When asked shouldn't these figures be provided in context it was simply argued that this wasn't their job. It was argued by one attendee that scientists have a responsibility to give a balanced view and that they were not doing so. By highlighting the benefits of helmets and ignoring the negative results, not putting cycle injuries into perspective, and ignoring the social impact of children being required to wear helmets virtually everywhere, it was argued that they had lost balance in injury control and that this was wrong. The hypocrisy of it all. Head injury rates per time-exposure for car occupants and cyclists are about the same.
Helmets can potentially benefit car occupants as much as cyclists.
Add to that, most of the injury prevention professionals are probably not overly keen in having to wear helmets in their cars themselves. To them a cyclist is irresponsible if they don't wear a helmet, and therefore must be forced to do so, but they are not irresponsible when they themselves ignore the dangers for motorists. The hypocrisy of this doesn't seem to dawn on them. In discussions on the Australian situation it was bemoaned by many that the Australian police now had little interest in enforcing the law. It was also commented that once the law had been passed the Government's general attitude was that they had done all that was necessary for cyclists, so other measures were not needed.