Mick F wrote:My idea is that anti or pro is personal preference, not dictatorship.
If you are anti, you could feel that all helmets are pointless and would be happy to speak to helmet wearers and try to educate them into not being sheep and following the "fashion" without thought.
If you are pro, you could feel that all cyclists should wear a helmet because it's common sense and an easy thing to wear. They too would be happy to talk to non-helmet wearers to try to educate them and that it's not fashion, but a necessity.
Note the words, "could".
There are still problems here with polarisation of something that isn't actually polarised, despite people at the extreme ends seeing it as purely black and white.
To draw an analogy with how "pro" and "anti" aren't actually that helpful, aspirin are useful in some situations for preventing heart attacks, but the evidence isn't there to support everyone popping an aspirin every day (that has actually been suggested, at least for certain groups). If someone says that the evidence isn't there to support that, are they "anti aspirin"? If someone doesn't think everyone should be popping one every day for cardiac health, does that mean they shouldn't take one for e.g. a headache?