My argument about helmets and bicycle related accidents In the argument, the author suggest that the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets in order to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle. To support his position, the writer provides follows evidences. A ten-year nationwide study shows that the proportion of bicyclists who wear helmets increased from 35 percent to 80 percent while another study during the same period reveals that the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent.Then he infers that bicyclists take more risks because they feel safer with helmets. Firstly, it is obviously wrong to consider the correlation between the increasing of wearing helmets and the augment of the bicycle-related accidents as causality. The augment of the bicycle-related accidents may be caused by various reasons, such as the increasing speed of the cars on the road because of the progress of the functions of the cars during the ten years and the expanding of the number of the cars on the road in the period that may increase the possibility of the accidents. If the writer can not provide other evidence to prove which aspect is the main factors for the increasing of bicycle-related accidents, his inference is not convinced. Second, the writer said the bicyclists feel safer with helmets and then they take more risks as a result. This assumption is not believable. On the one hand, whether the bicyclists will feel safer or not when they wear helmets is supported by nothing. On the other hand, even if bicyclists feel safer with helmets, is it definite that they will make more risks? Many kinds of factors may cause taking more risks for bicyclists. For example, the characteristic of the bicyclists who prefer risk sports, culture during a certain period that more people may begin to participate in risk sports related to bikes, and so on. Moreover, it is questionable whether the second study is correspondent to the fist one with the same study area. The author only clearly told us the first study is nationwide, but not show us where the second one is based on. If the second study is just based on an investigation or data of several certain provinces or other countries, not nationwide in the same country, its result is not suitable to analyze together with the first study and the comparison in light of these two studies is invalid, as well as the author's assumption is false too.