He placed a priority on something that clearly wasn't worth it. (...) Users should have the common sense to agree that downhill times are irrelevant.
So then, how is this any different:
AP - MILAN -- Hurtling down an Italian mountain pass at a speed that only a car would normally reach, Belgian cyclist Wouter Weylandt lost control of his bike for just a split second. In a sport where the smallest mistake can have catastrophic consequences, it proved lethal. Weylandt tumbled to his death Monday in a downhill crash during the third stage of the Giro d'Italia, with the riders going 40 mph to 50 mph at the time. (...) "The bottom line is that the guys here are the best cyclists in the world, and the best guys in the world can have a mechanical fault or find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time," Millar said.
Do you think WW thought "death or glory" when
he started out on his ride that AM?
Do you think WW - or his friends and family - would not rather have him be alive?
The "Strava Guy" is stupid you claim - how about WW?
the question, was, and still is, do you see that even though a bicycle is smaller than a car, that it can still cause damage and injury when used in a negligent fashion.
Of course - but the risk of the bicycle is several orders of magnitude smaller than the car. That is entirely pertinent to this discussion.
And when the level of risk - even as small as it is - crosses the threshold to where there is significant (indeed,
any) risk to non-participants, then it is the duty of the participant to abort the run.
Let me put it this way: I earlier stated that you couldn't do an "automotive Stava". Well, maybe you could, if you hold the automotive variant to the same risk standard as the bicycle version, that being "if the risk to non participants crosses a certain - assumed low - threshold, that segment is invalid". However, under that standard, the risk associated with auto racing is so high that it would be nearly impossible to find a segment that met the risk threshold. The bicycle situation is the converse.
as to the liability of the promoter, there is a big difference between simply manufacturing a device, and encouraging or facilitating illicit behaviour. if you can't see the difference between suing a car company and suing the promoter, than you are overlooking a fundamental aspect of this hypo and/or you are just being dense.
Given that the promoter
explicitly states that the participants are responsible for assessing risk and conducting themselves accordingly - and given that you never forfiet your responsibility to conduct yourself in a safe manner (even auto racing on a purpose built track is not free licence to drive like an idiot) I don't see your point. Nobody
forced that guy to ride that segment the way he did.
DG