Within hours of posting my Strava article, a section of it had been copied into a post on a San Francisco community blog, in this article.
The post concerns a tragic incident in which a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist, and highlights an ongoing debate as to whether sites like Strava are a contributing factor. Digging a little deeper, there’s another provocative post on the site entitled “Did STRAVA.Com Help Kill Pedestrian Sutchi Hui? Timing Yourself on the “Castro Street Descent” (AKA Castro Street Bomb)”.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that bad decision making is what leads to accidents like these. Every road user has a responsibility to themselves and others to behave reasonably and safely. Of course, not everyone does. But that’s because some people are idiots, not because Strava has turned them into mindless autopilot, fly-by-wire adrenalin junkies.
However, two things occurred to me in terms of the different ways in which it’s possible to use Strava.
- When I use Strava segments, it’s for long, or steep hill climbs.
Strava auto-detects climb sections from uploaded GPX tracks. This is inherently a safer way to be competitive because the speeds are always going to be fairly slow.
Personally, I wouldn’t create a segment for a descent. - I ride mostly in rural countryside, and feel very lucky that I never have to ride in cities. Having seen a video of the Castro descent on Youtube, it seems rather pointless to even create a segment there. The whole place is full of traffic lights, vehicles and pedestrians! Any attempt to get down there as quickly as possible is going to be largely down to chance.
As for the collision stories, a few people even go so far as to say that Strava should be held liable. This kind of thinking seems heavily influenced by the notion that “the system” is accountable, and to blame whenever something unpleasant happens. Nurtured by a nanny state, the instinct to regulate everything feels like the natural approach. This thinking diminishes and undermines the responsibility of the individual.
Imagine an experiment in which all traffic lights and road signs are removed. What would be the most likely outcome? Lots of deaths and people blaming the authorities, or fewer deaths, because people have to take more personal responsibility and care?
The answer might depend on where you live, and the prevailing cultural attitudes.
(Here’s some food for thought about reducing traffic controls in European cities).
For me, the bottom line is that collisions happen when people make bad judgments.
Yes, there are stupid, irresponsible ways to use Strava which may be more likely to increase risks.
But there are stupid irresponsible ways of using bicycles generally.
And it’s very silly to jump to conclusions without hard evidence.
+1
I’ve been following the Dutch experiment for a number of years and have experienced shared areas in other Dutch towns as a car driver. I fully support the principal and agree with you about personal responsibilty.
A good article – well done Alan.
I’ve made some downhill segments, mainly to make my brother feel better, he’s not as good uphill, I’ve also made some sprints too but they have the similar rule that they are out of town and on a straightish section of road without side roads. If I have any doubt to the safety of a road I delete the segment. LOL and I tell my self on other folks segments that I’d be KOM if I didn’t slow down for the junction/bends/peds/traffic ;-)
“This thinking diminishes and undermines the responsibility of the individual.”
Strava (the corporation) is made up of a number of individuals who can also be held responsible for their actions. Though I don’t think Strava is criminally liable, they made a decision to collect users money and use that money to create an infrastructure and means to facilitate illegal racing. They then offered incentives and rewards to those who partake in that racing.
The question becomes, if I tell someone to jump off a bridge, am I liable if he does? No, likely not.
However, if I collect money from a group of people, use that money to build a diving platform on the bridge, drive them out to the bridge and show them how wonderful the platform is, encourage and facilitate this group of people to challenge each other individually, and then assure them all that bridge jumping is great fun, totally safe, and wonderful exercise…am I liable?
Now how about if I use the money that I collected from them to offer rewards and prizes to whoever does the best job of jumping off the bridge?
Just because the individual has responsibility does not mean they have sole responsibility. Yes, it is simplistic and easy to simply blame one person for everything. But the reality is often shared responsibility. This has been found in both civil in criminal cases. (for a criminal example, If I ask someone to kill you, I can be an accessory to the murder. If I offer someone money to kill you, drive them to your house, hand them a gun, and speed them from the scene of the crime, I can be charged with the murder as well.)
So should the manufacturer of the getaway car,or the gun be liable too? Or not, because they’re not responsible for how their products are used by real people?
It’s an interesting debate, thanks for your comment :-)