The argument stated by the health newsletter, claims to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets. These claims were made on few but significantly affecting assumptions, thus to fully evaluate the viability of the argument suggested the following assumptions made should be reckoned with valid evidence.
Firstly, according to the newsletter there was an increase in the percentage of the people wearing helmets today as compared to ten years ago. However, percentage and the number of cyclists cannot be considered same. For instance, if the number of cyclists ten years ago were 100 and as mentioned only 35% i.e 35 people reported wearing helmets while today 80% of them wore helmets but suppose there is a significant increase in the number of cyclists when compared to previous accounts hence although there is an increase in 200% of accidents the percentage relative to the current number of cyclists will probably be much less than 35%. Thus, if this scenario has merit then the conclusion drawn will be significantly weakened.
Secondly, there is no solid evidence provided by the author that cyclists were feeling much safer when wearing helmets thus they were taking higher risks and hence there were more accidents. For example, if cyclists today are more enthusiasts and willing to take risks whether they wear helmets or not, compared to the cyclists ten-years ago who were wary. Thus the psychology of the cyclists cannot be determined by judging them on the basis of them wearing helmets or not.
Lastly, by educating cyclists about the bicycle saftey concerns does not prove that there will be a direct result of decrease in cyclists accidents. Rather, it would cost government to burn funds on unnecessary events, further encouraging bicyclists to wear less helmets could have an adverse effect which might result in more number of accidents. Thus if this scenario has merit then the conclusion drawn by the health newsletter will not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its severe reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author of the health newsletter is able to provide valid evidence -perhaps in the form of systematic research data – then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the conclusion stated.