Mr. Beanz

Somebody flagged it as hazardous and now the times are "Poof"'...Gone!

PhotoJoe 

That's OK. I'll go set the new high-time when we go!

jmX

Somebody flagged Gate->Shack as hazardous a year ago, so I made the current one that everybody is using now. The times take a while to show back up, but after a month or so eventually the servers went through all the old rides and it got re-populated. I'm hoping it was an accident somebody flagged the climb as hazardous, but who knows.

The downhill one I couldn't care less about, so I'll let somebody else re-create it.

Somebody could really F things up if they wanted to. It takes one click to kill one, and Strava seems very unresponsive to communications about restoring flagged segments.

hamster

If you create it again, the server will eventually recalculate all times.

TrojanHorse

They've unflagged a few that were marked as hazardous for me - but maybe things are different now in light of that law suit they have coming (any idea what's going on with that?)

Regardless, I agree - who cares about the downhill segment. Big whoop.

mtrider05

This is exactly why I don't like this feature, one person can change an entire websites experience? I don't think so. What gets me is much more 'dangerous' segments are left alone. Like the one where someone died, last year, descending (https://app.strava.com/segments/las-flores-dh-612303)

Maybe a warning can be placed on the page if it's flagged, but censoring the leaderboard is hardly a solution.

calamarichris

Sounds like a kneejerk response to Strava being sued by the family of some idiot who died racing down Mount Diablo, up in NorCal. There are details in a thread in the NorCal forum. If the idiot's family wins in court, Strava will most likely do away with the downhill leaderboards.

Lesper4

That is so stupid, at least it shows all of ones users times not wipe them all out. Again it is only downhill and uphill is more important but still.

cdp8

Bingo. Though I do not agree with the characterization of it being a knee jerk reaction. When I first read about the suit, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous, but the more I read about the circumstances (like Strava sending emails to users egging them on after their records have been broken and the decedent, Mr. Flint, posting a pic of his max speed of 49.3mph from his previous record), the more I think there is some merit to the case under California law. Here in Cali, the law is pure comparative negligence, which means a defendant can be held responsible in proportion to his/her involvement, regardless of how small that proportion is. Was Strava 51% responsible here? Hell, no. Was Strava 10-20% responsible? Hmmm..... But I don't think one can argue that Strava is 0% responsible, because but for his record being broken, Mr. Flint would not have been bombing that dowhill in that manner.

Strava is somewhat fortunate that only it's user was killed. If Mr. Flint had hit and killed a pedestrian, they would have an even bigger PR and legal nightmare.

If I was Strava's attorney, I would counsel them to do one of two things here to mitigate future exposure. One would be to ban timed downhill segments. Or at a bare minimum, incorporate speed limit data from NavTeq (or another gps data supplier) and cap the record of downhill segments at the time required to traverse a segment at the speed limit.

I hope they do one or the other. I don't want to be sharing the roads with kamikaze idiots try to break a Strava record. That crap is already happening on mtb trails and it's is a real problem that is going to get them sued again and cost us mtbr's access to trails.

Also, the accident occurred on South Park Drive in Tilden Park, not on Mt. Diablo.

idoru2005

How do you know he would not have bombed that downhill anyway (regardless of the record being broken)? I know it doesn't take much for me to "want" to bomb a descent. And I certainly don't need a website to tell me to take unnecessary risks. I do that all the time without even batting an eyelash. Most of us do that every now and then.

contango 

I'm really not sure this is a sensible concept to run with. Perhaps Mr Flint would have been bombing it anyway, trying to beat his personal speed record. Perhaps he and a couple of buddies would have egged each other on to clock the fastest descent.

I've never used Strava but I enjoy seeing how fast I can go down nice big hills. That said if it's a hill I'm not familiar with and I see things like tight curves and gravel I can make the decision for myself that it's too risky so keep the speed down.

Trying to blame Strava for hosting a leaderboard of times is stupid. Nobody is forced to race, nobody is forced to attempt to reclaim their crown. You might as well try and take God to court claiming that if he hadn't created the hill in the first place you wouldn't have raced down it.

cdp8

Here is a pretty concise recitation of the facts from a Berkely news website:

William Flint II, who called himself Kim, had raced down the same hill on June 6 in 2 minutes and 7 seconds, reaching a top speed of 49.3 miles per hour, according to his twitter posts.
“49.3 mph, on a bike. How I find religion on Sunday morning,” wrote Flint on June 6.
“Set new personal records – Centennial, 3 Bears, some others. even a KOM (King of the Mountain) on south gate descent!” he added a few hours later.
But on Tuesday June 15, another bicyclist, Pan Thomakas, bested Kim's record by 4 seconds.

Flint died on Saturday June 19th. Short of taking a day off of work, Flint tried to take back his record at the first opportunity he had.

Even the family's lawyer acknowledges that Mr. Flint is primarily at fault and that Strava is only partially at fault. This doesn't sound like a money grab to me. I think they are trying to force Strava to change its policies (and not just the TOS, which was changed the day after the suit was filed).

Keep in mind, it has now come to light that the cyclist that killed the pedestrian in SF was also trying to beat a Strava record at the time of that accident. By encouraging its users to break records, Strava is essentially promoting time trial races on open public roads and trails. If Strava doesn't change itself, the courts or the legislature will force it to change.

cdp8

If they were competing on closed courses, I would agree with you 100%, but these competitions are taking place on streets and trails that are open to, and being used by, the general public. We the public are being forced to be in danger by these idiots and Strava is promoting and encouraging them. Like I said above, it has now come to light that the cyclist that killed the pedestrian in SF was also trying to beat a Strava record at the time of that accident.

himespau 

Don't use Strava. Didn't reallized they e-mailed you when your record got broken encouraging you to take it back. In a way, that sounds like a good training tool/motivation. Unless something goes wrong. Still don't think it's their fault, but with california's weird legal system who knows.

cdp8

13 states use true comparative negligence, so it's not just California. Another 33 states use a modified comparative negligence which bars recovery if the plaintiff is 50% (or 51%, depending on the state) or more at fault.

I agree it can be a great training tool. They just need to tweak some things to protect the general public.


The change in the TOS should protect them from suits by users (or their families), but it won't protect them from suits by injured/killed bystanders (like the old man's family in SF).

contango 

So how is a Strava leaderboard any different to someone who sees a stonking great hill, wonders what speed they can hit going down it, and then later takes the same route to see if they can clock a faster time?

The fastest I've ever hit on my bike is 41.7mph - before I had the cross bike I hit 37mph on my mountain bike on a road with a 30mph speed limit without pedalling. I didn't even realise I was breaking the speed limit until I got to wondering why the car that had been very close behind me had dropped back so far. No need for Strava there.

Strava "promoting and encouraging" them is just garbage to deny personal responsibility. The guy who raced down that hill made a free choice to try and beat his record. Nobody forced him into it, and saying Strava encouraged it by listing the fact someone else did it faster is irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant to say God encouraged it by creating a bigger hill elsewhere that let someone else clock a faster top speed than he did.

For what it's worth I'm inclined to agree that speeds for downhill sections should be capped at the legal speed limit so if what you post isn't possible to achieve without speeding then it's disqualified for that reason. But even that wouldn't stop people chasing records by running stop signs, red lights etc. Ultimately there's no law that can fix stupid.

cdp8

Nobody, not even the attorneys for Mr. Flint's family, is denying Mr. Flint's responsibility for the accident.

If it takes breaking the law to break a Strava record, and Strava encourages people to break that record, then Strava is encouraging people to break the law. So, no, Strava encouraging its users to break records is not garbage. Plus, Mr. Flint does not have to have been "forced into it" for Strava to have some culpability.

Just because Mr. Flint is primarly responsible, does not mean that no one else has some culpability.

Hypothetically, if Strava started keeping segment times and records for motorcycles, and this incident and the SF pedestrian fatality occurred with motorcycles instead of bicycles, would you feel the same way?

contango 

Of course. It is down to the individual to make decisions and take responsibility for those decisions. If some company (Strava or anyone else) were offering cash sums as prizes for challenges that could only be achieved by breaking the law and/or putting others in danger when those others were nothing to do with the activities concerned then I'd say there was potentially some responsibility. Even then I'd say it was still a huge stretch on the basis anyone could reason that the cash reward didn't make the risk go away and it wasn't worth the risk.

The trouble with cases like this is that if Strava is deemed to have some responsibility for posting a leaderboard or sending emails saying things like "you lost your record" then where does it stop? Does a bit of friendly goading suddenly turn into legal responsibility if things turn sour? Does an informal sprint between two cyclists on an open road land one of them with legal liability if the other loses control and is injured or killed? If Strava didn't send emails out telling people they lost their record but merely posted a passive leaderboard what (if any) liability should that carry, if someone updated the leaderboard and saw they weren't at the top any more? If there is any liability perhaps this forum should be shut down because the somewhat outlandish claims made in some of the subforums here may encourage people to take silly risks to manage apparently superhuman feats and generate a host of legal liabilities.

The question ultimately boils down to the eternal question of "am I my brother's keeper". While we may argue about moral obligations not to encourage others to do things that might be dangerous there's a huge difference between a moral code that we can keep or not as we see fit and a legal code enforced upon us all.

jmX

I think strava is walking a fine line when they send out those emails saying "You just lost your KOM by 4 seconds. Go out there and get it back!!". I like the feature, but it seems risky to me. For all strava knows the segment will require the user to break the law to get the KOM back, and there they are telling users to go out there and get it.

On the flip side, that feature is awesome. We ended up with a nice Strava battle about 10 days ago on the empty weekday SART. Check out the dates of the top 4. Everybody was gunning for #1 and it changed hands quite a few times that week.



Is Strava on the line for inciting people to surpass the 10mph speed limit on the SART, or do people go >10mph anyway?

rooftest

The "chat room lawyers" are really rackin' up the billables again...

contango 

I don't think there's any sensible way to expect Strava, or any other leaderboard host, to know the full details of every single route posted. Given we're presumably talking about responsible adults it's a shame those adults can't be expected to take responsibility for themselves and obey the relevant laws along the way, even if it means not contesting a precious gold star on a web site somewhere.

If someone tries to get a record back only to skid out on a patch of wet leaves that weren't there when the previous guy beat their record, whose fault should that be? Strava's fault for somehow "forcing" them to push too hard, God's fault for creating the heady concoction of leaves and rain, or the rider's fault for going too fast for prevailing conditions?

haaseg

I saw a picture on facebook the other day related to something else totally different but I think it applies to the whole Strava comparative negligence thing... it was guy holding a protest sign that said "Spoons make me fat"

mrflip69

How come out of all the asinine comments, nobody has suggested suing Pan Thomakas (the guy who broke Kim's?! record)?

thenomad

He'd win in CA.
It would be a class action against all the spoon makers.

haaseg

I'm suddenly confused over this "King of the Mountain" thing. I thought the polka dot jerseys were for climbers, not descenders...