The following appeared in a health newsletter."A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that numbe

The first read of the argument almost succeeds in convincing the reader to accept a rather bizarre conclusion, with potentially hazardous implications. The author has managed to quote a study, let's assume for its authenticity, that has been carried out for ten years on a nationwide scale to suggest the increase in the percentage of bicyclists choosing to wear a helmet. As is, this would have been a positively convincing report given the increasing amount of awareness among people regarding health, safety and environmental issues.

However, the contention arises when the author quotes, this time rather unconvincingly, that another study has suggested a 200% increase in the number of bicycle related accidents during the same amount of time. The author has later used this study as the basis to suggest that the bicyclists, more and more of who wear a helmet today, tend to take more risks assuming that their head would be safe anyway. This argument itself seems absurd because if a bicyclist who is going through all that pain of securing himself with a helmet, not to point out agreeing to suffer through the sweat and stains, precisely to save himself from an unforeseen injury, would be willing to take such risks. The author, before making this assertions must have been snooping around the teens' skateboard parks where slipping and sliding is more common than on the streets.

It can be accepted that those who choose to use a bicycle for recreational purposes may be willing to take more risks with a helmet on than when not. And the number of accidents possible in such cases would definitely be proportional to the talent of the rider. However, the author has failed to consider the contribution of such accidents, those taking place during recreational activities, to the accidents' study he has quoted.

Another example of the short shrift attitude the author has used while quoting the studies in making his point is assuming that the two studies he has quoted were carried out on the same set of people. Let us talk about it this way. Suppose for example, ten years ago there were 100 people who used a bicycle. 35 of these used to wear helmets. Let us also assume that the number of accidents ten years ago was 10. It is safe to assume that the number of bicyclists would have increased in these 10 years, so let's assume the number is 1000 today. As per the first study, the number of bicyclists who prefer to wear a helmet today will be 800 (80%). However, as per the second study, the number of accidents today would only be 10 X 3 = 30 (200% increase).

This is just an example of how bad the assumptions made by the author are, and, even if the suggestion that the government should strive to educate more and more people regarding bicycle safety is plausible enough, the recommendation that stressing on use of helmets is futile is a misunderstood result of an incompletely researched study.