alancommike

C.W. Nevius has a pretty awful column in Saturday's Chron about Strava. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius...ng-3657025.php

His angle is the KOM/QOM promote recklessness. Totally doesn't get the point.

...alan

bikingshearer 

Actually, he makes the anti-KOM point pretty well and without vitriol. We in the cycling community can't just dismiss this line of reasoning just because we don't want to agree with it. And like it or not, the analogy to a Strava-like application for drivers, especially urban drivers, is pretty damning.

We can't insist on being treated like any other vehicle when it comes to road access and rights when we are hit by cars and then in the next breath say we deserve to be allowed to treat our every ride on any and all roads and streets like our private race course. That simply does not fly, certainly not to majority of road users who are not cyclists.

hamster

You can't buy that kind of publicity.

Well, you can, but it's expensive. Strava is a tiny company and can't really afford it. These columns do a great job promoting it for free.

DiabloScott

I didn't realize STRAVA was doing all that extra stuff that amounts to giving awards and promoting races - I do think that makes them much more liable than if they had just been keeping track of numbers like a big database.

cccorlew

I like Strava, and I like KOM stuff. That said, I was somewhat surprised to see a part of my commute listed as a segment. It crosses a busy road, and I could see how someone attempting to get a "place" would be tempted to blast across the four-lane road to not lose time.

And, having a segment, with listed winners, for the descent on Diablo does seem like it could encourage some risky behavior.

There is a way to report unsafe segments, but we'd all need to do it, and I 'm sure there would be disagreement over what and unsafe segment is.

DiabloScott

Perhaps we should delete the Sticky Thread about PRs lest we all get sued for inciting reckless riding.

cccorlew

I haven't looked at our PR thread as I'm so slow it would only depress me.
But I thought they were all climbs, not red light running crazy ass routes.

z90

He sounds completely reasonable to me. He's not one-sidedly slamming Strava. His suggestions not to include descents or routes through urban areas seems pretty sensible.

Lightingguy

I think there's a difference between folks posting fastest times on a message board and a site that, as part of it's so-called "appeal" and very function has KoM times that encourage the activity in question.

Thus the lawyers jumping all over this, correctly in my opinion.

The article nailed it, as far as I'm concerned.

SB

bam

did they change the article since you read it?

Here's a fun idea. Let's see who can drive fastest through the streets of San Francisco.

Say I zoom from the Ferry Building to Ocean Beach. Using my car's GPS, my time, speed and route will be posted on a website and then you can try to beat it.


under most circumstances it's pretty difficult for a cyclist to exceed the speed limit for any extended period of time. making the comparison of someone "zooming" on a bicycle vs someone "zooming" in a car is vitrol (or whatever.. really, who uses this phrasing in normal conversation anyway?) dear lawyer, you only care about the $$, not about justice, kim flint, or the 71-year-old pedestrian. if it wasn't for some company's potential liability and your being able to make your name, and some cash, one of your sleazy patent troll colleagues would be going after them for something else. KOM = King Of Money. the rest, pointless details.

alancommike

I don't see how the driving analogy holds. How much fitness and skill does it take to get in a car and step on a pedal? Not talking about the sport of car racing here.

The point in the article about dangerous (defined any way you'd like) routes, especially downhill, being available for abuse is true. Anything can be abused, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Just because some people can/will abuse the site doesn't mean that others that like to track their fitness and strive for a KOM shouldn't be able to do so.

What I found distressing about the article is that it paints the bicycle community with a broad brush. Talks about how a site like Strava can be abused, but not how it is a benefit to the majority of users. The negative view of bicycling is just being reinforced for the average reader.

Beaker

I actually thought this was relatively restrained compared to many of the reports of the Flint and Buccherre stories. What's changed in the last few months is all of this stuff is now playing out in the mainstream media. In the court of public opinion, perception = reality. Finer points and details are just boring, tedious, or an excuse used by crazy cyclists to justify their high risk, reckless and selfish hobby. (note the deliberate use of sarcasm in that last part).

I agree that this reinforces the negative perception of cycling, I think the best response is frankly when we're out there riding. Obey traffic laws, be courteous road users and give folks the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: and online, don't create dumbass segments that end at stop lines etc.

Gallo

One thing I don't get is what prize is the KOM. Can you turn it in for cash? Can you print a certificate? Its not really a prize its a time.

These accidents are unfortunate. I contend that whether Strava exists or not there will be virtual competitions. Cyclists are competitive by nature. It is inevitable that in this age of rapid information this data will be shared.

z90

I didn't get that at all. Here's a quote from the article
"It is a perfectly fine idea as a concept. Biking is a social community; it is fun to see where your friends are riding, how often and how fast they are going on routes you ride yourself. Most members ride safely and use the site for feedback."

z90

He's not suggesting Strava be abolished. He's just suggesting that downhill KOM's and KOM's through high traffic areas are a bad idea. That's pretty sensible.

Mos6502

They should remove speedometers from cars, it encourages racing.

blt

He may be suggesting that, but he's suggesting more that I don't agree with.

Maybe I'm far too oblivious, but I definitely can't agree with how he ends his piece. He says that one of the attorney's for Flint says that the problem is, "Before they had KOM's, Strava was not well known." He then concludes, "So Strava may be encouraging dangerous riding. But as a business model, it's working great."

As I say, maybe I'm far too oblivious, but I've known about Strava, I've used Strava experimentally (c'mon, Mom, I've just tried it, it isn't like I'm going to get addicted!), and I somehow missed out on KOM's. Maybe it is because I'm so darned slow compared to anyone else with times on Strava, but KOM? Not even aware of it. Nevius seems to recognize that most members ride safely and use the site for feedback, so why does he buy into the attorney trying to say that it is only the KOM's that got Strava on cyclists' radar? Why does he buy into the notion that KOM's are crucial to the business model? And further, why does he buy into the notion that downhill KOM's and KOM's through high traffic areas are crucial to the business model? Even if KOM's are a big deal to Strava, he doesn't get into the fact that generally uphill KOM's (and really, the KOM designation should be reserved for uphills) aren't dangerous (unless we're going to get into the danger of old people like me keeling over from heart failure ). If C.W. knew what he was talking about, he would at least recognize the existence of some safe KOM's.

Yes, downhill KOM's and KOM's through high traffic areas are bad ideas. If that was all he was saying, I'd fully agree. Instead, he illogically suggests that Strava's business model is based on having KOM's, and by implication, is based on having dangerous KOM's. If you take away all downhill KOM's and KOM's through high traffic areas, I don't think Strava would be less well known or used in any significant way (except to the extent it is known as a result of the lawsuit).

In the end, however, as much as Flint's death is tragic, he intentionally went as fast as he could down a steep curvy road he'd been down before, and there is no way he didn't know it was illegal and dangerous. Any negligence of Strava in failing to see the possibility of dangerous KOM's is, by comparison, nothing.

bikingshearer 

There is a ton of stuff in your post that is stone-cold wrong, but explaining all of it to you would be a waste of breath, so I'll limit it to this one excerpted piece of foolishness.

Lawyers get paid for what they do. And most of the time, lawyers don't take a case where they don't think they will get paid. In the case of plaintiffs' lawyers working an a contingency fee (the only way many, many people who have been hurt or otherwise harmed can afford a lawyer), they don't take cases that they think have zero basis in law. Why? Because they won't get paid.

In short, lawyers don't work for free. I bet you don't, either. Whatever your job is, I bet if they stopped paying today, you'd stop stop showing up tomorrow. That's how things work here. So why should it be any different for lawyers?

I'll also bet that, if some car hits you while you are out riding and you are badly hurt, you will want one of my "troll colleagues" to look after your legal interests. And I also bet you will not tell him or her not to try to get as much as possible.

So go on wallowing in ignorance and hating lawyers - until you need one.

gabba

He does get the point ... perhaps you are too close to the action to think rationally?

Mos6502

No, what he's written is basically definitively unreasonable, if not outright stupid.

Really now? People have to? Give me a break. People don't have to do jack.

Nevius seems to have a tenuous grasp of reason.

The lawyer isn't any better:
Does it really? Or is that up to an individual to subjectively infer?

If what something somebody may get from reading between the lines counts as fact then what Attorney Susan Kang's above statement (essentially) says is "Hey I'm a big moron".

Because drinking to excess is inherently dangerous - as inherently dangerous as knowing how fast you're going when operating a vehicle. Really? How stupid does one have to be to buy this kind of crap?

I bet they're going to go after the Guiness Book of World Records for encouraging people to engage in such dangerous activities as seeing who can eat the most hats, or balance the most toads on their nose while blindfolded.

alancommike

Me, certainly not. I was once a bicyclist, many many years ago. Then came a career and some inverted priorities. I'm just starting to ride again, there's not much action my body is able to get into these days.

Perhaps it is me that doesn't get it and C.W is right on. I can care less how fast I go downhill and running a stoplight to make a better time downhill is ludicrous to me. On most any hill *climb* (at least those I can get up), there are no stoplights. I read the article and think, "this guy thinks that people care how fast they go downhill and will be reckless to beat someone else's time". That's where I get the "he doesn't get it". It's about fitness, not speed. Whether or not Strava has downhill KOM/QOM, the idiots that run lights barreling downhill beyond the car speed limits will continue to do so.

blt

Some minor inconsistency, in the second paragrah, you say, "most of the time, lawyers don't take a case where they don't think they will get paid." That I agree with. In the third paragraph, you say, "In short, lawyers don't work for free." Is it "most of the time" they don't work for free, or that they don't work for free, period? If you say the latter, then I cry BS. Me, I end up working for free way too much of the time, but I'm too nice.

And there are 2 problems with your view of PI attorneys not taking a case that has zero basis in law. It is hardly a rare case that PI attorneys take a case that has no basis in law. There are 2 main reasons they take such cases even though you'd think it is a bad idea to take such cases on a contingency. One is that a lot of PI attorneys act stupidly. I especially find this to be true among solo practitioners, or sole owners of small firms who employ only green associates. They don't have anyone to tell them they are being stupid, and with no one to keep them in check, they will sometimes take a case they should never take. Underemployed PI attorneys also will be more likely to see the world through rose colored glasses and think a case has merit.

And then there are all the PI attorneys who are happy to file a case that they are aware has zero basis because it is such a pain in the butt to defend them that they get a lot of nuisance settlements that way. Sure, there are cases where the defendant or the defendant's insurer is going to go all the way to fight a bogus case, but there are enough nuisance settlement to offset the cost of those, especially if the attorney is underemployed anyway.

If Strava has good counsel, Flint's percentage of liability will be really high, even if Strava is found to have some liability. I have real trouble seeing the case as being profitable if it goes through trial (which, of course, is the case with most PI cases, very few are profitable if they go through trial). Unless the attorney is stupid, he is really hoping for a nuisance settlement.

bikingshearer 

It's the former. Most lawyers, somewhere along the line, take on a case knowing they will not make money on it. It could a pro bono case, it could be a favor for a friend or family member. But I stand by the larger point - lawyers expect to make money doing what they do. The fact that we sometimes take on cases we wish we hadn't and/or end up being money losers doesn't change that. And my even larger point still stands - everyone else expects to get paid for their work, why should it be different for lawyers?

As for being too nice and getting stiffed as a result, I know the feeling. I also try to remember the "beach theory of work" that an older lawyer told me years ago. It holds that you are better off going to the beach (or, in our cases, riding our bikes) than you are working for free.


Everything you say is true, although, thankfully, not very often on a percentage basis, at least in my experience. Operating the ways you describe is playing with fire, since by signing a pleading in California, the lawyer is affirming that there is a good faith basis for bringing the case. And considering the State Bar is far more likely to go after the sole practitioner or small firm than a large firm, it is especially risky for the folks you describe.

In addition, I have seen an insurance defense firm target such a PI shop for extinction by taking every case against that firm to trial. (I was one of the defendants, the plaintiffs were in the business of staging accidents with innocent drivers - my then-wife was a victim - and the PI firm was the very definition of a mill; they wouldn't have known their way around a trial courtroom to save their collective lives. My insurance company gave the firm they hired for me marching orders to go after the PI lawyer - no settlement, no offer, no response to their offers, nothing. The PI firm folded like a cheap lawn chair two weeks before trial. The point is that there are some serious pitfalls out there for lawyers who make a habit out of practicing the way you describe. They don't all get what they deserve, but a fair number of them do in the long run.

You are, of course, right on as to Strava's attorney's litigation strategy. But Strava and their insurers have a more fundameental decision to make first. Some companies litigate every claim to the hilt in order to cultivate a reputation that they are not to be messed with. Others decide that it is actuarially more sound to try to settle everything early and cheaply. Both positions have their upsides and downsides, and I have no clue how Strava will choose to play it out.

spingineer

How does Strava actually make money? Personally, I think it's the rider's fault for disregarding all safety and trying to break the KOM going downhill. Yes, I do agree that KOM's for downhills should be removed, but to sue Strava? Just more frivolous lawsuits, IMHO. This makes about as much sense as the lawsuit against McDonald's for having hot coffee spilt on someone's lap. If you're going to sue Strava, then you might as well sue the city for building such a steep downhill, causing the road to be unsafe.

Just my $0.02.

DiabloScott

Ohoh... that's like the Godwin law of legal discussions.