Can Strava, Garmin or Cycling Camera Data Help Prove Fault After an Ontario Bicycle Accident?

Yes. Strava activities, Garmin files and cycling-camera footage may help establish a cyclist’s route, approximate speed, direction of travel and movements before a collision. They rarely prove fault by themselves, but the original files can become valuable when compared with video, physical evidence, witness accounts and vehicle data.

Our Ontario bicycle accident lawyers investigate digital cycling evidence if the driver is disputing the cyclist’s speed, location or actions before a serious crash.

What Cycling Data May Exist After an Accident?

Cyclists are frequently and unknowingly creating several sources of potential evidence during ordinary rides.

A Garmin, Wahoo, Hammerhead or similar cycling computer can record activity files. Even when those are not used, a smartwatch or phone will sometimes record the route independently. The activity can then synchronizes with Strava, Garmin Connect or another training platform. Separate front- or rear-facing cameras may record vehicles and roadway conditions around the cyclist.

Depending on the equipment and settings, the available information can include:

• timestamps;

• GPS coordinates;

• speed;

• distance;

• elevation;

• cadence;

• heart rate;

• power data; and

• video or photographs.

Some information comes from GPS, while other data comes from separate wheel-speed, cadence or power sensors.

What Are FIT, TCX and GPX Files?

Screenshots of Strava activities are not the same as the underlying activity file saved on the device. For example, Garmin devices commonly record activities in FIT format. Depending on the connected equipment, a FIT file can contain GPS location, speed, cadence, power, heart rate, elevation and device information.

Strava allows users to export the original version of an activity. In many cases, the original file will be a FIT file. Strava also offers TCX and GPX exports:

• FIT files can retain detailed device and sensor information;

• TCX files can include GPS, heart-rate, cadence and power data; and

• GPX files primarily preserve GPS coordinates and timestamps, sometimes with additional data.

• 
  

For a legal investigation, the original file is preferable to a screenshot or manually recreated route. It may preserve information that is not visible in the activity summary and reduce uncertainty about whether data was lost during conversion.

Can Garmin or Strava Data Prove the Cyclist’s Speed?

It can provide evidence of speed, but the result must be interpreted carefully.

A cycling computer may calculate speed through GPS coordinates, a wheel-speed sensor or a combination of data. Reliability can be affected by satellite reception, the recording interval, sensor setup and what happened to the device during impact.

Garmin devices sometimes utilize every-second recording or smart recording. Every-second recording generally saves a GPS point once each second. Smart recording may save selected points when the device detects changes in speed, direction, heart rate or elevation.

A displayed Strava graph should therefore not always automatically be treated as a precise second-by-second reconstruction of the collision.

However, the data gathered can still help assess an allegation that:

• the cyclist was travelling unusually quickly;

• the cyclist slowed before an intersection;

• there was a sudden interruption in forward movement;

• the cyclist stopped before continuing;

• the cyclist followed a particular route; or

• the recorded activity ended at approximately the collision location.

A reconstruction or digital-evidence expert may be required where the precise speed or timing is contested.

For an e-bike, recorded riding speed can also be considered with the motor, controller and other physical evidence. Our article on modified e-bike evidence after an Ontario cycling accident explains why recorded speed and a bicycle’s maximum assisted capability are not necessarily the same issue.

Does a Sudden Speed Drop Prove That the Cyclist Had No Time to React?

Not necessarily. A graph showing a rapid reduction from riding speed to zero may be consistent with an impact or abrupt stop. It does not independently establish:

• when the cyclist first saw the danger;

• whether the brakes were applied;

• the cyclist’s perception-and-reaction time;

• whether the device continued moving after the cyclist fell; or

• whether auto-pause or another recording function affected the activity.

Some devices and sensors record at intervals that are too broad to identify events occurring within a fraction of a second. The cycling computer may also separate from the bicycle or continue recording after impact. A speed trace should therefore be considered in conjunction with scene evidence as with tire marks, bicycle and vehicle damage, final resting positions, roadway evidence and video footage.

Can GPS Establish Where the Cyclist Was Riding?

GPS can help establish the cyclist’s route and approximate location. Consumer GPS accuracy can vary by several metres and may be affected by buildings, trees, weather, satellite geometry and the position of the device.

A difference of only a few metres can be decisive where the dispute is whether the cyclist was:

• inside a bicycle lane;

• near the curb;

• taking the traffic lane;

• entering an intersection; or

• travelling on a sidewalk or pathway.

GPS should not be used to claim that the cyclist occupied a precise point in the lane at impact. It can nevertheless help confirm the route, direction and approximate location when combined with roadway measurements, scene photographs, video and witness evidence.

Can Garmin Varia Footage Help Prove a Close Pass?

Possibly, but it is important to identify which Varia device was used. Several Garmin Varia products provide rear-facing radar alerts without recording video.

The Varia RCT715 includes both radar and a rear-facing camera. Other cycling cameras may record from the handlebars, helmet, bicycle frame or rear seat post.

When continuous recording is enabled, the RCT715 records onto its memory card in a loop. Relevant footage should be identified and locked or copied before later recording overwrites the oldest unlocked files.

Rear-facing video may show:

• the approaching vehicle;

• the vehicle’s position relative to the cyclist;

• whether the driver changed lanes;

• the circumstances of an overtaking manoeuvre;

• contact or a near collision;

• road and traffic conditions; and

• what occurred immediately afterward.

Section 148(6.1) of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act requires a motorist overtaking a cyclist on a highway, as nearly as may be practicable, to leave at least one metre between the bicycle and motor vehicle and maintain that distance until safely past.

Cycling-camera footage may assist an expert in evaluating a close pass, particularly where road markings or fixed objects provide scale. It does not automatically measure the precise distance between the vehicle and cyclist. Perspective, lens distortion, camera position and movement must be considered.

Similarly, a radar warning that a vehicle was approaching quickly does not necessarily preserve a reliable measurement of the vehicle’s exact speed for use in court.

Camera footage can also be useful in a dooring accident by showing when the vehicle stopped, how suddenly the door opened, the cyclist’s position and whether surrounding traffic restricted an evasive movement. Our article on dooring accidents involving Ontario cyclists addresses the broader liability analysis when a driver or passenger opens a door into a cyclist’s path.

Why Should the Original Activity File Be Preserved?

A public Strava page can certainly be useful, but it should not be the only version retained.

The cyclist should attempt to preserve:

• the original FIT, TCX or GPX file;

• the cycling computer or watch;

• the phone used for synchronization;

• the activity as originally uploaded;

• the camera and memory card;

• the complete, unedited video files; and

• information identifying the device model, connected sensors and recording settings.

Strava’s Export Original function can provide the activity in the format in which it was uploaded. The original file may contain timestamps, sensor fields and device information that are not visible in a screenshot.

Avoid cropping the activity, changing its timestamps, deleting and re-uploading it, or editing the only copy of a video. If a shorter clip is created for viewing, retain the complete original separately.

For loop-recording cameras, remove or protect the memory card before further use overwrites the relevant footage.

Can the Insurance Company Obtain the Cyclist’s Strava History?

The activity recorded during the collision is the most obviously relevant file, but an insurer may request broader records.

The defence could argue that earlier or later activities are relevant to:

• the cyclist’s experience;

• usual riding speed;

• physical ability before the collision;

• return to cycling afterward; or

• statements about ongoing limitations.

That does not make the cyclist’s entire account automatically producible. Relevance, proportionality and privacy still need to be considered.

Cyclists should not be deleting activities after a claim arises merely because they may appear unhelpful. Destroying potentially relevant information can create a separate dispute about whether evidence was lost intentionally.

Does Cycling Data Automatically Become Admissible Evidence?

No. The person relying on the information may need to establish where it came from, how it was created and whether it has been changed.

Relevant questions can include:

• who owned and operated the device;

• whether the device time was accurate;

• whether the file is the original export;

• whether the activity was edited;

• which sensors were connected;

• which recording mode was used;

• whether the device was damaged; and

• how the proposed interpretation was reached.

A cyclist may be able to identify the device and explain how it was normally used. More technical disputes may require evidence from a digital-forensics, engineering or accident-reconstruction expert.

How Can Digital Evidence Affect Fault in an Ontario Bicycle Claim?

Where a cyclist is injured by a motor vehicle on an Ontario highway, section 193 of the Highway Traffic Act can place the onus on the driver or owner to prove that the loss did not arise through their negligence or improper conduct.

Digital evidence may help test an allegation that the cyclist:

• entered the road suddenly;

• was travelling at an excessive speed;

• changed direction without warning;

• was outside the bicycle lane;

• failed to stop; or

• was not present long enough to be seen.

Frequently Asked Questions About Cycling Data After an Accident

Can a Strava activity be used in a bicycle accident claim?

Yes. A Strava activity may help establish route, timing, direction and recorded speed. The original underlying activity file is usually more useful than a screenshot of the public activity page.

Can GPS prove that I was inside the bike lane?

Usually not by itself. Consumer GPS has a margin of error that can be wider than the difference between a bicycle lane and the adjoining traffic lane.

Can Varia footage prove that a driver passed within one metre?

It may help analyze a close pass, but the footage does not automatically provide a legally reliable distance measurement. Camera perspective, lens distortion and roadway scale may require expert analysis.

Is a screenshot enough?

A screenshot may be useful, but it can omit timestamps, sensor fields and device information. Preserve the original activity file and recording device where possible.

Speak With an Ontario Bicycle Accident Lawyer

Digital cycling data can provide an independent record of part of a ride, but it must be interpreted within its technical limits. The strongest investigation combines the original activity files and video with the bicycle, scene evidence, vehicle information, witnesses and the medical consequences of the crash.

Foster Injury Law represents cyclists seriously injured by negligent drivers and other responsible parties across Ontario. Our firm can identify available digital evidence, preserve the relevant devices and files, and determine whether expert analysis is required.

Learn more about how our Ontario bicycle and e-bike accident lawyers handle serious cycling claims or contact Foster Injury Law for a free consultation.

Written by Lane Foster, Ontario personal injury lawyer.

This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice. The significance of cycling-device data depends on the equipment, settings and facts of the particular accident.