<p>DancingK requested this one. I don’t have an article about it though so I guess you guys can be creative and make up a story about how this all went down.</p>
<p>Sucks to be that guy.</p>
<p>He probably just ruined the entire goal of that protest :p.</p>
<p>If a person is shot and killed in a peaceful protest, has he ‘ruined the entire goal of that protest’? Of course not! How is this any different. This brave soul embodied the true spirit of the anti-helmeters by becoming a martyr for the cause.</p>
<p>“Martyrs, my friend, have to choose between being forgotten, mocked or used. As for being understood - never.”</p>
<p>I hope you guys don’t mock this man. Although his death may be unfortunate and ironic, we should think about the message he sent out that not wearing helmets is foolish and dangerous.</p>
<p>The wikipedia article was so fun to read! [Bicycle</a> helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet]Bicycle”>Bicycle helmet - Wikipedia).</p>
<p>conclusion is -
</p>
<p>the main reason is because you get less bike riders when you enforce helmets, which means increased mortality for those would-be bike riders. </p>
<p>but there are other contributing reasons to why this is the case, like the fact that people who wear helmets take less precautions for their safety, and occasionally get strangled by them, etc. </p>
<p>And the best line from the article :D:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it’s not the same. the motorcyclist sort of showed how helmets are important by dying when a helmet could have helped him.
someone shot in a peace protest doesn’t show the negative effects of having peace</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>haha is this actually true? I feel like this is like saying that enforcing seatbelt usage means fewer cars on the roads, which I guess actually would increase the safety of driving</p>
<p>People who don’t care about their safety will gradually be eliminated through natural selection. This is just Darwin at work.</p>
<p>I don’t know if you’re implying that you’re a Fundamentalist or if you’re Anti-helmet…</p>
<p>I’m against you oversimplifying things and tying them to concepts that you have a <em>very</em> loose understanding of.</p>
<p>OK, so how’s “We’re eliminating idiots from our gene pool” NOT natural selection, again?</p>
<p>That doesn’t even merit a response. I honestly hope you’re trolling and that you don’t actually believe that’s how natural selection works.</p>
<p>I’d first have to know whether you’re Fundamentalist or Anti-helmet before I honor you with an answer.</p>
<p>what just happened? hahaha</p>
<p>Nothing. Thread got derailed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In australia it was. bike riders went down by a third when they enforced helmets. </p>
<p>Actually, fewer bikes/cars on the road make it more safe for each individual biker/driver . For bikers 90% of the deaths are due to collisions with cars, but if there are more bikers, then drivers end up being more conscious of them, so your chance to get hit goes down. Doubling the number of bikers reduces chance of death by ~50% (i read that last night).</p>
<p>With cars I think it’s just that more cars decreases your own personal average speed, which makes you more safe :).</p>
<p>but enforcing seat belts might not be as effective as we would suspect for other reasons, like because people are less careful (drive faster) when they wear them due to feeling protected.</p>