Family sues Strava for causing cyclist's death

I use Strava now and again to see how i am improving (or not) on a specific route but it doesn't mean that i go balls out every time to become 'Number 1'. It is unfortunate what has happened and no doubt it will happen again because some people always want to push the boundaries.

By the way, Strava have just updated their T&C's

Just remember, use your head to think, not to stop.....

Yeah, just got the updated Terms, this part is particularly relevant:

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.

its crazy that Strava should even be worried - dont you just wish a judge would throw the case out on day one and get the claimant to pay all costs - stupidity and vindictiveness by the family - I read elsewhere that it was the wife who bought him the garmin for a present? then she is implicated too!

What absolute sheee-iiiite. Shameful.

I hope common sense prevails in all of this and personal responsibility, and that those of us who use Strava don't let it interfere with cycling sensibly or the fun of cycling.

In my own experience Strava became a bit of a bossy parrot on my shoulder. I learnt that it needed a cage! Sometimes I just want to go and ride simply for 'feel' and at those times when I choose to let it out and it measures me up I am no less a person for losing a KOM or not gaining one.

I wonder if Strava will change its messages/messaging as a result of this?

If you know a segment to be dangerous (goes through traffic lights, major junctions etc) then I suggest reporting them. It's a bit alarming when folk are saying they give it a go and hope to get through lights, even if they do yield to them. A minority are bound to chance it even if you don't. I know you're not responsible for them but let's all try and keep each other alive, eh? There will still be plenty of other segments around.

Re following each other, RoadCC could create a "club" on it and people could join...

I'm pretty sure the email that so and so has taken your KOM is a new thing as I've only been getting them for a few months. Yet 1 or 2 of my KOMs were taken without Strava informing me. So maybe not part of the service 2 years ago.

Anyway my sentiments are the same as the majority here...

Psyclyst >They have changed the email when you lose a KOM from 'Now show them who is boss' 'to Now get out there, have fun and be safe.' Perhaps changed in last day or two!

No, DRHEATON, you can't sue God--she doesn't exist. But the aforementioned family could sue the dad for siring the lad---no lad, no accident, innit.
Or possibly the hills might be sued for being aggressively big'n'lumpy. Honestly, these Lycra psychlists!
P.R.

Should we all follow each other?!

Mine is Dan flower

This is why I try to create more "sensible" Strava segments that take into account traffic intersections, safe braking distances, etc.

There are a few user-created climb segments on my favorite roads that are nearly impossible to complete without stopping for a red light, yield, etc. so the KOTM is often the guy who is willing to blow a red light, fly through cross-traffic, etc. and not necessarily the strongest climber who has taken that route.

Similarly there are some idiotic descent segments that cross intersections, or the segment ends 20 feet from a wall or house so you'd have to nail the brakes long before the segment ends if you want to live.

The thing is, any sensible person would ride the way they normally ride--maybe digging a little deeper where they can, but not riding with blinders on. If you are cutting through cross-traffic or risking death or injury on yourself or others in the hopes of getting internet bragging rights, you are just a jackass, plain and simple.

Wow! What a surprise! Another moron dead in San Fran? Even better, the moron's family has "lawyered-up".

Actually the family should have to pay us for the time we've wasted listening to their argument. Common sense is not so common in California.

Surely the manufacturer can't be held responsible for how fast someone wants to go, this is just madness ...

Can we sue the law firms for creating a suing culture and encouraging us to chase money and try to sue people? Ive wasted a lot of time and effort thinking up scams which have never come to fruition! this time couldve been spent on something worthwile like chasing Strava records or becoming a pro cyclist. Therefore I am suing every legal team in the world for 450,000 Euros - the prize money paid to the winner of the Tour de France.

I expect this to go away quietly. Considering that this action was filed in the US legal system, Strava should settle out of court. I suspect that they will settle for an undisclosed sum and make an public statement that they will do more to remove dangerous segments, while admitting no fault. While they would likely win if they took it to trial, they don't want to open themselves up to any possibility of liability related to their core business activities, or the floodgates of additional litigation could open.

Tony, I take your point and I guess if you look at it as enabling or encouraging the person to compete in an unsafe environment then there may be a case to answer. Personally though I still feel like it's a tool for recording your ride and comparing yourself against others, not a virtual racing system, and that if it went to court Strava would win.

However, I doubt it'll get that far. I suspect the family will be looking for as much publicity as possible (on the back of the other safe in SF where a rider using Strava ran down a pensioner) and settle out of court. Settling will still likely be cheaper for Strava than taking it to court and winning so it'll probably go that way.

Tony, I can see that you are deliberately being objective as possible here and I concur with many of your points. However, Strava emailing you to advise you your time has been beaten isn't really the same as being insulted.

When you sign up to Strava or anything else it's to track your training and possibly to 'compete'. Competing in a sporting context in the knowledge other will target your times, isn't the same as facing an unsolicited insult or affront.

You've hit the nail on the head though. Strava encourages you to make a decision. It doesn't make it for you.

i tried strava for a bit but haven't used it for a while. i'm not convinced its algorithms are clever enough right now to give you a truly accurate time, there's too many accounts of two riders riding the same climb together and being given significantly different numbers. GPS is great for lots of things, but the consumer signal isn't really accurate enough for timing short segments.

even when i was using it, i didn't go after the downhill segments. on a climb the limitation is basically your own fitness. on a descent there's too many other factors in play, some of which you can't control. if you're racing downhill, you really need a managed environment to mitigate the risks. I'm saddened by this story, but I can't say I'm really surprised. I'm no racer, but I'm competitive enough that i'd be prepared to take risks to do better when in a racing environment. if that's on a marked, managed, marshalled course then things can still go wrong but at least someone's looked at the risks.

There's a downhill segment on my ride in, down North Road in Bath. without knowing it I posted the second fastest time down it (case in point: I'm pretty sure I didn't average 42mph down it, but there i am) and there was a time in my life when i'd have gone after the speed needed to get to the top, down a steep road with parked cars and some limited visibility exits from side roads. now it just doesn't seem too clever. maybe i'm getting old...

The point here is that the family are suing Strava for "encouraging" not for forcing him to go fast, the decision was his. However, it's hard to see how a system that automatically sends you an email - however it is worded - when someone beats your time is doing anything other than encouraging you to make a decision - what is the email for otherwise?

Any good laywer is going to view it as information that is meant as a call to action however neutrally it is delivered. Not very different from seeking someone out to casually mention that they've been insulted out of earshot. You've only passed on information, but you know there s a good chance that the person will act upon it - could you have anticipated they had a gun or were likely to over-react? If you didn't anticpate that before giving them the information you were surely being careless and possibly even negligent.

The family's lawyer will also no doubt argue that the makers of a system that allows users to upload what might be considered 'dangerous routes', times to be set on those routes, and then riders to be automatically emailed when their times over those dangerous sections are beaten have acted in a negligent manner particularly when certain over-competitive personality types are likely to be over-represented amongst their user base.

No doubt the lawyer will also argue that if you create an online environment that encourages people to ride fast in the real world, and in which competition is the compelling component you can't be insulated from the consequences when things go wrong as a result of people competing to post the best time.

Just sayin'

'I'd try suing God for creating the hills in the first place. Surely the fact that the hill exists is God's fault and I bet he doesn't put disclaimers on them all...'

God doesn't exist, Strava does. Simple.

This is very unlikely to succeed if it gets to court, even in the US. Even if Strava were found negligent in not warning people to take care on the roads (which wouldnt be the case in the UK, but might be in the US), there wouldnt be any causation because Mr Flint's own actions intervened.

Might end up with a settlement though, which is probably what they are going for (and hence the publicity). If you are sued in the US courts, you have to pay your own costs, even if you win. That's one of the reasons they have such a culture of litigation - there's much less to lose in suing someone if you'll never have to pay their costs.

I wonder if strava has any fans in the US legal profession who'd be prepared to donate some time to help out with the defence? I seriously doubt the claimants would pursue it if they thought they'd end up in court...

Strava is encouraging individual time-trialling, something that usually happens on open roads anyway, certainly in the UK.

Like every other person here I feel for the family and friends of Mr Flint, who have lost a loved one.

However, their contention that Strava bares responsibility for his death appears to disregard the fact that Mr Flint was a moral agent. He not Strava made the decision to to exceed the speed limit on this hill. Assuming he had full command of his mental faculties he would be aware of both his abilities, the risks he was taking, the possible consequences of his decision and actions.

Strava are no more to blame than say helmet manufacturers are for the Risk Compensation behaviors of cyclists who choose to use their products.