After watching the TED Talk videos, I see that evidence is clearly used within the presentations. Mikael Colville used lots of evidence in his presentation to prove that helmets are chasing people away from riding bikes. He gave statistics about how people are more inclined towards motor vechciles due to the promotion of helmets by brands and legislation. He also made interesting points that more accidents occur when people wear helmets rather than without. He even stated occurring to research that pedestrians have a higher rte of injuring themselves on cement sidewalks compared to cyclists.

However with Fred Rivara’s TED Talk, he talked about how helmets are essential for bicyclists. That promotion really helped increase helmet wear for cyclists. He gave a lot of statistics on how half a million bicyclists accidents are reported in the hospital. Especially with brain injuries, lots of minor damage can be prevented by the wear of a helmet.

I think both presenters make good points on either side. The evidence they presented were valid and convincing of their opinion on the wear of helmets. I see how evidence in a presentation gives creditability to yourself and also to your point or side you are trying defend/support.