If you accept it’s a joke, even a bad one, then it’s not clickbait.

Yes, you’re very vocally announcing that you don’t get the joke.

Joke headlines aren’t clickbait. It’s OK that you didn’t get the joke. It’s a little sad you’re blaming the author.

Ah yes, famously anti union Jalopnik was insinuating that the UAW was actually trying to prevent the production of the C8.

Her headline did call it evil. 

Cars might hit it, they just don’t get stuck on it.

You’d have to prove that helmet laws actually increase the number of people wearing helmets, rather than just reducing the number of riders. But again, this article and the guardian one you link posit some ideas why helmet laws may not actually improve outcomes. 

You should read the whole guardian article you linked, it talks about likely reasons for just that. 

It doesn’t have to be a huge problem to have a significant effect on ridership. 

“and the rate at which injuries occur is reduced (or stays the same, even),”

How is this bending over to the staff? 

It seems to reduce the number of people riding bikes, which are generally a safe option with no actual improvement in overall outcomes?

He didn’t argue that wearing a helmet doesn’t reduce your chance of injury. He also didn’t argue that helmet laws were a tyranny issue. He argued about outcomes. I don’t think his victim blaming argument was very good, but he wasn’t arguing against helmet use.

Like, all of it, because it happens all the time. 

The article you linked says wearing a helmet reduces the chance of serious injury to the wearer, which is a true statement.

It was also heavily inflated because it was a charity auction. 

Manufacturers do this all the time with first and final models. 

Haha, using that quote is a fun self own on your part. 

“I don’t want to carry a helmet around once I get to my destination.”

It’s ok to admit you didn’t understand the article.