I use Strava all the time. As a cat 1 racer it makes it fun to set KOMs and "race" against the elite in the state. That being said I think Strava needs to have a way to limit the Downhill segments. Some downhill segments where I live, utah, are outrageous with top speeds of 70mph. While I'm a Strong advocate for the segments I wish people would stop making downhill segments as they're far too dangerous. If I ever do a climb then a descent and see a segment that is way too dangerous I always flag it. The problem is, people can continue to re make the segment so no matter how many times me or my team mates flag the DH segment it continues to come back.
Strava can't take all the blame, its really up to riders to not ride out of their level, on a public road. You're not in the tour de France, you're on some public road.
While I talk down upon the DH segments its because I got lucky. While riding in Colorado I decided to go hard down a climb like I was the lead in the tour de france, I didn't know the descent what so ever. I came around a corner and it got much tighter than I had expected I went into oncoming traffic and had to bail into a ditch, destroying my bike and nearly killing myself. After that I realized it's not worth being a hero on the descent.
>That being said I think Strava needs to have a way to limit the Downhill segments
how about just taking a bit of personal responsibility? if a downhill segment is too dangerous, don't do it. blaming an app when you crash is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard of. I don't see how strava has any responsibility to do anything.
Not a Strava user - but the mention of 70mph winning speeds, makes me think that Strava should eliminate segments from their database where in order to win you need to violate the speed limit. As a baseline they should not be encouraging people to break the law.
It's not just the user of the program that should be taking personal responsibility, but the coders as well.
For the sake of argument, imagine they did calculate the (average??) speed limit for each downhill segment.
Then what?
They hide anyone who goes over that speed from the leaderboard, so the leaderboard is full of people who managed to average precisely the speed limit?
Or as soon as someone goes over the average they hide the whole leaderboard like they do for flagged segments now?
My proposal is that they should hide the leaderboard for all segments over (say) 3% average negative gradient. Simple physics predicts that -3% gradient will put you over the speed limit in most jurisdictions, and it's much simpler to work out.
I’d assume they’d do what you suggest they already do sometimes - make the segment without a leaderboard. Just show your times.
I like your suggestion better than mine. But it seems that Stava is trying to shirk as much responsibility as possible, and as such your suggestion seems less likely to get implemented.
My proposal doesn’t involve them doing anything good - it just has them no longer encouraging blatantly illegal behavior. It’s a minimum bar that should be code-able in minimum time. Almost all of the dangerous segments would still have leaderboards - only the blatantly illegal ones wouldn’t be and they could say that they "do not encourage illegal behavior" - something they can’t honestly say now.
Why flag it? We have flagging problems locally (one individual) on segments that are in no way dangerous. Dangerous for you may not be dangerous for someone else. Just because the segment is there, it doesn't mean everyone has to go for it.
Not knocking him, but we have non-pro locals who are better descenders than Cat 1. Not everyone is an awesome descender. Also, who's to say an 18% descent segment is any less dangerous than a 3% descent being ridden by beginners going after a segment?
Also, who's to say an 18% descent segment is any less dangerous than a 3% descent being ridden by beginners going after a segment?
Isaac Newton.
(In his second law.) Don't misunderstand me: I think 3% descents are dangerous too. But the increased speed an 18% descent gives is more dangerous than a crash at lower speed.
Also, being an "awesome descender" doesn't make you safe - in some cases it means you just crash at higher speeds. Vincenzo Nibali is possibly the best (road) descender in the world at the moment (eg 2013 Giro exploits, his attack on the 2012 Milan-San Remo Poggio descent) and yet he crashed in the World Championship road race, and it was only luck that saved him from serious injury.
I think that is an amazing article. From the Theremin to the psychology researcher to the objective presentation of the legal arguments without shying away from any of the details.
It's caused me to rethink how conservatism/liberalism evolve in our society in terms of the reading of existing law (in this case, is Strava liable or partially liable?) Based on what is just, reading of the law evolves (and in turn can lead to introductions of new laws). But the fundamental difference between how we read the law (conservatively or liberally) is the kernel of our entire political system.
I'm a relatively new Strava user, and so far I have found it to be very helpful and motivational in my adventures into cycling. As an inexperienced rider, I'm usually a couple hundred spots down from the leaderboard, so seeing the fastest riders serves only to inspire me to push harder on my own rides. Without this motivation, I doubt that I would try as hard as I do on my recorded rides, so there is no question in my mind that Strava is at least partially a beneficial force.
However, there are certainly times on downhill segments where I have seen fastest time and shaken my head at the ridiculous speeds the riders had to go to win. I've marked my fair share of dangerous segments and I believe that is the users' responsibility to do so to prevent insane accidents like the ones listed in this article.
While I feel complete sympathy for the families of these victims, I don't believe that Strava is at all responsible for what they did. It was illegal, inconsiderate, and gives every other rider a bad name, and regardless of any leaderboards they may have been striving for they should have had more self restraint. Furthermore, I believe that cyclists like that would push themselves to speeds like that regardless of Strava, whether to beat their friends or just set personal records. Just like many other web apps, Strava provides a service that opens up data, and it is up to the user to use the data responsibly.
It would seem that there's an easy solution. Strava knows the grade of a climb. If the segment has a negative incline, don't have a leader board. Otherwise it looks to me like they're just encouraging dangerous racing on a non-closed course. Breaking speed limits, running stop signs and lights: imagine Strava for motorcyclists and ask yourself how long that would last.
I've hit more than 50mph on a bicycle plenty of times, but it sure as hell hasn't been in the Castro District of SF. The rider carries the responsibility of choosing an appropriate time and place for such antics, but let's not egg them on.
I've followed this story since the beginning and I'm more convinced than ever that Flint would have eventually killed himself on his bike, with or without Strava.
This article makes it exceptionally clear that Flint is a classic "rookie" in the sport with few if any real bike handling skills - no programmer or policy will ever prevent these types from hurting themselves or others.
At a club level, the sport is rife with cyclists that have quickly found a bit of fitness and not taken the time to let their skills catch up - and they are always dangerous.
Its also true that experience != good judgement and unfortunately (as the article points out) there are a good number of experienced riders who don't factor safety into their riding.
I'm not sure which type of cyclist is more dangerous. Fortunately, both are easy to pick out and I make a point of not riding with them. My riding and my life are simply to precious to let someone else's mistake become my penalty.
(As background, I hold a world record in Ultracycling and ridden as much as 25,000 km in a year. I didn't ride much this past year, taking a break to spend some time with my family. Stories like this don't discourage me from wanting to jump back wholeheartedly into the sport I've loved all my life. And oh yeah, I adore Strava - and I also realize that using it requires a tiny bit of common sense...)
I wanted to read this article -- I bike frequently, use Strava, live in the Bay Area, and am in the tech industry. But bicycling.com kept kicking me off their site and auto-launching iOS App Store links!
I've never seen that sort of advertising before, and am surprised Apple / Google (I'm using Chrome) even allow JavaScript to silently throw me out to the App Store without clicking a link.
I doubt it's Chrome's fault. I read the whole thing on Chrome for Android. Moreover, Apple doesn't allow Chrome to use its own rendering engine on iOS, so problems with web rendering tend to fall squarely on Apple's shoulders.
It seems ridiculous that strava would be liable for someone's injuries in any legal sense- if you ride a bike it should be up to you to ride safely, no matter who or what is emailing you, telling you you should be going faster.
OTOH, if I was the developer of strava, in light of this kind of behavior I don't think I'd have these kinds of segments on the site. It seems like any KOM on a downhill section would be faster than the speed limit and faster than is probably safe for that road. Does the community at strava really gain from that? Does it add value to the experience?
(in the cycling community, no one really cares that much how long it took you to descend from one point to another. What really matters is how long it takes to climb back up.)
As an ex-bikie (I earned my disabled vet status and at 63 I'm reaping the 'benefits') this story resonates with me quite loudly. The idea of anonymous competition is one I've always craved in that I find actual competition painful for reasons I'm not clear on. So while Strava may be described as anti-social, I see that as a plus. Further I'd point out the subject of the article became quite competitive in the normal bikie fashion. Powerful article for those who think in similar fashion...
I thought that the primary use of most roads is to provide transport and access, and only as a sort of side effect they are available as a means of sport and entertainment. So, regardless of whether one is driving a car or riding a bicycle, putting lives at risk is not only illegal, but also breaks the social contract that let those roads exist in the first place. It is a form of free riding, the bad kind, invisible until an accident happens.
As a mountain biker, I see some of the times listed on the trails I frequent, and wonder how people can ride them so fast. I'm too afraid to ride at top speed down some of these trails for the fear of colliding with someone else. I like Strava, it's and easy way to keep track of my riding. I wish that Google made My Tracks for iOS.
Being fast on a cross-country trail is about conservation of speed, not just going fast on the downhill segments. Several of the fastest mountain bikers I know grew up racing motocross and bmx. The speed they carry through corners if amazing.
Yeah, that is true for XC trails, but I was referring to the downhill sections of trails that we have here in Socal. Some of these trails can get pretty crowded. I only go full throttle when at the bike park, or shuttling some of the steeper trails that usually only DH people ride.
On the running side there are almost no downhill segments and the site still seems to be popular enough.
I know it's 2 different sports, but downhills bike run KOMs seem to be little cause for bragging rights.
That's because every KoM award I've ever heard of involved going up the hill(s). (Note: I know very little about MTB racing, maybe they have one for going down.) The downhill Strava segments strike me, and maybe this is a little mean or judgmental, as something to strive for if you're a Cat 6 [0] racer who can't climb. The first person described in the article was a mid-packer in an actual climbing competition. But when it came to tucking in and staying off the brakes, he could shine at least until tragedy struck.
Mountain biking has plenty of downhill segments. In fact, there is an entire category of the sport conveniently named Downhill.
Downhill racing can definitely be dangerous, but it is my belief that the people who do it are much more experienced than your casual "let's go down this road really fast" amateur on a road bike. Looking down a downhill mountain bike track and set off at full speed takes guts, and no one in their right mind does it without knowing the trail.
One problem is that the default leader board display is just too hard for even semi-decent riders in some areas.
In my area pros come out for early season training and the season opening race. The climb leaderboards are pretty damn competitive - the KoM of one is held by a junior TT world champion, and another by a semi-anonymous rider who rode the Vuelta.
I suspect some changes to the UI (eg show the 10 people ahead of you be default as well as the top-10) could improve this for many people.
Strava can't take all the blame, its really up to riders to not ride out of their level, on a public road. You're not in the tour de France, you're on some public road.
While I talk down upon the DH segments its because I got lucky. While riding in Colorado I decided to go hard down a climb like I was the lead in the tour de france, I didn't know the descent what so ever. I came around a corner and it got much tighter than I had expected I went into oncoming traffic and had to bail into a ditch, destroying my bike and nearly killing myself. After that I realized it's not worth being a hero on the descent.