Family sues Strava for cycling death.

thebouldwhacker

I'm not sure how most if the post applies to my initial view that I see the only victor being the solicitors but if you have no empathy towards the bereaved and I do so be it.
As for the guessing and applying of such generalisations to this specific case I'm not sure about the value.

Ciarán_R

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I'm sure their basic argument is that if strava didn't exist he wouldn't have been riding in that way therefore their actions were a factor in his death.

That's a terrible argument. You could apply it to anything, the aerodynamic clothing, the light weight bike.. they sell these items to encourage you to go faster! Those evil people! The man was an adult and responsible for his own safety.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I don't think them idiots because they are using the law to seek what they see as justice, thats the very reason for the existence of the legal system.

The legal system isn't there for personal gain.

thebouldwhacker

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean about aero clothing etc, they are not a social network allowing the posting of interval time trials. I'm missing the relevance dragging me into your post

As for your comment about personal gain you might review my
posts as I do not mention, reference or discuss personal gain so no need to quote me. If that your opinion in relation to people who you have never met then so be it but keep me out of it thanks.

Ciarán_R

How can you miss the relevance? Everything I listed is designed to make you go faster, you could also blame competitive cycling as a bad influence. Like your mother might have said "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?" nothing as trivial as a social network should make anyone take life threatening risks.

You have got to be one really stupid person to blame the internet for any clearly dangerous thing you do.

Beasty

Ciarán_R wrote: »

You have got to be one really stupid person to blame the internet for any clearly dangerous thing you do.

Cut out the personal abuse

thebouldwhacker

Sounds to me like your on your own personal quest to make your own personal point which has nothing to do with me.

Saying that about me, the family or the deceased serves no purpose but your own.
I must be reading the previous posts wrong but I never stated that I agreed with the law suit, the family's argument or the legitimacy of using external influence on making personal decisions.
All I did was express sorrow for the death of a cyclist and and his family, I apologise if such a revolutionary act which was so bold as to express this feeling offended you.

Ciarán_R

You were defending and trying to justify their reasoning for going to court. Which is a ridiculous reason to sue. I'm not on any quest, this is a discussion forum.. and I disagree with a few of the things you said. I have no problem with you expressing sorrow but that is clearly not only what you posted.

thebouldwhacker

I didn't defend anything of the like and if you think their rationale for the lawsuit is questionable that is your personal opinion, unfortunately the reality of the law is more complex than that. The family have the right once a case is presentable to put forward a lawsuit, a judge far more experienced than I decides if there is a case to answer. In this case obviously there is and thus a lawsuit exists.

Disagree with me all you want but please don't quote me to put forward your suggestions that the family or the deceased are somehow stupid. Review what I posted.
It's a chat room, true, but you don't have to quote me before you start throwing out statements as above.

At this point seeing as your involving me in delivering your viewpoint I'm interested to know apart from the links on this thread how much about this case have you read or researched? Are you forming your opinion on these people & the justification of the case (and some how tying me into your assertions) on the solo source of this thread?

As for questioning the mods on thread..... Best of luck with that.

Ciarán_R

In your second comment, not your first, you were defending their reasons for going to court. You can argue semantics all you like. DirkVoodoo sums it up perfectly anyway.

thebouldwhacker

Christ on a bike, atrari Jaguar tbh.
It's clear you only what to post about my posts. If you think your world view is so worth while start a blog.
Board now so thanks for the memories its been a blast.

Ciarán_R

ok!
Obviously since I'm talking to you. Ok will do.
Ye I'm bored too.

t'bear

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/06/news/strava-wins-dismissal-of-civil-suit-over-berkeley-death_289714

Cork24

i am happy to hear that the family lost, its not easy to lose someone you love, but trying to sue some App Company for hes death was one step to far..

why didn't they go after the person who broke his record ? and sue him as well.

DirkVoodoo

Cork24 wrote: »

i am happy to hear that the family lost, its not easy to lose someone you love, but trying to sue some App Company for hes death was one step to far..

why didn't they go after the person who broke his record ? and sue him as well.

Or the bike manufacturer for not building a speed limiter into the bike...oh wait, that would be the person's common sense.

Lumen

t'bear wrote: »

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/06/news/strava-wins-dismissal-of-civil-suit-over-berkeley-death_289714

"“Plaintiff’s claim is precluded as a matter of law because Mr. Flint impliedly assumed the risks of bicycling,” the court wrote in its register of actions. “The defendant has shown that bicycling is an inherent risky activity. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.”"

impliedly ?

petethedrummer

bicyling?

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

impliedly ?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impliedly

in legalese:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Impliedly

Cookie_Monster

“The defendant has shown that bicycling is an inherent risky activity. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.”"

Thats not really good news though and will inevitably used to the future disadvantage of all cyclists

Captain Havoc

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Thats not really good news though and will inevitably used to the future disadvantage of all cyclists

Not really, there's an assumed risk in a lot of things you do but if there's a contributory factor outside of normal circumstances then somebody should be held accountable if they have through their own voluntary actions made an instance more dangerous than under normal conditions.

doozerie

Part of a quote from the family's attorney:

… Why should Strava not be held to the same standards of any race organizer? They’re making money based on faster and faster times. Sounds like a race organizer, right? It’s a difficult case to make, but my overall sense of it is that something doesn’t smell right.”

In response to her last sentence - well, she who smelt it dealt it.

(I've been spending a lot of time with my 4yr old, does it show?...)