Time out call for competitive cycling app Strava

[warthog1]

Good point tll, on the speed and red light camera notifications.
I will echo what others have already said. I enjoy strava and use it responsibly. Will be pissed if I am stopped from doing so because of the actions of irresponsible idiots.
People should be accountable for their own actions and not seek to blame others for their stupidity.

[il padrone]

Very true... we can be trusted to decide for ourselves whether we wear a helmet or not, but we can not be trusted to decided whether it is safe for us to ride a strava segment or not.

You are missing the quite significant difference in the two cases.

Somebody choosing not to wear a helmet may endanger themselves, they certainly are not endangering anybody else. As evidenced by the article in the OP, the same cannot be said for Strava abuse.

Any action that somebody takes or indulges in that has the potential to injure or harm others has some degree of grounds for regulation, or at least more grounds, IMHO.

[toolonglegs]

Oh dear

[Chuck]

Oh dear

+1

[Kenzo]

Any action that somebody takes or indulges in that has the potential to injure or harm others has some degree of grounds for regulation, or at least more grounds, IMHO.

Quite possibly true, which is why you shouldn't be allowed to buy a round of drinks for your mates. Regulate the office party plates.. someone might bring in salmonella laced salami. Then there are kids birthdays in school classrooms, these mongrels have little regard for personal hygiene. /sarcasm

I hear what you are saying about the potential to harm others, but I would think this this is already covered with liability laws, injury lawsuits, negligence etc. Regulate STRAVA, then you'd need to do something about the commuter cup racing thread right here on BNA.

[jimsheedy]

You have to be a brain dead twit, to go and take chances on the streets to better your time.

I don't know the statistics but I know that amongst the 2 dozen or so people I regularly ride with the competition is on hills. Sure there are sprint sections on our regular rides but they are not the main source of competition or discussion on strava. Hill climbs constitute the bulk of time challenges. I think your comment is exactly the reaction/ary comment the article is hoping for.

[ldrcycles]

Another vote for what foo said. Both myself and my brother have got REALLY into it after discovering strava recently, and we are both making detours from our usual training rides/commutes to have a crack at segments, and giving it everything we've got. BUT neither of us would ever dream of risking life and limb for a meaningless 'win'. It's just a bit of fun, and the references to illegality are completely and utterly irrelevant to what my brother and i both believe is the real point of strava, climbing.
I would like to know what is illegal and dangerous about a segment where the KOM averages 13kmh .

[il padrone]

Quite possibly true, which is why you shouldn't be allowed to buy a round of drinks for your mates

Responsible serving of alcohol rules.

Regulate the office party plates.. someone might bring in salmonella laced salami. Then there are kids birthdays in school classrooms, these mongrels have little regard for personal hygiene. /sarcasm

Food handling legislation.

I hear what you are saying about the potential to harm others, but I would think this this is already covered with liability laws, injury lawsuits, negligence etc. Regulate STRAVA, then you'd need to do something about the commuter cup racing thread right here on BNA.

I made no statement about how or even whether regulation should be carried out. Just that there may some grounds for it, because of harm occurring or likely to occur to others.

[jimsheedy]

Very true... we can be trusted to decide for ourselves whether we wear a helmet or not, but we can not be trusted to decided whether it is safe for us to ride a strava segment or not.

You are missing the quite significant difference in the two cases.

Somebody choosing not to wear a helmet may endanger themselves, they certainly are not endangering anybody else. As evidenced by the article in the OP, the same cannot be said for Strava abuse.

Any action that somebody takes or indulges in that has the potential to injure or harm others has some degree of grounds for regulation, or at least more grounds, IMHO.

Strava abuse My giddy aunt

Honestly people need to take a nice long deep breath and of course don't forget to exhale. Where is there any evidence what so ever that Strava promotes dangerous behaviour?

[il padrone]

Did you read the OP??

[jimsheedy]

While the app specifically warns users against dangerous riding, Strava has been linked to two road fatalities in America, including one in March in which a 71-year-old San Francisco man was knocked down and killed by a cyclist allegedly speeding to beat his Strava time.

In a separate incident in 2010, San Francisco cyclist William "Kim" Flint, 40, was killed while speeding downhill in an attempt to claim the top spot on the Strava leaderboard. His family is now suing the company for encouraging reckless behaviour.

I have no idea how many members strava has but I would imagine it is quite a few. Alleged connection to two accidents even if that connection could be proved is not proof of Strava encouraging people to partake in dangerous activity.

[jacks1071]

Unforunately some people don't have enough common sense to prevent them from hurting themselves or others.

Should everyone else suffer increased legislation to account for these people? My answer is No. You can't protect some people from themselves.

Ride "at your own risk"

The amount or rules and legislation in the modern world I fear is leading to a decrease in common sense in our children.

[damhooligan]

You have the choice to be a fool or not, the app does not say you have to do it.

Foo

If only it was that easy.
Being a fool , may be a choice, but it is heavily influenced by everything that happens around you.

We can take this quote to the MHL thread as an admission that MHL is required and justifiable. Quote me from here to that thread if you like... But to me, you just shot yourself in the foot.

Feel free to do so.
Then i can easily explain why you are wrong.

Im not in the mood to makes this another helmet thread.

[damhooligan]

Very true... we can be trusted to decide for ourselves whether we wear a helmet or not, but we can not be trusted to decided whether it is safe for us to ride a strava segment or not. .

[/quote]

Nope.
Wrong country.
Here in Australia we can not b trusted to make that helmet decision.....

[Comedian]

I reckon this lady journo lost her QOM! Suck it up, get out there, and show them who is boss, princess!

[jasonc]

Unforunately some people don't have enough common sense to prevent them from hurting themselves or others.

common sense is no longer common

[Ross]

Maybe we should regulate govt, after all they hand out driving licences and thousands of motorists (and pedestrians and cyclists) are killed every year in car 'accidents'.

[g-boaf]

Oh dear

+2

Any action that somebody takes or indulges in that has the potential to injure or harm others has some degree of grounds for regulation, or at least more grounds, IMHO.

Quite possibly true, which is why you shouldn't be allowed to buy a round of drinks for your mates. Regulate the office party plates.. someone might bring in salmonella laced salami. Then there are kids birthdays in school classrooms, these mongrels have little regard for personal hygiene. /sarcasm

I hear what you are saying about the potential to harm others, but I would think this this is already covered with liability laws, injury lawsuits, negligence etc. Regulate STRAVA, then you'd need to do something about the commuter cup racing thread right here on BNA.

Exactly right and this is where it gets to the point of being too much regulation and that dreaded 'nanny state'. I hate that term, but in this case it'd be appropriate.

I love Strava and I love having a crack at a few segments. But the ones I do go for are ones where there is no traffic (they are off street) in deserted areas and the speeds are generally quite slow (they are hills). I do no harm to anyone else.

[Marty Moose]

Quite possibly true, which is why you shouldn't be allowed to buy a round of drinks for your mates

Responsible serving of alcohol rules.

Regulate the office party plates.. someone might bring in salmonella laced salami. Then there are kids birthdays in school classrooms, these mongrels have little regard for personal hygiene. /sarcasm

Food handling legislation.

I hear what you are saying about the potential to harm others, but I would think this this is already covered with liability laws, injury lawsuits, negligence etc. Regulate STRAVA, then you'd need to do something about the commuter cup racing thread right here on BNA.

I made no statement about how or even whether regulation should be carried out. Just that there may some grounds for it, because of harm occurring or likely to occur to others.

What's your point. People still drink to much,still get food poisoning.There are also road laws aswell people still speed run red lights etc etc.

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[Kenzo]

Quite possibly true, which is why you shouldn't be allowed to buy a round of drinks for your mates

Responsible serving of alcohol rules.

Regulate the office party plates.. someone might bring in salmonella laced salami. Then there are kids birthdays in school classrooms, these mongrels have little regard for personal hygiene. /sarcasm

Food handling legislation.

I don't know why you are 'poking your tongue out' at me (emoticon)... when you have not addressed the issues - a round of drinks for your mates is not covered by alcohol rules - when it is at a park, at a backyard BBQ...
Food handling legislation does not cover these either...

HOWEVER - public liability laws, personal injury laws etc - DOES cover any incident created by a STRAVidiot. Further legislation will probably just confuse the issue.

I feel the point of the article in the OP is to tell STRAVidiots to think about this - not calling for legislation because the legislation is already in place.

[jacks1071]

Unforunately some people don't have enough common sense to prevent them from hurting themselves or others.

common sense is no longer common

I'm sure thats the heart of the problem Jason.

You can't protect those people though, everything will be dangerous to them.

I'm determined to try and ingrain as much common sense as I can into my kids. They won't grow up with as much freedom as I had as a youngster but they are well ahead of most their peers.

[danny the boy]

People were running red lights well before Strava came along. I always wonder how articles like this come about. Does this weekend warrior pictured on a mountain bike just casually ring up the local press and say I've got a story for you. Must be sleeping so much better now

[Pravda]

I don't think the bloke pictured in the article would be contesting many KOMs, maybe downhills...

[il padrone]

I don't know why you are 'poking your tongue out' at me (emoticon)... when you have not addressed the issues - a round of drinks for your mates is not covered by alcohol rules - when it is at a park, at a backyard BBQ...

When you said "buy a round of drinks" I assumed you'd be at a pub or bar. In these premises rules on responsible serving of alcohol certainly do apply, in addition to licencing laws.

Food handling legislation does not cover these either...

You've evidently never been involved in food service in a school setting in recent times. It certainly does cover the classroom situation.


But we are straying off.

[jimsheedy]

But we are straying off.

Oh god I hope so.