Wired.com article on Strava lawsuit

Very tragic that the cyclist died.  However, I don't see how this could be a reason for a lawsuit.  As for personal responsibility, I see less and less of that everyday.

Not only that, but they *do* allow users to flag dangerous sections.  When that happens, none of the rankings show up on the page... ex:

http://app.strava.com/rides/10535695#184839504

Maybe the segment in this guy's incident wasn't flagged, but that's up to users, including the guy whose family is suing.  Strava employees can't be everywhere and there's no way to know if a segment is dangerous unless you actually ride it.

Totally frivolous lawsuit by the family.  Sad story, but it's the dude's own fault plain and simple.  It's not up to Strava to monitor potentially dangerous segments.  It's up to us humans to use our common sense.

That said I nailed two KOMs this weekend, and am pretty darn proud of it.  The guy I beat out already sent me a message saying my KOM wouldn't last long, and then invited me to join a group ride he does.

I love Strava.

Or even giving him the benefit of the doubt, just really bad luck.

Flint was speeding, crashed and ended up dying from his injuries.  If he was trying to beat a Strava record or get his record back it is still on him, he made the decision to get on his bike that day.

I know I have been caught up in the feeling of going fast and I have done things on the bike that increased my odds of injury or death but it was my decision to do so. 

I feel bad for Flint and his family, but this one is on him!

"Flint was speeding, crashed and ended up dying from his injuries.  If he was trying to beat a Strava record or get his record back it is still on him, he made the decision to get on his bike that day."

While those may be the facts of the matter litigation doesn't usually work as cut and dried. The plaintiffs will go to Strava with a dollar figure. Attorneys will negotiate a percentage of responsibility for both parties then likely assign a settlement figure based on that percentage. It may never actually litigate. A lot of it depends on Strava's insurance underwriter and the size of their policy.

I agree with two points in this thread:

1. The loss of the cyclist is tragic and unnecessary. I feel for his friends and family.

2. The dimished level of personal responsibility and increase in litigation is also tragic.

Strange times.

Legally, the argument is that Strava has an automated message that goes out that says something along the lines of "You're almost there - go a little faster!" or what not (I don't use Strava so I don't know how that message works).  Because they send out that message - Strava assumes some (not all, but some) of the liability for fielding a product that encourages people to go faster than they should without regard to certain dangerous sections.

Another argument, that I saw, is that Strava has no limits for how fast a section is.  There is a "top safe speed" (whatever that is defined as) that a human can pedal a bicycle at.  However, if someone goes that speed - Strava will still send out that "encouragement message."

Now, common sense dictates that you don't bomb a hill going 40 mph just to get your name on a worthless leaderboard.  However, LEGALLY, Strava assumes some liability if it encourages this behavior and doesn't do things to protect people who engage in it.

Now, the counter argument is that Strava disallows the use of downhill segments on their leaderboards and cannot be realistically expected to eliminate every possible downhill segment out there.  Bombing hills on Strava goes against the intent and the spirit of the program and would be classified as "misuse."

*shrugs*  It's interesting to say the least.