From their Terms and Conditions (http://www.strava.com/terms):
>You agree to indemnify and hold Strava and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, representatives, employees, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit or otherwise seek to make available through the Site, your use of the Site, your athletic activities which generate the Content you post or seek to post on the Site (including, but not limited to, athletic activities in connection with any contests, races, group rides, or other events which Strava sponsors, organizes, participates in, or whose Site is used in connection with), your connection to the Site, your violation of the Terms, or your violation of any rights of another person or entity.
Are clauses like this actually legally binding and enforceable? I see them in almost every contract, usually the same words, like a boilerplate. I can see why the cyclist wouldn't be indemnified for the accident, but would the courts grant Strada a compensation from the cyclist?
Neither I nor the guy who authored the linked articles is a lawyer. I'm sure there's a wealth of precedents that outline exactly whether and how much a statement like that is enforceable. If taken at face value, which is all you can do without soliciting a legal opinion, this paragraph is cause for concern (all their data including downhill segments is user generated).
I don't know if Strava is using an algorithm to alleviate this, but isn't it a bad idea to follow routes set with GPS when the positioning is only accurate to 10 meters?
The point of this app is not to 'follow' routes, but record them and compare them over certain sections (segments) to those recorded by others. Usually, 10 m is enough to figure out what road you're on, and after that they only look at the time it took to get from start to finish of the segment. Even if you're off by 10 m, at 20 mph that translates into about a second -- and these timings are pretty approximate anyway.
Are clauses like this actually legally binding and enforceable? I see them in almost every contract, usually the same words, like a boilerplate. I can see why the cyclist wouldn't be indemnified for the accident, but would the courts grant Strada a compensation from the cyclist?