impact on innocent 3rd parties. I feel less concerned for (and feel it less likely a court would find fault) the cyclist to killed himself. Now the cyclist who killed a pedestrian is a different matter. So in your case if a runner, through blind will to achieve a Strava record somehow incited an incident that caused serious harm to a 3rd party then I could maybe see it going back. But I don't think it is likely
2) The biggest difference between runners and biking is the aspect that a bike is a vehicle. Runners are pedestrians. This inheriently changes many things with regards to the law, namely right of way. There are nearly the same degrees and structure of laws regarding pedestrians as there are bicycles.
3) Unless the speed limit is exceptionally low, not many people are going to be able to break it. It is also less likely to get out of control, and the speeds being traveled allow for better reaction time. It is just not as easy to hurt yourself or others while running as it is while riding a bike, and the ability to avoid dangers is much higher.


----------



## ldotmurray (Jun 15, 2009)

The initial suit is ridiculous. Strava now has to defend itself. I believe Strava does not want to talk ill of the dead, however, the family is forcing Strava's hand. I don't use Strava so I'm neutral. We, as cyclists, are responsible for our behavior on the road. We can't control what someone else does. It's sad to hear that anyone has died while riding.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

gte105u said:


> It is frustrating when people cannot try to see things from the other perspective and keep saying the same thing over and over that is not applicable. No one here is saying that Strava is at fault for tracking or sharing the information. People using social media is fine. The reason that Strava could possibly find themselves in a jamb is the encouragement side of it. They blindly send out emails encouraging people to go and break the records of other people *without regard to laws and/or dangers doing so may encounter*. While people should know better, the liability can still be passed in cases like these


Except they don't say this. They say "go out and get it back" not "go out and get it back even if you have to speed, run a stop sign and ride over two elderly hispanic women and their great grandkids."

Not the same thing. If you're stupid enough to choose to break the law while chasing that KOM point, that's on you, not Strava.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

Pedistrians do not always have the right of way. Example, a runner who ignores the pedestrian signal and steps in front of a bike proceeding through the intersection on a green light.

This stated, I also think you have pointed out the flaw in the civil side of our legal side. There is vey little certainty when lawyers "make arguments" and come up with unpredictable results. I would suggest that the public would be well served by a system with more predictability. 

I gather from the tone of your messages that you are an attorney. I am sure you have some experience with the concept of nuisance value. I have heard many personal injury attorneys talk about pressing a case because they have a sympathetic client with severe injuries, even though the existing case law does not support the claim. in fact I am sure the attorney in the case at hand has probably talked with his/her clients about this concept.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> Stop kidding yourself, the guy who crashed on the downhill was going to go as fast as he could regardless of Strava and people who run red lights do it regardless of Strava, it happens all the time and it has happened long before Strava (or the internet) was invented. As I've said repeatedly putting the blame on Strava is merely looking for the scapegoat with the money


This is irrelevant because he WAS using Strava. 





MoPho said:


> Our legal system may be "the best in the world" but you are naive to think it isn't flawed in many ways.
> And despite what you may think frivolous lawsuits happen all the time.
> 
> Companies often have to design stuff in a way that deters them from being sued (or as a result of being sued) when people fail to use common sense.
> ...


I never said it was not flawed. Indeed, no legal system is perfect, including ours. As to frivolous lawsuits, it is the companies and big businesses (as well as certain political parties) that are spreading the myths about frivolous lawsuits and how they allegedly impact us and the economy. They are simply myths. The media also spreads the myths in that they want to publish juicy news story. What happens is the public see the headline, but they don't get the details of the lawsuit. This is what happened with the McDonald's coffee case.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> This is irrelevant because he WAS using Strava.


Well, he was going to upload data to Strava once he got home, after his ride, or at least that was the perceived intention. But he never made it home to do so. So, at the time of his accident, he wasn't actually using Strava.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Not the same thing. If you're stupid enough to choose to break the law while chasing that KOM point, that's on you, not Strava.


It *should* be on you, yes. But in reality, that's not necessarily the case. There's a reason why there are warning labels for almost everything these days. 

"Do not eat."
"Do not place up your butt."
"Do not use to stab yourself in the eye."
"Keep away from children and moreons."
etc.


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

Seems like you have a very good grasp on all of this. It is actually interesting to read your responses, as they are quite lucid and based in reality. :thumbsup:



Tschai said:


> This is irrelevant because he WAS using Strava.
> 
> I never said it was not flawed. Indeed, no legal system is perfect, including ours. As to frivolous lawsuits, it is the companies and big businesses (as well as certain political parties) that are spreading the myths about frivolous lawsuits and how they allegedly impact us and the economy. They are simply myths. The media also spreads the myths in that they want to publish juicy news story. What happens is the public see the headline, but they don't get the details of the lawsuit. This is what happened with the McDonald's coffee case.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

YamaDan said:


> Well, he was going to upload data to Strava once he got home, after his ride, or at least that was the perceived intention. But he never made it home to do so. So, at the time of his accident, he wasn't actually using Strava.


This is an interesting point. What is "using" Strava? I suppose you could argue he was not "using" Strava. I think the entire case raises new and interesting issues. It is a new type of product, so it makes sense that we are struggling with the issues.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> This is irrelevant because he WAS using Strava.



No, it s quite relevant because I am pointing out that it was merely happenstance that he was a user of Strava. If he wasn't a member of Strava the accident still could have happened but the family would have nobody to sue. Cyclists ride fast and take chances regardless of such a website, it's human nature. 


Now the problem here is that you keep trying to argue that there is some legal merit for the case, and as I said before there very well be, but my point is that despite a loophole in the system it just isn't the right thing to do. The families are not suing to save others from Strava, they are suing to get payback for their loss.

If you don't want to acknowledge my point and continue on your high horse claiming that Strava is somehow a menace to society, then stop replying to me. :idea:




> I never said it was not flawed. Indeed, no legal system is perfect, including ours. As to frivolous lawsuits, it is the companies and big businesses (as well as certain political parties) that are spreading the myths about frivolous lawsuits and how they allegedly impact us and the economy. They are simply myths. The media also spreads the myths in that they want to publish juicy news story. What happens is the public see the headline, but they don't get the details of the lawsuit. This is what happened with the McDonald's coffee case



As I pointed out earlier this whole case is hyped as well, pedestrian deaths from cyclists are very rare. Your anti Strava stance is based on this hype

I also pointed to an example where a suit effects us, lawyer tabs, they suck!
If Strava has to shut down or eliminate the leader board aspect because two people out of 100's of thousands of users made a bad decision that would also suck!

I work with car manufacturers and they have an army of lawyers to fight off a constant barrage of silly lawsuits (and of course some not so silly ones too). Heck, if someone farts in a car and it takes too long to vent the smell someone sues. 
Cars are filled with nanny devises to make up for incompetence, some of which spoil the fun if you are a driving enthusiast. I know these things aren't myths because it comes up in product discussion at our meetings.

My father was also a victim of someone trying to sue him based on false pretenses, it cost him over $10k to fight it off.
So don't tell me this stuff never happens! 


When I did a search the other day it turned up a lot of outrage about this case, it seems a lot of people feel the same way I do about it, there are a lot of articles stating the things I have said, so stop acting like what I am saying has no merit


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

YamaDan said:


> Well, he was going to upload data to Strava once he got home, after his ride, or at least that was the perceived intention. But he never made it home to do so. So, at the time of his accident, he wasn't actually using Strava.


Excellent pointt. Up until now I had assumed he was actively using an app. Saying that you knew his intent based upon a likely scenerio is a whoke different thing than actually participating in it. That is a very strong argument on Strava's side. I am sure a lawer would try to connect the dots of "record is broken" to "riding segment" to accident but that is a much weaker argument IMO.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> No, it s quite relevant because I am pointing out that it was merely happenstance that he was a user of Strava. If he wasn't a member of Strava the accident still could have happened but the family would have nobody to sue. Cyclists ride fast and take chances regardless of such a website, it's human nature.
> 
> 
> Now the problem here is that you keep trying to argue that there is some legal merit for the case, and as I said before there very well be, but my point is that despite a loophole in the system it just isn't the right thing to do. The families are not suing to save others from Strava, they are suing to get payback for their loss.
> ...


You are personalizing this too much. I acknowledge that when someone dies and/or is severely injured, the deep pocket will get sued regardless of the merits of the case. A paralyzed person is desperate, has very little options and will do what he/she can do to get compensated. Personal responsibility is not any comfort to such a person. I have mentioned this in prior posts and have stated that I would sue and that I thought most of us would also sue, personal responsibility be damned. In extreme cases - severe injury or death - I am not sure I have a problem with suing the deep pocket as a matter of course. Nonetheless, I still think Strava has a problem and I don't think that speculating that the cyclist would have killed the pedestrian anyway without Starva is a viable defense to the lawsuit. Such speculation holds little weight in a lawsuit. 

As to lawyer tabs, I have no issue with them and think they are a good thing. You may have some personal experience with what may or may not have taken place in certain situations, but the statistics show that frivolous lawsuits are not a significant problem. There may be some, but the legal system we have is not perfect. As you said, some lawsuits are not so silly. Perhaps the price of having a system that addresses the good lawsuits is that we have some bad ones.


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

Didn't see this covered but I skipped a few posts.

The reason, IMO, that strava for cars isn't comparable to strava for bikes is that cars probably travel the speed limit 95+% of the time, bicycles do not. Most roads around me are 55 mph, I'll not be getting to that speed on a bike often. In my car, pretty much always at 55 mph.

Strava for I think could be allowed but frankly everyone going the speed limit everywhere isn't going to be exciting. Cyclists can still "race" each other on strava while being under the speed limit most of the time.

Sounds like the family should sue the family member who died for going down a hill too fast because he encouraged himself to do so. Would have more grounds to sue him than strava.

Stupid lawsuit, hope the family loses. Can't believe the crap that happens sometimes.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Tschai said:


> ...Nonetheless, I still think Strava has a problem and I don't think that speculating that the cyclist would have killed the pedestrian anyway without Starva is a viable defense to the lawsuit...


Just to be clear, you do realize that there is only ONE suit filed against Strava and that is "William K. Flint vs. Strava"

That is what this thread is about and what we are discussing.

You can read the court filing here:

http://www.bicycleretailer.com/sites/default/files/downloads/article/StravaSuit.pdf

Stop confusing the cyclyst killing the pedestrian incident. To my knowlege no legal action against Strava has been filed for that incident.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

arai_speed said:


> Stop confusing the cyclyst killing the pedestrian incident. To my knowlege no legal action against Strava has been filed for that incident.


That incident should not be ignored. It is the strongest argument for the legal danger Strava has put itself in. The cyclist is being criminally prosecuted. The family will undoubtedly wait for that to conclude then file a civil against Strava. 

The prosecutors will end up doing a lot of the investigative work that the civil lawyers can use. It is likely the cyclist will accept a deal and admit he was going for a Strava KOM when he killed the pedestrian. There is no reason to file a civil suit too early.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

arai_speed said:


> Just to be clear, you do realize that there is only ONE suit filed against Strava and that is "William K. Flint vs. Strava"
> 
> That is what this thread is about and what we are discussing.
> 
> ...


What trailrunner said. Besides the fact that both incidents have come up in this thread more than once, the death in San Francisco is absolutely relevant to this discussion. There is no confusion.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Tschai said:


> There is no confusion.


Are you sure?

Because you wrote:



Tschai said:


> ..I still think Strava has a problem and I don't think that speculating that the cyclist would have killed the pedestrian anyway without Starva is a viable defense to the lawsuit...


What law suit are you referrring to?


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

LOL! Tough room!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Tschai said:


> You have also missed my point. By my argument there would be a Strava for cars. Please address that argument and why a Strava for bicycles would be different than a Strava for cars.
> 
> My argument does not include making a bike capable of going too fast, single speed beach cruisers, other cyclists, blenders, bats, golf clubs, knives, chairs etc. I never mentioned any of these things.


It is unlikely, in most instances, that bicycles are exceeding the posted speed limit while engaging in Strava activities. It they are, they should be treated as any other vehicle engaged in the same behavior. Strava for cars would almost certainly encourage illegal behavior.

Consider the difference between sponsoring a Race Across America for cars verses bicycles.


----------



## Babb915 (Nov 1, 2012)

nice sharing....


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

arai_speed said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> Because you wrote:
> 
> ...


Whatever dude. The conversation we are having applies to both cases as if lawsuits were filed. That is the whole point of this discussion. Your ad hominem wise cracks are causing the confusion.

So, as to the pedestrian incident, do you feel a lawsuit against Strava is warranted? Please don't tell us that this is not the topic of this thread.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

SwiftSolo said:


> It is unlikely, in most instances, that bicycles are exceeding the posted speed limit while engaging in Strava activities. It they are, they should be treated as any other vehicle engaged in the same behavior. Strava for cars would almost certainly encourage illegal behavior.
> 
> Consider the difference between sponsoring a Race Across America for cars verses bicycles.


As to both "Strava" deaths, were the cyclists exceeding the speed limit? I am not sure, but I thought the guy that hit the pedestrian was. He may have also broken the law by going through a red light. My counter to your speed limit argument, and yours is a legitimate argument, is that Strava encourages unsafe behavior. Whether that means exceeding the speed limit, going through a red light or traveling too fast for the conditions, the focus is on unsafe behavior as opposed to a strict adherence, or lack thereof, of a posted speed limit.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> ... is that Strava encourages unsafe behavior. Whether that means exceeding the speed limit, going through a red light or traveling too fast for the conditions, the focus is on unsafe behavior as opposed to a strict adherence, or lack thereof, of a posted speed limit.


How do they do this? I'm just asking because I was road riding yesterday and I swear I hit every red light possible. My overall time and my moving time were different. My PR's were based on my moving time. I'm sure that if I made a few of those lights, I may have gone faster..but, I have this wierd thing in my head, it says "Stop at a red light or you might die!" Regardless, Strava was instramental in getting me out the door and riding yesterday..:thumbsup: Today, not so much. :mad2: Ok..well, maybe not..

I'm really asking because I don't understand when you say they encourage usafe behavior, how do you mean? KOM's? You could have that via a local bike shop. But then there's no proof.:idea: GPS is really what has started this whole thing. A means of tracking how fast riders are going, and they see other riders info, or they get other riders info.

Strava, is just one medium, Garmin connect is catching on, and there will be riders trying to one up one another on there as well. It's what humans do. 

Speed limits get broken, red lights get run, it happens, some people even get tickets. In fact, you should totally try that, go speeding, get pulled over, and tell the officer that some random dude on the internet "encouraged you" to do it. This will be awesome, you should totally do it!! What, are you, chicken? Common...do it do it do it. 

I'll pronounce you "King Of The Thread" if you do!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Tschai said:


> As to both "Strava" deaths, were the cyclists exceeding the speed limit? I am not sure, but I thought the guy that hit the pedestrian was. He may have also broken the law by going through a red light. My counter to your speed limit argument, and yours is a legitimate argument, is that Strava encourages unsafe behavior. Whether that means exceeding the speed limit, going through a red light or traveling too fast for the conditions, the focus is on unsafe behavior as opposed to a strict adherence, or lack thereof, of a posted speed limit.


If, while driving, I decide to run a red light or go too fast for conditions, it occurs to me that my auto maker in not really to blame. Further, It goes without saying that driving is statistically an "unsafe behavior".

The point is that all of us are obliged to obey the laws. The fact that life offers extraneous incentives to accomplish more in a shorter time period does not transfer the blame to the vehicle manufacturer or the person who made the business appointment that we are late for. Most cyclists realize that it is unlikely that hitting a pedestrian will help them in their effort to beat the Strava time goal.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> As to both "Strava" deaths, were the cyclists exceeding the speed limit? I am not sure, but I thought the guy that hit the pedestrian was. He may have also broken the law by going through a red light. My counter to your speed limit argument, and yours is a legitimate argument, *is that Strava encourages unsafe behavior*. Whether that means exceeding the speed limit, going through a red light or traveling too fast for the conditions, the focus is on unsafe behavior as opposed to a strict adherence, or lack thereof, of a posted speed limit.


No. They. Don't. 

Period.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

YamaDan said:


> Speed limits get broken, red lights get run, it happens, some people even get tickets. In fact, you should totally try that, go speeding, get pulled over, and tell the officer that some random dude on the internet "encouraged you" to do it. This will be awesome, you should totally do it!! What, are you, chicken? Common...do it do it do it.
> 
> I'll pronounce you "King Of The Thread" if you do!




"Sorry officer, Strava made me do it, so 40% of the ticket should go to them..." :lol:



.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

SwiftSolo said:


> If, while driving, I decide to run a red light or go too fast for conditions, it occurs to me that my auto maker in not really to blame. Further, It goes without saying that driving is statistically an "unsafe behavior".


No, but if you were "encouraged" to do so by say an employer.. There is some precident several years back, I beleive it was Domino's that was sued, saying that their "30 minutes or it's free" policy encouraged drivers to speed and take risks while trying to meet that deadline..they have since done away with that policy.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

YamaDan said:


> No, but if you were "encouraged" to do so by say an employer.. There is some precident several years back, I beleive it was Domino's that was sued, saying that their "30 minutes or it's free" policy encouraged drivers to speed and take risks while trying to meet that deadline..they have since done away with that policy.


That would more likely be an issue because those "free" pies would come out of the driver's pay. With financial penalties, I'd expect the case to have a little bit more legitimacy.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> That would more likely be an issue because those "free" pies would come out of the driver's pay. With financial penalties, I'd expect the case to have a little bit more legitimacy.


Agreed, but, there is perceived value in a KOM. It’s individual based, but has a value none the less. It's just determining what the value is perceived by an individual, and in this case, he valued it more than his own life. So, I can at least understand why the suit was even brought up in the first place.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

OK the real suit filed, not the pretend one we are discussing, claims that strava was, among other things promoting dangerous behavior. For those arguing that this is true can you please expand on how you arrived at that conclusion? Or what in the language of the email that KOM users get when loosing said KOM implies unsafe behavior?


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Hey Tschai, looks like MoPho took your KOTT (King of the thread), better get back on here with a witty edgy informative remark and take it back!


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

YamaDan said:


> Hey Tschai, looks like MoPho took your KOTT (King of the thread), better get back on here with a witty edgy informative remark and take it back!














.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

YamaDan said:


> Hey Tschai, looks like MoPho took your KOTT (King of the thread), better get back on here with a witty edgy informative remark and take it back!


I was trying so hard to take back my KOTs I ended up getting banned from the forums... I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT STRAVA!


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

SwiftSolo said:


> The fact that life offers extraneous incentives to accomplish more in a shorter time period does not transfer the blame to the vehicle manufacturer or the person who made the business appointment that we are late for.


We are not talking about the liability of vehicle makers or individuals with business appointments. I have repeatedly explained why the Strava scenario is legally highly distinguishable from such things. It seems that too many of you are just ignoring this or skipping over it.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> No. They. Don't.
> 
> Period.


That will be an issue that is decided in the lawsuit. Period.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> "Sorry officer, Strava made me do it, so 40% of the ticket should go to them..." :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> .


Why not 100% of the ticket to Strava? Let's face it, its not like civil negligence/product liability are entirely different areas of law from traffic violations.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> Why not 100% of the ticket to Strava? Let's face it, its not like civil negligence/product liability are entirely different areas of law from traffic violations.



Why don't you tell me since you're such an expert?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> Why don't you tell me since you're such an expert?


Me no expert. In any case, I don't want to escalate things any more than they have.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> Me no expert. In any case, I don't want to escalate things any more than they have.


Exactly. Not an expert, but you seem to be an expert in badmouthing Strava for no good reason.

You keep intimating that Strava will lose in court, but A) they will likely never make it to court and will settle prior to any hearing and B) there's no direct evidence stating that they've encouraged someone to break the law.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> Exactly. Not an expert, but you seem to be an expert in badmouthing Strava for no good reason.
> 
> You keep intimating that Strava will lose in court, but A) they will likely never make it to court and will settle prior to any hearing and B) there's no direct evidence stating that they've encouraged someone to break the law.


Are you an expert?

Never said they would lose. I said they may lose. I agree that the case is more likely to settle, as with virtually all tort cases, most settle. As to the evidence, the information on the juicy sound bite news articles provide no evidence, so we really have no clue what the evidence is.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> Are you an expert?
> 
> Never said they would lose. I said they may lose. I agree that the case is more likely to settle, as with virtually all tort cases, most settle. As to the evidence, the information on the juicy sound bite news articles provide no evidence, so we really have no clue what the evidence is.


I've used Strava enough to know that they don't actively encourage you to break the law, as you so claim.

Perhaps you ought to use it before you try to trash it or impersonate an attorney.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> I've used Strava enough to know that they don't actively encourage you to break the law, as you so claim.
> 
> Perhaps you ought to use it before you try to trash it or impersonate an attorney.


Yikes! Not again. I never said they encourage people to break the law and I am not impersonating an attorney.

So, do you deny that Strava sends emails and the like regarding KOM's? Several people have mentioned they do and/or hand out KOM awards..

PS: I don't use Strava because it is an unsafe product.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> Yikes! Not again. I never said they encourage people to break the law and I am not impersonating an attorney.
> 
> So, do you deny that Strava sends emails and the like regarding KOM's? Several people have mentioned they do.
> 
> PS: I don't use Strava because it is an unsafe product.


I never denied they sent an email informing you that you lost your KOM and to "go get it back." We've been through this. "Go get it back" does not imply "ride through old women and a schoolyard full of toddlers while running red lights and breaking the speed limit" no matter how badly you wish it would.

As for not "using an unsafe product" I hope you don't drive then. Or walk down a city sidewalk. Or ride your road bike on any kind of road. 

Well, you get the idea. Obviously Strava is no more dangerous than anything else.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> I never denied they sent an email informing you that you lost your KOM and to "go get it back." We've been through this. "Go get it back" does not imply "ride through old women and a schoolyard full of toddlers while running red lights and breaking the speed limit" no matter how badly you wish it would.
> 
> As for not "using an unsafe product" I hope you don't drive then. Or walk down a city sidewalk. Or ride your road bike on any kind of road.
> 
> Well, you get the idea. Obviously Strava is no more dangerous than anything else.


Your opinion that Strava's "go get it back" message (and whatever else it does) does not amount to encouragement of dangerous behavior is exactly that, your opinion. As I said before, I don't know how the case would end if it went to a jury. I am simply arguing that the case is not cut and dry and that there may be some exposure for Strava. The cyclist certainly has, at the least, some responsibility. 

My last comment about using Strava was sarcasm.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> Your opinion that Strava's "go get it back" message (and whatever else it does) does not amount to encouragement of dangerous behavior is exactly that, your opinion. As I said before, I don't know how the case would end if it went to a jury. I am simply arguing that the case is not cut and dry and that there may be some exposure for Strava. The cyclist certainly has, at the least, some responsibility.
> 
> My last comment about using Strava was sarcasm.


It may very well be "my opinion" but it's also the "opinion" of common sense users everywhere. If you're a literalist (or an idiot, as evidenced by both the riders we're discussing who have or may blame Strava for their own stupidity) then you're an outlier. Most people have a sense of self preservation and generalized common sense to not do something illegal just for a KOM point.

Then again, the quality of common sense among most people is sorely lacking...

My big question is why you are so adamant in defending the idiocy of these two riders?




And sarcasm usually uses the :thumbsup:.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> It may very well be "my opinion" but it's also the "opinion" of common sense users everywhere. If you're a literalist (or an idiot, as evidenced by both the riders we're discussing who have or may blame Strava for their own stupidity) then you're an outlier. Most people have a sense of self preservation and generalized common sense to not do something illegal just for a KOM point.
> 
> Then again, the quality of common sense among most people is sorely lacking...
> 
> ...


I am not defending the idiocy of the riders. I don't know how the case will end if it goes to the jury and I don't believe the riders bear no responsibility. By the way, neither does the family of the dead cyclist. As with many other lawsuits, things are grey. They are not black and white. We will have to see what happens. 

For the record, my guess is that Strava will win. Without knowing more, I think I would agree with that outcome. I would have to know more about the case. However, I also think Strava should look into stopping recording downhill segments and/or stop awarding KOM's for them. At the least, even if Strava wins, the lawsuit may have accomplished that.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> PS: I don't use Strava because it is an unsafe product.


This thread is unsafe for my computer, it just got a soda bath! That right there is funny!!!:thumbsup::lol:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Tschai said:


> That will be an issue that is decided in the lawsuit. Period.


Does GM encourage people to drive automobiles? Is GM aware that people often die while driving their vehicles? Would anyone ever argue that driving an automobile is a safe endeavor? 

Your claim of Strava's encouragement of engaging in unsafe behavior doesn't clear the bar. If it did, all incentives to accomplish more is less time would be threatened. It is doubtful that any evidence of encouraging illegal behavior will be entered as evidence.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

The issue liability exposure. Whenever you see a label on something and think "why do they need to put a label on for something that obvious", it is probably because there has been a law suit filed over it. The issue is not that anyone is badmouthing Strava, or even they think that Strava is wrong. I certainly don't. But when you send emails such as they do you open a door to potential liability. You cannot say that the only people who would read the email that they lost a KOM and need to "go get it back" are idiots and outliers, and that is Strava's defense. The entire purpose of analyzing and covering potential liabilities is to target the rare outliers.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Imagine an ad for Toyota where they show a dude driving from work and getting home in record time as tracked by the GPS inside the car compared to other similarly equipped cars on the road. Then the screen darkens and his neighbor and coworker Bob is jumping for joy because he beat that record time and has been dubbed by Toyota as the new KOM for that route. The tagline at the end of the ad says "You'd better get out there and show them who’s boss!" 

Public roads are not meant for private speed records regardless of your vehicle.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> Imagine an ad for Toyota where they show a dude driving from work and getting home in record time as tracked by the GPS inside the car compared to other similarly equipped cars on the road. Then the screen darkens and his neighbor and coworker Bob is jumping for joy because he beat that record time and has been dubbed by Toyota as the new KOM for that route. The tagline at the end of the ad says "You'd better get out there and show them who’s boss!"
> 
> Public roads are not meant for private speed records regardless of your vehicle.


Dude, every freaking car ad on tv is about speed/performance and leaving the "competition" in the dust.

What, in your opinion is this ad promoting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfyTO8xLjvQ&sns=em


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

arai_speed said:


> Dude, every freaking car ad on tv is about speed/performance and leaving the "competition" in the dust.
> 
> What, in your opinion is this ad promoting?


It's promoting road handling, there is certainly no "race" going on. I didn't expect you to agree with me. Nor should you be surprised that I disagree with you. There's a big difference between saying "Zoom Zoom" to saying "You'd better get out there and show them who’s boss!" after telling someone that another driver just beat your speed record. One avoids legal responsibility for unreasonable driver behavior, the other invites it.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

SwiftSolo said:


> Does GM encourage people to drive automobiles? Is GM aware that people often die while driving their vehicles? Would anyone ever argue that driving an automobile is a safe endeavor?


My god!!!!! Don't you people read the thread before posting. An automaker's liability is precluded by the legal doctrine of proximate cause.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> Imagine an ad for Toyota where they show a dude driving from work and getting home in record time as tracked by the GPS inside the car compared to other similarly equipped cars on the road. Then the screen darkens and his neighbor and coworker Bob is jumping for joy because he beat that record time and has been dubbed by Toyota as the new KOM for that route. The tagline at the end of the ad says "You'd better get out there and show them who’s boss!"
> 
> Public roads are not meant for private speed records regardless of your vehicle.


Is the intelligence of society now reduced to that of a couple of 10 year olds meeting out at the backstop after lunch to see who's boss?:mad2:

Again, comes down to common sense. "If I run the red light I could be a KOM...I could also be dead." Speaking for myself, I'll take my KOM's how they come, but, I am the Boss of me, and my life is more than an electronic gold cup.

As for the car ad's, I would not sell them short of doing just that.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

YamaDan said:


> Is the intelligence of society now reduced to that of a couple of 10 year olds meeting out at the backstop after lunch to see who's boss?:mad2:


No, Starva is the one that is encouraging people to see who is boss. If two people want to see who is boss, that is one thing. If a company encourages two people to see who is boss, that is an entirely different thing. 




YamaDan said:


> comes down to common sense. "If I run the red light I could be a KOM...I could also be dead." Speaking for myself, I'll take my KOM's how they come, but, I am the Boss of me, and my life is more than an electronic gold cup.


Rewarding people with titles and sending out enticing emails encouraging people to race on roads that are not meant for racing flies in the face of common sense.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> No, Starva is the one that is encouraging people to see who is boss. If two people want to see who is boss, that is one thing. If a company encourages two people to see who is boss, that is an entirely different thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And yet again, there's no mention of "racing" on "roads not meant for racing."


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> No, Starva is the one that is encouraging people to see who is boss. If two people want to see who is boss, that is one thing. If a company encourages two people to see who is boss, that is an entirely different thing.


So, by making this statement, you're saying people can't think for themselves? I'm just asking, cuz the next thing I'm gonna ask is if a company "encouraged" you to jump off a cliff would you?

Gawd I sound like my mother.


----------



## beeristasty (Jan 1, 1970)

YamaDan said:


> So, by making this statement, you're saying people can't think for themselves? I'm just asking, cuz the next thing I'm gonna ask is if a company "encouraged" you to jump off a cliff would you?
> 
> Gawd I sound like my mother.


Free will doesn't exist if Strava is incepting unsafe behavior into our psyches... Through email.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> And yet again, there's no mention of "racing" on "roads not meant for racing."


And yet again, it does not have to explicitly mention "racing" or "roads not meant for racing."


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

YamaDan said:


> So, by making this statement, you're saying people can't think for themselves? I'm just asking, cuz the next thing I'm gonna ask is if a company "encouraged" you to jump off a cliff would you?
> 
> Gawd I sound like my mother.


So, are you saying that it is acceptable for a company to encourage people to jump off a cliff?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> And yet again, it does not have to explicitly mention "racing" or "roads not meant for racing."


In your mind, maybe...

Again, most people have some form of common sense.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> In your mind, maybe...
> 
> Again, most people have some form of common sense.


No, not in my mind. Such explicit language is not a requirement in the law. You are arguing that form prevails over substance.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> So, are you saying that it is acceptable for a company to encourage people to jump off a cliff?


I think both Redbull and GoPro do...:thumbsup:

GoPro HD: Avalanche Cliff Jump with Matthias Giraud - YouTube


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

YamaDan said:


> I think both Redbull and GoPro do...:thumbsup:
> 
> GoPro HD: Avalanche Cliff Jump with Matthias Giraud - YouTube


They will be sued soon enough for one reason or another.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

My point is, and always has been that there needs to be self awareness, and personal accountability. These things are severly lacking these days. Common sense alwas has been lacking, but there so much of the blame game going on these days it's sickening.


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

Disregarding the stupidity of certain individuals or their inclination to engage in behavior that is dangerous to themselves or others, I'm afraid that Strava is going to have a hard time arguing that they have not been complicit in encouraging this behavior. They will have to settle.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

YamaDan said:


> My point is, and always has been that there needs to be self awareness, and personal accountability. These things are severly lacking these days. Common sense alwas has been lacking, but there so much of the blame game going on these days it's sickening.


I am going to respectfully disagree. What has happened is there is a large misconception of how the legal system works. I also believe that blaming the blame game is also a blame game.


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

YamaDan said:


> My point is, and always has been that there needs to be self awareness, and personal accountability. These things are severly lacking these days. Common sense alwas has been lacking, but there so much of the blame game going on these days it's sickening.


How true this is so often. Too much of somebody else's fault and not mine.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

Tschi, I have an excellent knowledge of the legal system and recognize it's good and bad points. I also find your arguments to be flawed just as many of the other members of the board. I guess if you were representing the plaintiff, you would like to have most of us excluded from the jury as many of us feel that common sense (reasonable person standard) does not support your arguments.


----------



## philipw33 (Jan 29, 2012)

Tschai said:


> They will be sued soon enough for one reason or another.


for what reasons would they get sued?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

YamaDan said:


> My point is, and always has been that there needs to be self awareness, and personal accountability. These things are severly lacking these days. Common sense alwas has been lacking, but there so much of the blame game going on these days it's sickening.


Yup. We can clearly see that in all those who want to absolve Strava of all accountability. Luckily the real legal system, as opposed to the fantasy one that seems to exist in many people's minds, is perfectly capable of assigning partial responsibility to multiple parties. This encourages those with something to protect, like deep pockets, to refrain from behavior that has a high probability of getting them sued.


----------



## Oasisbill (Jan 15, 2011)

Tschai said:


> This is the second death related to Strava use that I am aware of. Encouraging people to race downhill at illegal speeds in an attempt to post the best time on Strava is promoting a dangerous activity. We have laws in this country to protect against such actions. Imagine if, instead of bikes, there was a product out there that encouraged drivers to go as fast as possible out on the road. Society would clearly have an issue with that. But, since it is bikes we are talking about, it suddenly is acceptable. Not by my standards. As cyclists we keep fighting for our rights, including the right to be treated the same as a vehicle under the law. Products that encourage vehicles to go as fast as possible, at illegal speeds, are unsafe.
> 
> I am not saying that Strava is fully responsible. However, when you talk about personal responsibility, you must also include Strava's "personal responsibility" in the mix. Just because it is a company, that does not mean it is exempt from taking personal responsibility. In my mind, it is fairly simple. Encouraging people to break the law and go as fast as possible should be punished. The rider may have been as stupid as it gets, but that does not release Strava from its own actions and its own responsibilities.
> 
> ...


Strava's personal responsibility is zero, none. Strava is not a person, so it can't have personal responsibility. As a corporation it has done everything possible to make it clear that it doesn't encourage in any way breaking the law. Stand With Us
How exactly does it "encourage" people to ride downhill as fast as possible? Or race down hills at illegal speeds? If anything they encourage you NOT to do that - to ride safely at all times. All it does is measure how much time it took. The person decides if he is going to try and do it faster each time he rides. Does Strava disengage your brain somehow? Why is the rest of the US paying through litigation for people who won't say "I was seeing how fast I could go down a hill".
I have been bombing down hills since I was 14. I didn't need Strava to encourage me to enjoy the thrill. Now I know how fast I go when I'm doing that, but I could find that out with my cateye, my watch, a stop watch, my iPhone. All of a sudden it's Strava's fault???? Now there is a chance one can get some cash out of a company from their own stupidity, and the realisation that a quick buck can be made is ruining your otherwise fine country. 

BTW, there is a device that encourages you to speed in your car. It's called a "Watch". Go sue Omega.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> Yup. We can clearly see that in all those who want to absolve Strava of all accountability. Luckily the real legal system, as opposed to the fantasy one that seems to exist in many people's minds, is perfectly capable of assigning partial responsibility to multiple parties. This encourages those with something to protect, like deep pockets, to refrain from behavior that has a high probability of getting them sued.


So do you actually believe that the people involved in the accidents were not going to ride in a dangerous manor if Strava hadn't "encouraged" them?
Perhaps you're the one living in a fantasy land ut:


BTW, I don't want to offend you safety nazi's (Godwin's law) too much but I did 40 in a 25 down a canyon road today on my bike and you know what made me to do it?...... FUN!!!!!!

Perhaps someone should sue FUN because that was what really encouraged those riders to do what they did.


----------



## Oasisbill (Jan 15, 2011)

Tschai said:


> So far you have not distinguished why Strava for Cars would be different. You just say it is.
> 
> In any case, Strava for Skateboards and Strava for Razor Scooters are in fact very valid comparisons. These actually underscore more point, perhaps more than the car comparison. I suspect that most skateboard and scooter users are teenagers and the like. Strava for such products would be a very bad idea. Very bad.


Strava for cars would be different because strava measures your physical output - cadence, heart rate, VAM, power output etc.... In all these equations you are the motor. You're downhill speed is almost solely decided by how fast you roll, or how little you brake, where gravity is the motor.

In a car you can almost always exceed the speed limit on ANY road ALL of the time. Strava would be measuring your engines power, RPM, gear changes etc... It STILL wouldn't be liable, as it STILL asks you to not break the law and be responsible.


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

As much as I agree with everyone about this on the personal responsibility side of things, I'm afraid the sad reality is that our legal system too often assigns blame and liability to those other than the mindless public or individual in question. I think Strava's system of KOM awards could and will likely be construed as complicit and encouraging of this behavior. Sad as it is, precedent would seem to indicate this could be the case again. The world has gone mad.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

mrkartoom said:


> The world has gone mad.


Indeed. Very well stated.

For the record, I'm teaching my kids they need to be responsible for their own actions, and not blame others. My son got stuck on/in a bounce house this weekend. He was playing with his friends, one was inside, pulling the roof down, he and a buddy were jumping into a seem onto the roof of it, he got stuck and scared. Was blaming his friend for pushing. I sat him down and asked him how a bounce house works, we talked about how it should be played with, I asked him if he was playing with it the was it was designed. He said no. I asked him if he was playing with it the right way would he have gotten hurt? He said no. I asked him who's fault it really was that he got hurt, he said his. I hope that one day, it catches on.

Some of the arguments on this thread, really don't give me hope for society.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Oasisbill said:


> How exactly does it "encourage" people to ride downhill as fast as possible? Or race down hills at illegal speeds? If anything they encourage you NOT to do that - to ride safely at all times.


I don't understand how you can legitimately believe what you wrote there, are you trying to play devil's advocate or something? I don't get it...



Oasisbill said:


> In a car you can almost always exceed the speed limit on ANY road ALL of the time. Strava would be measuring your engines power, RPM, gear changes etc... It STILL wouldn't be liable, as it STILL asks you to not break the law and be responsible.


So because Strava has in fine print "Do not break the law," they are absolved of any fault regardless of anything else they do?


----------



## FastRich (May 11, 2012)

What do you mean there's no Strava for cars?! How do you think I get all my KOM's? 

I'm not sure where anybody got the misguided idea that Strava is accurate in any sense. I have lots of Strava "trophies" but I don't pay much if any attention to them. Sure I might look at something in my results after a ride when it's an overall and think "sweet" but that's about it.

Who even cares about a downhill KOM?! That's like saying "I'm really awesome at gravity." I'm sure the 350lb dude on the Huffy can develope some serious downhill velocity too! 

This thread has an amazing amount of banter but the bottom line err'body that is an actual cyclist should agree on is the only data that gains respect from other cyclists is your results from climbs. I guess that might be bad for business too if people start dropping from heart attacks brought on by trying to beat an uphill KOM.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

So let's say Strava loses or settles and they abolish downhill KOM "awards" and only offer KOM on uphill segments. A cyclist whishing to push the envelope plows uphill on his way to attemp a KOM and in the process dies of a heart attack (hey it could happen).

Is Strava also fully or partly responsible for the death in the above scenario?

(FastRich, I didnt' realize you had brought up the same point!)


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Herbie said:


> Tschi, I have an excellent knowledge of the legal system and recognize it's good and bad points. I also find your arguments to be flawed just as many of the other members of the board. I guess if you were representing the plaintiff, you would like to have most of us excluded from the jury as many of us feel that common sense (reasonable person standard) does not support your arguments.


That might be an element under a negligence theory of product liability, however, there are other theories of liability when it comes to products.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

philipw33 said:


> for what reasons would they get sued?


I was making a joke. I guess I don't know how to properly use the icon system.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Oasisbill said:


> Strava's personal responsibility is zero, none. Strava is not a person, so it can't have personal responsibility.


I get it. Corporations have no responsibilities. Surely you are joking.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Oasisbill said:


> Strava for cars would be different because strava measures your physical output - cadence, heart rate, VAM, power output etc.... In all these equations you are the motor. You're downhill speed is almost solely decided by how fast you roll, or how little you brake, where gravity is the motor.
> 
> In a car you can almost always exceed the speed limit on ANY road ALL of the time. Strava would be measuring your engines power, RPM, gear changes etc... It STILL wouldn't be liable, as it STILL asks you to not break the law and be responsible.


Why would any of these "different" factors have any legal significance? It is legally irrelevant that one is a "human" motor and the other is not. It is also irrelevant that speed is, as you assert, decided by how fast one rolls. So what. Bikes are vehicles and cars are vehicles. They both use public roads. 

What is relevant is whether Strava encourages dangerous behavior. Whether it measures your heart rate or not is solely a side issue of no legal significance. For example, let's assume that a Starva user only uses the product to achieve downhill KOM's. The same issue remains - did Starva encourage dangerous behavior. All the other measurements and the like are irrelevant.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

*Blame Game*

I find it interesting that all of the personal responsibility police seem to blame the legal system, in part, for the decline of our society. Phrases like the "ruin of our country" and "its a mad world" keep getting spewed out like a fat chick up chucking a pound of rotten meatloaf through her nose. It is a misconception that our legal system is to blame for these things. It seems to me that blaming the legal system, or other societal factors, is the same type of behavior that such people are rallying against.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> I find it interesting that all of the personal responsibility police seem to blame the legal system, in part, for the decline of our society. Phrases like the "ruin of our country" and "its a mad world" keep getting spewed out like a fat chick up chucking a pound of rotten meatloaf through her nose. It is a misconception that our legal system is to blame for these things. It seems to me that blaming the legal system, or other societal factors, is the same type of behavior that such people are rallying against.


I respectfully disagree. Most here have not addressed our legal system, rather the lack of personal responsibility. This is more directed at the people filing the suits. You know, I get that these people are hurting, looking for answers, but suing a database company isn’t going to give you one. You might as well sue his parents for bringing up someone so selfish, so self-centered, so in need of recognition that he would pursue those things over that of his loved ones. Now if he was killed doing something he loved doing and a horrible accident happened that’s one thing, but if he read an email, said "I need to go risk my life to prove the size of my eDick"...well, I think there’s some deep rooted issues that need to be looked into..

Just because someone tells you to do something, doesn’t absolve you of responsibility. You are in control of you. That's a good thing. you need to look out for yourself, and do what is right for you. Just because someone or some company tells you to do something doesn't mean you should. 

I think I'm gonna write a book about this thread, all you guys need to buy it! Have paypal ready!


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Tschai said:


> What is relevant is whether Strava encourages dangerous behavior.


Thus far the only encourament I've seen is the email from Strava telling someone they lost and they should go our there and show them who is boss.

What if you never got that email? What if you are in 3rd place and feel like the KOM is within your grasp and you go out and kill yourself because you decided to run a red light.

What encouragment has Strava provided? Is the tally of GPS times on a particular segment encouragement enough to share blame?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

arai_speed said:


> Thus far the only encourament I've seen is the email from Strava telling someone they lost and they should go our there and show them who is boss.
> 
> What if you never got that email? What if you are in 3rd place and feel like the KOM is within your grasp and you go out and kill yourself because you decided to run a red light.
> 
> What encouragment has Strava provided? Is the tally of GPS times on a particular segment encouragement enough to share blame?


First, I have never said the cyclist bears no responsibility. In fact, the family that has sued has said the same thing.

In terms of what if's, each lawsuit depends on a very specific set of facts. Little nuances often make or break a case. If he never got an email, then the case is probably weaker for plaintiff. Maybe even without merit. One can do what if's all day long. What ultimately will decide the case is the facts specific therein. In terms of the facts of the lawsuit at issue, I am going off of what I have read about the case and some of the posts in this thread. Those facts seem to be that Strava awards the user with a KOM and also sends out an email to the recently dethroned rider stating that he/she should go out there and show them who is boss. In any case, my take on Strava's potential exposure is based on these two things. If these things are different or did not happen, my take could be different.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tschai said:


> First, I have never said the cyclist bears no responsibility. In fact, the family that has sued has said the same thing.
> 
> In terms of what if's, each lawsuit depends on a very specific set of facts. Little nuances often make or break a case. If he never got an email, then the case is probably weaker for plaintiff. Maybe even without merit. One can do what if's all day long. What ultimately will decide the case is the facts specific therein. In terms of the facts of the lawsuit at issue, I am going off of what I have read about the case and some of the posts in this thread. Those facts seem to be that Strava awards the user with a KOM and also sends out an email to the recently dethroned rider stating that he/she should go out there and show them who is boss. In any case, my take on Strava's potential exposure is based on these two things. If these things are different or did not happen, my take could be different.


It says go out and show them who's boss.

Does that mean I should go out and break his kneecaps with a bat? Because you're essentially saying that is what Strava is asking you to do...


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Tschai said:


> The conversation we are having applies to both cases as if lawsuits were filed. That is the whole point of this discussion.





Tschai said:


> One can do what if's all day long. What ultimately will decide the case is the facts specific therein.


Tschai, I'm trying to be as civil as possible. Earlier you accused me of attacking you with my wise-cracks yet you stated that the discussion at hand was about "what if's".

Now you change your tune and say that we are merely talking about the facts presented in the case.

It's really difficult to carry on with a discussion if we keep changing things up.


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

Frivolous Lawsuit of the Year Awards - 1st Prize:

This year’s runaway winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma . Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new Winnebago Motor home. On his trip home from an OU football game, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver’s seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly the RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner’s manual that he could not actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago Motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreational vehicles.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

mrkartoom said:


> Frivolous Lawsuit of the Year Awards - 1st Prize:
> 
> This year’s runaway winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma . Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new Winnebago Motor home. On his trip home from an OU football game, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver’s seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly the RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner’s manual that he could not actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago Motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreational vehicles.


You are aware, I hope, that this supposed lawsuit is bogus. It has been reported as happening in 2000, 2002, 2008, 2009, 2011, and evidently this year as well. Sometimes the driver is a Ms. Grazinski. This same bogus lawsuit won the Stella awards at least twice, different years and different genders of driver. Variations of this story have been passed around for a decade. Sometimes the driver goes back to make a sandwich or take a nap.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

That one's bogus...

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

I remember my dad telling me that story, so, back in the late seventies?


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Did you hear about the one where the guy picked up a good looking girl and woke up in the bathtub of a hotel room without a kidney?


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

trailrunner68 said:


> You are aware, I hope, that this supposed lawsuit is bogus. It has been reported as happening in 2000, 2002, 2008, 2009, 2011, and evidently this year as well. Sometimes the driver is a Ms. Grazinski. This same bogus lawsuit won the Stella awards at least twice, different years and different genders of driver. Variations of this story have been passed around for a decade. Sometimes the driver goes back to make a sandwich or take a nap.


No it was more for levity than anything else. However, the fact that these kind of awards go around constantly tells us something about the perception we have of our legal system.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

You would still want us excluded, because many of us do not want to buy into your theory. By the way just what other theories do you see applying? The only theory you have made arguments for sounds like negligence to me.

Strict Liability? This does not fall into the category of in inherently dangerous product such as dynamite. Product liability still gets into issues of reasonableness. Attornies can come up with some pretty interesting theories, but this one escapes me. 

To be honest with the actual suit in question, my opinion is that it will settle for a nuisance value, as I see the risk of a defendent's verdict in any substantial amount as very unlikely. 

I see a better case for the pedestrian who is run over. Not quite convinced that Strava really should be responcible, but I do recognize the issue of deep pockets.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

arai_speed said:


> Tschai, I'm trying to be as civil as possible. Earlier you accused me of attacking you with my wise-cracks yet you stated that the discussion at hand was about "what if's".
> 
> Now you change your tune and say that we are merely talking about the facts presented in the case.
> 
> It's really difficult to carry on with a discussion if we keep changing things up.


Now I am confused because I don't believe I have changed anything. 

Both events are worthy of discussion. Both events seem to have some similar facts. A discussion of those facts is relevant. As to "what if's", I suppose they are worthy of discussion, but some of the "what if's" are coming from right field. They can go on forever without having any relevance to the events that are real.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

trailrunner68 said:


> You are aware, I hope, that this supposed lawsuit is bogus. It has been reported as happening in 2000, 2002, 2008, 2009, 2011, and evidently this year as well. Sometimes the driver is a Ms. Grazinski. This same bogus lawsuit won the Stella awards at least twice, different years and different genders of driver. Variations of this story have been passed around for a decade. Sometimes the driver goes back to make a sandwich or take a nap.


Praise the lord!!!!


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> Praise the lord!!!!


Let's not get religion involved in this thread. 


:thumbsup:


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Herbie said:


> You would still want us excluded, because many of us do not want to buy into your theory. By the way just what other theories do you see applying? The only theory you have made arguments for sounds like negligence to me.
> 
> Strict Liability? This does not fall into the category of in inherently dangerous product such as dynamite. Product liability still gets into issues of reasonableness. Attornies can come up with some pretty interesting theories, but this one escapes me.
> 
> ...


We will see. As I said before, this case seems to be one of first impression. I am sure plaintiff's attorney has some ideas about where to take the case. I agree that the case is most likely to settle and chances are we will never know if it was for nuisance value or not. 

As to the pedestrian case, if there is a lawsuit, I agree with you. It may not be all that legally distinguishable from the other case, but if it does go to a jury or Strava believes it is likely to go to a jury, Strava's risk of loss is much greater. An innocent elderly pedestrian is dead.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

Tschai said:


> What is relevant is whether Strava encourages dangerous behavior.


No that is not relevant at all. For example, if a kid in a fast sports car pulls up alongside an undercover cop, the cop revs his engine, and the kid in the sports car decides to race, the kid gets booked for street racing, not the cop for encouraging it.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

nhluhr said:


> No that is not relevant at all. For example, if a kid in a fast sports car pulls up alongside an undercover cop, the cop revs his engine, and the kid in the sports car decides to race, the kid gets booked for street racing, not the cop for encouraging it.


Thanks for your hypothetical.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

The Explainer: Whose risk is it anyway? : Red Kite Prayer


Interesting read on the issue.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

Tschai said:


> Thanks for your hypothetical.


Your flippant dismissal doesn't make you any less wrong.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> The Explainer: Whose risk is it anyway? : Red Kite Prayer
> 
> 
> Interesting read on the issue.


Indeed.

So the issue is the goading email correct?

One of the comments of the article brings up a interesting point. Receiving email notifications from Strava is an Opt-in exercise...

He asked to be notified.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

nhluhr said:


> Your flippant dismissal doesn't make you any less wrong.


You'll get used to it, it's very common on these forums, don't take it personally. :thumbsup:


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

Tschai said:


> The Explainer: Whose risk is it anyway? : Red Kite Prayer
> 
> 
> Interesting read on the issue.


This is pretty much exactly what I have been saying this whole time. Closed minded people can choose to disregard the issue with with flippant comments, but at the end of the day there is at the very least room for the issue to take legs. I am not saying who would win or lose in any specific instance, but there is an issue that Strava has walked into by the way they handle this. Holding what amounts to races, and encouraging people to go claim titles with no regard to the potential consequences is opening the door to potential liability.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

YamaDan said:


> Indeed.
> 
> So the issue is the goading email correct?
> 
> ...


That is an interesting point, and a good argument to be had by Strava. But I don't necessarily think that is going to protect Strava. In all of these kinds of activities, be it a real race or an online databank, all the participants are opting in. No one is forcing people to use them. I also think that if there is an instance in the future where a third party is injured/killed and sues... that argument goes out the window. Strava is helping to set into motion actions which can result in participants or worse yet innocent 3rd parties being injured or killed. While people should know to be safe first, then try to get the record second... people are not always smart. This opens a door to potential liability issues.


----------



## FastRich (May 11, 2012)




----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

FastRich said:


>


So last week... post 92


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

On a related note, yesterday I lost one of my MOK (a downhill KOM) and I got no email nor any form of notification from Strava asking me to go out and show people who's boss.

I guess they have changed their tune.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

arai_speed said:


> On a related note, yesterday I lost one of my MOK (a downhill KOM) and I got no email nor any form of notification from Strava asking me to go out and show people who's boss.
> 
> I guess they have changed their tune.


Dude! You just got waxxed by some punk ass that can barley walk in a straight line. He was texting his mommy as he kicked your slow lazy ass down the hill. If you have any self worth or value your sliver of manhood you might have left in that spineless shell of what once was, you'd go out right now, thats right, right now, leave your job, kids at the store, what ever you're doing is not as important as reclaiming your manhood that was ripped from you with apparent ease by this namby pamby that has permanatley owned you..until you show him who's boss!. Now get out there and break some laws!

Your friends at Strava.

You mean this email?


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

YamaDan said:


> Dude! You just got waxxed by some punk ass that can barley walk in a straight line. He was texting his mommy as he kicked your slow lazy ass down the hill. If you have any self worth or value your sliver of manhood you might have left in that spineless shell of what once was, you'd go out right now, thats right, right now, leave your job, kids at the store, what ever you're doing is not as important as reclaiming your manhood that was ripped from you with apparent ease by this namby pamby that has permanatley owned you..until you show him who's boss!. Now get out there and break some laws!
> 
> Your friends at Strava.
> 
> You mean this email?


That's the one! But I think they modified it because the original email said to also break some kneecaps with an old bat.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

arai_speed said:


> That's the one! But I think they modified it because the original email said to also break some kneecaps with an old bat.


That's right!! :idea:


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

I don't see that email as encouraging anything.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

My first reaction to the Strava suit was "rider's fault, Strava has no liability, he was an idiot for putting a Strava KOM above his own well-being". 

I'm KOM on a couple segments and have received the "get out there and show them who's boss" emails. They definitely get the juices flowing! Nonetheless, I continued to believe Strava has no liability.

My perspective is changing, though. I'm close to KOM on a couple segments. One of the "close" segments is on an urban trail called Highline Canal that runs through the Denver area. The segment crosses several suburban roads and there are small (approx 1' in diameter) "Stop" signs. I typically slow way down in order to ensure I'm not going to get hit. Which reinforced my "it was his fault" persepective.

But that changed last night. Now that the time change puts my 6pm training rides in darkness, I've found that when I approached those roads, I felt more confident that I could blow through them because I didn't see any headlights. No headlights = no cars, right? And no stopping means a shorter Strava time.

Thus, my quest for KOM did, in fact, cause me to take more risks last night. Hmmm . . .


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

multirider said:


> Thus, my quest for KOM did, in fact, cause me to take more risks last night. Hmmm . . .


That's still not Strava's fault. That is YOUR OWN FAULT.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

Of course, a significant question is "would more legal gobbledy **** on the Strava usage agreement have changed my actions?" 

I'm not a lawyer and am not sure how relevant that is to the case, but just typing the prefvious message is helping return my mindset to "be smart, be safe, a Strava KOM isn't worth a crash or injuries to myself or others". I primarily compete on hill climb segments. Of course, a key reason for that is I'm a climber and do not do well on or enjoy high speed descents.

The case is a bit more complex than my initial dismissal of it as having no merit.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

nhluhr said:


> Your flippant dismissal doesn't make you any less wrong.


Whatever you say. You win.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

multirider said:


> ... return my mindset to "be smart, be safe, a Strava KOM isn't worth a crash or injuries to myself or others".


Becareful... please. You can get plenty of rides in without killing yourself at night busting a stop.. It's just not worth it. 

There's a short little decent by me, called "Inital drop in" the current KOM, has an unobtainable time..16 seconds.. I think I'm at 25.. I could drop maybe 2 more seconds..but, if you look at his KOM, it's a straight line, it's through bushes, trees and a fence. It's also at 60mph...in the dirt. I'm gonna call that a glitch. 2nd place is a second faster than me, but he too has a straight line.. Mine follows the trail.. Now, I care, but not enought to email Strava and complain.. Let alone getting myself or someone else hurt over something I'll never reach. So, if there's hikers, other riders, I check up, ALWAYS. It's not worth getting hurt over guys.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Tschai said:


> Whatever you say. You win.


That's not the spirt of this thread. This guy has Taken your KOTT!! Get back on that horse, post a witty retort to put him in his place! This threads not big enough for the two of you!! 

Your friends at Strava



_This post was strictally for entertainment purposes only and in no way ment to provoke anything other that perhaps a chuckle out of the indivudules reading this post. It was ment to be in good humor and fun..ha ha it is to laugh._


----------



## BikesOfALesserGod (Jul 22, 2012)

So Strava might not be right, but the dumbazz is still dead proving without doubt that he was wrong.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

YamaDan said:


> That's not the spirt of this thread. This guy has Taken your KOTT!! Get back on that horse, post a witty retort to put him in his place! This threads not big enough for the two of you!!
> 
> Your friends at Strava
> 
> ...


If his comments amount to the KOTT, he can have it. His issues have been asked and answered about 20 times on this thread. 

Signed, your friendly neighborhood ambulance chaser.


----------



## peter_b (May 8, 2012)

Obviously Strava is in the wrong here. They clearly make people go and do things they would not otherwise do. Without Strava's negative influence, no one would ever make a bad choice on a bike. In much the same way that the car manufacturers are directly responsible for drivers breaking the speed limit due to making cars capable of such acts. And, let's not forget the kitchen knife manufacturers who are responsible for any murders/crimes that are committed with knives as obviously they should be able to control how the knives are used. And the banks who are obviously solely responsible for people borrowing more money than they can ever afford to pay back on loans. I could go on and on with supporting examples of why Strava is clearly at fault.

We are so lucky to live in a time where there is no concept of personal responsibility. Regardless of our actions, there will always be someone to blame for not preventing us from being a senseless tool. It's a real surprise that the new generation of children are growing up to be such selfless caring people who always think of others first given this - I guess we can just blame God because it certainly wouldn't be the fault of parents if the children don't turn out right.

Ultimately, isn't Al Gore more to blame than Strava given that he invented the internet? He should be added to the lawsuit for sure.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

peter_b said:


> Obviously Strava is in the wrong here. They clearly make people go and do things they would not otherwise do. Without Strava's negative influence, no one would ever make a bad choice on a bike. In much the same way that the car manufacturers are directly responsible for drivers breaking the speed limit due to making cars capable of such acts. And, let's not forget the kitchen knife manufacturers who are responsible for any murders/crimes that are committed with knives as obviously they should be able to control how the knives are used. And the banks who are obviously solely responsible for people borrowing more money than they can ever afford to pay back on loans. I could go on and on with supporting examples of why Strava is clearly at fault.
> 
> We are so lucky to live in a time where there is no concept of personal responsibility. Regardless of our actions, there will always be someone to blame for not preventing us from being a senseless tool. It's a real surprise that the new generation of children are growing up to be such selfless caring people who always think of others first given this - I guess we can just blame God because it certainly wouldn't be the fault of parents if the children don't turn out right.
> 
> Ultimately, isn't Al Gore more to blame than Strava given that he invented the internet? He should be added to the lawsuit for sure.


Take some personal responsibility and read this entire thread. You will discover that all of your examples regarding bikes, cars, knives, banks and on and on have been debunked numerous times over.


----------



## peter_b (May 8, 2012)

Tschai said:


> Take some personal responsibility and read this entire thread. You will discover that all of your examples regarding bikes, cars, knives, banks and on and on have been debunked numerous times over.


Touche!  I certainly have read through the entire thread, but respectfully disagree that my examples have been debunked.

That said, I do apologize for reusing examples - they were meant simply to highlight what I feel is an appalling willfulness by all too many people in the world today to blame on others the actions of an individual.

We are free willed, sentient creatures. We choose to do what we do. I don't know of a single case where Strava has *forced* someone to do something that they would not have otherwise done. 

I recognize that not everyone will agree with me on this, but felt compelled to express my opinion regardless.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> Take some personal responsibility and read this entire thread. You will discover that all of your examples regarding bikes, cars, knives, banks and on and on have been debunked numerous times over.



You mean debunked by your continued expertise?....



Tschai said:


> Me no expert. .




Regardless of whether or not there is legal argument for the above scenarios, you continue to miss the point that such examples are being brought up to show the absurdity of blaming Strava. There may be legal protections for those examples but the blame game is the same.


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

As exaggerated as his examples were, the scary part is that he is not far from the truth. We live in an age of far greater scrutiny and we have created a legal system that arguably encourages those preferring to defer personal responsibility do so. It's a system that feeds off itself and the results don't always reflect the most basic of common sense. It is what it is and too bad for Strava. Don't need to read the whole thread to figure that out.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Tschai said:


> Take some personal responsibility...


He doesn't have to, he can just sue someone.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

mrkartoom said:


> As exaggerated as his examples were, the scary part is that he is not far from the truth. We live in an age of far greater scrutiny and we have created a legal system that arguably encourages those preferring to defer personal responsibility do so. It's a system that feeds off itself and the results don't always reflect the most basic of common sense. It is what it is and too bad for Strava. Don't need to read the whole thread to figure that out.


This is an absolute misconception. The statistics show that the vast majority of lawsuits are not frivolous. They also show that the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits are thrown out. Indeed, many scholars have argued that the anti-frivolous lawsuit propaganda has actually resulted in more frivolous lawsuits. For example, in this thread the motor home cruise control case has been debunked. I wonder how many people read the propaganda and just assumed it was the truth. Maybe they themselves jumped on the band wagon and filed a lawsuit. Everyone is yapping about the system, but our society long ago decided that monetary damages are the remedy for wrongful acts. Perhaps if we had universal health care, many of the so called frivolous lawsuits would not be filed. We gripe about our legal system, but it works in the vast majority of cases.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> You mean debunked by your continued expertise?....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is not the same.There are significant legal distinctions between the Strava cases and the other examples. I have said many times that lawsuits are decided on very specific sets of facts. The other scenarios do not involve awarding KOM's and do not involve "encouraging" emails sent to users. As to the other examples, I agree that they are mostly absurd. It is not just legal protections that distinguish these examples, it is entirely differnt sets of facts. These sets of facts WILL be at the heart of the Strava lawsuit. As to my expertise, I suspect I have more than most posters on this thread, despite the fact that I don't practice personal injury law all that much.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

Tschai said:


> Take some personal responsibility and read this entire thread. You will discover that all of your examples regarding bikes, cars, knives, banks and on and on have been debunked numerous times over.


No, debunked would imply they were invalidated. None of these comparisons have been debunked in any way whatsoever.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

I'm not sure I was clear on my point. The "Explainer" link shows that this is more complex than it might seem with just a cursory glance. The case can be made that Strava has taken the role of a virtual race promoter. As such, they would be held to the standards of a race promoter which means they have responsiblity to alert participants to the dangers in a meaningful way. They incent participants to think "every second counts!" which alters behavior. 

I still think Strava is not at fault for a guy getting killed while dramatically exceeding the speed limit on city streets. My own experience of "every second counts" led me to be a bit more sympathetic to the position of the plaintiffs. I think Strava would do well to put a little more empahsis on rational, safe behavior with reminders to ride within the rules, within your limits, and with caution.

I would be in favor of Strava disabling current and not allowing new downhill segments. The risks when racing uphill are dramatically lower and accidents are easier to avoid.


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

How delusional and entitled does one have to be to think they are not responsible for how they ride their own bike? My god, what a joke. Good on Strava.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

nhluhr said:


> No, debunked would imply they were invalidated. None of these comparisons have been debunked in any way whatsoever.


You are right again. What law firm do you work at?


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

Tschai said:


> This is an absolute misconception. The statistics show that the vast majority of lawsuits are not frivolous. They also show that the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits are thrown out. Indeed, many scholars have argued that the anti-frivolous lawsuit propaganda has actually resulted in more frivolous lawsuits. For example, in this thread the motor home cruise control case has been debunked. I wonder how many people read the propaganda and just assumed it was the truth. Maybe they themselves jumped on the band wagon and filed a lawsuit. Everyone is yapping about the system, but our society long ago decided that monetary damages are the remedy for wrongful acts. Perhaps if we had universal health care, many of the so called frivolous lawsuits would not be filed. We gripe about our legal system, but it works in the vast majority of cases.


It may true about the statistics, which is all well and good, but that's not really my point. I tend to agree with those that argue that our society is trending more to 'blame someone else for my negligence or stupidity" or "I wouldn't have done that if they didin't do this blah blah blah ". There are countless idiotic claims made that are indeed entertained by our legal system. Thrown out or court or not that fact alone speaks to the mindset of today. I see it other aspects of life, such as every time my kid gets a bad grade on their homework or a test. It's always the stupid teacher's fault, they don't teach it right, etc. etc. I guess I'm just old enough to see and recognize the changes from earlier generations. Or maybe I just suck as a parent.


----------



## mrkartoom (Oct 25, 2012)

Tschai said:


> It is not the same.There are significant legal distinctions between the Strava cases and the other examples. I have said many times that lawsuits are decided on very specific sets of facts. The other scenarios do not involve awarding KOM's and do not involve "encouraging" emails sent to users.


Separating the recklessness of the victim from the circumstances in the case this is probably right on the money. Certainly unintentionally Strava has served to encourage this dangerous activity with their promotion and that has resulted in a fatality. Yeas the guy is 99% to blame, but all it probably takes is that 1%.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> It is not the same.There are significant legal distinctions between the Strava cases and the other examples. I have said many times that lawsuits are decided on very specific sets of facts. The other scenarios do not involve awarding KOM's and do not involve "encouraging" emails sent to users. As to the other examples, I agree that they are mostly absurd. It is not just legal protections that distinguish these examples, it is entirely differnt sets of facts. These sets of facts WILL be at the heart of the Strava lawsuit. As to my expertise, I suspect I have more than most posters on this thread, despite the fact that I don't practice personal injury law all that much.



What part of "Regardless of whether or not there is legal argument" do you not understand? :mad2:

I promise you that driving a really fast car encourages you to drive fast and break the law even more than Strava could ever do and it's a whole lot easier too, but it takes the same kind of common sense and self control to stay out of trouble

And that is the point with all the other examples too, using the product properly takes common sense, if you don't, then it is your fault. The law has nothing to do with the point people are making. 




Tschai said:


> This is an absolute misconception. The statistics show that the vast majority of lawsuits are not frivolous. They also show that the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits are thrown out. Indeed, many scholars have argued that the anti-frivolous lawsuit propaganda has actually resulted in more frivolous lawsuits. For example, in this thread the motor home cruise control case has been debunked. I wonder how many people read the propaganda and just assumed it was the truth. Maybe they themselves jumped on the band wagon and filed a lawsuit. Everyone is yapping about the system, but our society long ago decided that monetary damages are the remedy for wrongful acts. Perhaps if we had universal health care, many of the so called frivolous lawsuits would not be filed. We gripe about our legal system, but it works in the vast majority of cases.



So how about instead of continually being condescending to the rest of us you post up some evidence? 


And don't forget the lawyer who sued for $65mil because the dry cleaners lost his pants Pearson vs Custom Cleaners




Even if it is true that most frivolous cases get thrown out, it is still time, money and aggravation to the defendant 


That said, I think you are taking the word "frivolous" too literally, these kinds of liability suits happen all the time and it is the reason we need insurance to protect ourselves from such things and it is why America is known as the land of the lawsuit.

It's the job of the lawyers to find ways to make legal arguments and it doesn't take a genius to see that the lawyers are stretching it to say that Strava is acting as a race promoter and is responsible to make sure the courses are safe. You know damn well that there is a huge difference between what a real race promoter/organizer does and what Strava is doing.


From the article you posted:


> Back in the ‘80s, my buddies and I had a bunch of pre-set courses all around our little town of Laramie, Wyoming. We pretty much knew who held the record on “The Summit,” the original five- and 10-mile “Dead Dog” time trial courses, “The Big Hollow,” or the 20km climb up the Snowies, be it via Highway 130, or that beautiful – but often-closed – route up Barber Lake road. All of that provided motivation. If Danny or Bob or Rex knocked off “The Summit” in under 15, I sure as heck was going to do my best to nail it in 14:45 … or better.


By the definition being pushed by the lawyers the author was a race promoter too. And so would the person who tagged the segment on Strava, they're the ones who actually laid out the course.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MoPho said:


> What part of "Regardless of whether or not there is legal argument" do you not understand? :mad2:
> 
> I promise you that driving a really fast car encourages you to drive fast and break the law even more than Strava could ever do and it's a whole lot easier too, but it takes the same kind of common sense and self control to stay out of trouble
> 
> ...


This is about lawsuits, but even if we take that out of it, there is still a difference between getting KOM's and encouraging emails versus the other examples. Everyone keeps trying to cite to all of these what if's, but they are simply not relevant, legal argument or no legal argument. The facts are very different. That is, putting aside all legal argument and all issues of liability, it may not be the best thing for society to have a company produce a product that awards downhill KOM's and sends out encouraging emails. This may be a recipe for disaster. We already have two deaths. One death of an innocent victim. You keep mentioning the car example. The best car analogy is not a car company making a fast car, it is, again, Strava for Cars. Do you believe that Strava for Cars is acceptable within out society? I don't. 

Moreover, society has decided that there is a big difference between a company that provides a product that promotes dangerous behavior and an individual that promotes dangerous behavior. These two are simply not viewed the same within our society.

http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2006/09/the_myth_of_the_frivolous_laws.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_19150_6-famous-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-that-are-total-b.s._p2.html
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/5458.htm
http://www.yalemedlaw.com/2011/12/f...ion-frivolous-lawsuit-crisis-ended-years-ago/


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

I just got back from pre riding a race course, you guys want to see my Strava times on it?


----------



## philipw33 (Jan 29, 2012)

i just read recently in a magazine a DO's and DON'Ts. under the Don'ts it said "Don't yell Strava while bombing down a hill and expect people to move out of the way"

maybe this should be in the DO column


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

philipw33 said:


> i just read recently in a magazine a DO's and DON'Ts. under the Don'ts it said "Don't yell Strava while bombing down a hill and expect people to move out of the way"
> 
> maybe this should be in the DO column


LOL!! But I now must sue you because I snarfed soda all over my computer, clearly your fault because you did not prepare me for a funny comment in this thread!


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Tschai said:


> This is about lawsuits,



This is not just about lawsuits, from the very beginning the discussion has also been about taking personal responsibility for ones actions and not trying to find others to blame.
Again you continue to take the talk of "frivolous" too literally, whether a lawsuit has legal merit is irrelevant to the rest of us who feel that this is a case for taking personal responsibility. Even if Strava has some sort of legal liability in the court, it's just wrong to try and shift the blame for this, to many of us, this is "frivolous" even if you (or the courts) think it should move forward. 
Strava didn't make anyone do anything they weren't going to do anyway, PERIOD! 

The family are fools if they think that suing Strava is going to somehow make people safer, the only thing it will change is cyclists won't have a cool website to go to after they bomb down a hill as fast as they can. Good job! :thumbsup:


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Apparently they have now stopped sending out the emails..

Funny thing is that there are now a couple that will send them out for you. Google "Strava KOM Notifier Service" for the list.

Also found this..

New Strava algorithms announced « Cycling in the South Bay


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

YamaDan said:


> Apparently they have now stopped sending out the emails..
> 
> Funny thing is that there are now a couple that will send them out for you. Google "Strava KOM Notifier Service" for the list.
> 
> ...


I just got an email that one of my koms was stolen,so they're still sending them out.

The algorithm announcement was funny.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Jwiffle said:


> I just got an email that one of my koms was stolen,so they're still sending them out.
> 
> The algorithm announcement was funny.


Interesting...was it for a climb or a dh segment? 

This was posted a day ago on another forum, there will be no more KOM notification emails for Gravity fed KOM's..

That followed with a foray of opt in email notification sites. :thumbsup:


----------



## freighttraininguphill (Jun 7, 2011)

When I first joined Strava, I checked the box to be notified when someone takes a KOM/QOM from me. I unchecked it after getting the same emails twice nagging me about losing QOMs on a couple hills in Nevada City that I climbed on my 33 lb rigid Rockhopper with 26x1.95 65 psi Specialized Hemispheres, rack, kickstand, and rack trunk. I was also the only woman who rode those climbs, and I only go up there once a year to watch the Nevada City Classic criterium, so that's when I climb up there.

I don't know about you, but I couldn't care less about losing a "QOM" on a road that nobody else has ridden, especially when I did the ride on something other than a road bike. I also don't race, so that email is useless to me for any kind of training motivation.


----------



## KonaMan (Sep 22, 2004)

Since Strava sets these up as a KOM challenge (yes, I'm aware they don't actually set the segments), then why are people putting the KOM on _*downhill*_ sections?

KOM should be for who can climb the best.

TT challenges should be for longer routes.

Downhill, well, you're just stupid if you're going to race dangerous sections and push the speed.

Strava shouldn't be at fault.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

freighttraininguphill said:


> When I first joined Strava, I checked the box to be notified when someone takes a KOM/QOM from me. I unchecked it after getting the same emails twice nagging me about losing QOMs on a couple hills in Nevada City that I climbed on my 33 lb rigid Rockhopper with 26x1.95 65 psi Specialized Hemispheres, rack, kickstand, and rack trunk. I was also the only woman who rode those climbs, and I only go up there once a year to watch the Nevada City Classic criterium, so that's when I climb up there.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I couldn't care less about losing a "QOM" on a road that nobody else has ridden, especially when I did the ride on something other than a road bike. I also don't race, so that email is useless to me for any kind of training motivation.


Are you expecting Strava to know what tires you're running, whether your bike has a kickstand, etc? or how hard you're trying? or which segments matter the most to you?

If it knew all those things, I think it would be kinda creepy! Ultimate "Big Brother"!


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

multirider said:


> Are you expecting Strava to know what tires you're running, whether your bike has a kickstand, etc? or how hard you're trying? or which segments matter the most to you?
> 
> If it knew all those things, I think it would be kinda creepy! Ultimate "Big Brother"!


I think her point was that it's a meaningless KOM/QOM.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

YamaDan said:


> I think her point was that it's a meaningless KOM/QOM.


As opposed to a really important internet-designated KOM/QOM?


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

ratherBclimbing said:


> As opposed to a really important internet-designated KOM/QOM?


In almost every cycling community, there are 'known' climbs that riders test themselves and each other on. Those are cool to have on Strava because it's an informal record board.

Then there are the nothing-segments that somebody either creates manually or those that get auto-parsed by Strava... Those kind of suck.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

nhluhr said:


> In almost every cycling community, there are 'known' climbs that riders test themselves and each other on. Those are cool to have on Strava because it's an informal record board.
> 
> Then there are the nothing-segments that somebody either creates manually or those that get auto-parsed by Strava... Those kind of suck.


Got it.

Known climbs = cool
Stuff just me and my buddies do for fun = not cool


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

ratherBclimbing said:


> Got it.
> 
> Known climbs = cool
> Stuff just me and my buddies do for fun = not cool


:mad2: This thread just gives me a headach.


Rides and segment are fine, the rides that no one else does, ie a sprint on some back lot so that they can have a KOM is lame.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

YamaDan said:


> I think her point was that it's a meaningless KOM/QOM.


Thanks. I understood that. My point was that Strava cannot tell which KOM/QOM a user cares about and which ones they don't. It is unreasonable to expect Strava to only send emails for those you care about. She didn't say that is what she expected and I'm not saying she said that, but KOM/QOM notifications are all-or-nothing. 

I'm pretty sure even if a user set up different bikes and diligently edited every ride to indicate "Commuter Bike With Fenders" vs "Uber Light Race Bike", Strava would still send a notification if the user's time was faster than anyone else on a segment and send a subsequent message if someone else beat that time in the future. 

Bottom line, complaining about getting KOM/QOM emails after clicking the box indicating they are desired seems strange to me regardless what bike, what hill, climatological conditions, full moon, or anything else.

Hmmm -- I wonder if I'd be faster if there is a full moon!! Gravity would be ever so slightly less. Might save a second or two on a really long climb!


----------



## freighttraininguphill (Jun 7, 2011)

multirider said:


> Are you expecting Strava to know what tires you're running, whether your bike has a kickstand, etc? or how hard you're trying? or which segments matter the most to you?
> 
> If it knew all those things, I think it would be kinda creepy! Ultimate "Big Brother"!


Not at all. I just don't see the value in being notified that I lost a QOM on a climb I hardly ever ride, especially when I used a heavy mountain bike to do it. It is not realistic for me to think I can climb as fast as a road cyclist on a full carbon bike when I'm riding a tank. That's why I turned off the email notifications for losing a KOM/QOM.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

YamaDan said:


> :mad2: This thread just gives me a headach.
> 
> 
> Rides and segment are fine, the rides that no one else does, ie a sprint on some back lot so that they can have a KOM is lame.


I put in two 'segments' (courses on MMR) on my daily commute route so that I could track my timing. I got a notification when I got home last night that not only did get my own personal best time on one of the segments, but it was the fastest time of all 18 other people that unknowingly 'raced' the segment. Take that *****es! King of the friggen MUT! Woot!


----------

