Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

It works but isn't as non toxic or something, should be fine though. I also remember someone saying you can pick up the vets stuff much cheaper than the person stuff and that is basically the same.

#triedandtested

Superglue was tried and tested in 'Nam. Worked then, no reason it shouldn't now. Obviously, JB Weld is the superior alternative*.

*apart from the fact that epoxy is a carcinogen

Cool. I'll have a crack if it still hasn't stopped bleeding in the morning.

can you use steri-strips instead? pharmacy or big supermarket should have them. not convinced putting non-medical superglue in you in a non-emergency is a great idea...

Just ignore it until it heals.

But danstuff says they did it in Nam. And I love Full Metal Jacket and Forrest Gump.

you can pick up the vets stuff much cheaper than the person stuff

Let's hope so, £117 for 10×0.5g is a bit much, but £1.15 for 20g is a bit risky.

This absolute cunt seems fine with superglue.
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/superglue.html?m=1

When I was at school some kid threw a rock up in the air and it landed on my head. Also when I was behind a mates house his brother threw a brick over a fence and it landed on my head

Ahh, it all makes sense now...

Re @tw's point about concussion protocol up there, that actually hives me an idea for a great answer to the inappropriate "were you wearing a helmet?" question.

From now on I will answer that unfortunately yes I was, so I'm concerned about my increased risk of a rotational acceleration concussion. Then look worried and a bit far away

Maybe we should tell the express they cause brain cancer.

And Diana denial.

Diana Denial sounds like an alt porn star.

Diana Denial and the Dave Cumeron.

I think this is a useful, if somewhat wordy, briefing to use in dialogue with the school, if not done already: http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/helmets-policy4srv.pdf

What do you think about that?

You could point out the the very latest Cycling Policy Paper from ROSPA (January 2015) does not support compulsory helmet wearing. On p.23 it says

RoSPA does not support calls for compulsory cycle helmet laws because it is not clear whether such a law would discourage some people from cycling, thereby losing the health and environmental benefits from cycling.

If RoSPA has doubts about the efficacy of forcing everyone to wear helmets what is the basis for this school trying to force children to wear helmets. Using frightening statistics without putting them into perspective and judging the effectiveness of what they propose does not encourage confidence in the management of this school.

Taken from this link, http://road.cc/content/news/146173-incomprehensibly-callous-met-slammed-michael-mason%E2%80%99s-family-plan-private , it seems one of the reasons for the Met not to refer this case to the CPS was the lack of helmet ...

In addition to this the Metropolitan Police have now sought to justify
their earlier decision not to refer the case to the CPS by reference
to (amongst other immaterial matters), and I quote:

“• Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having
taken place during hours of darkness.

• Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being
head injury.”

pigs: be sure to dress like a clown and wear a plastic hat whilst riding a bike, because if someone drives their car over you - that's what we'll be focusing on in any subsequent investigation.

surely this decision is beyond their remit? how is it that they are now deciding what does and does not get escalated to the CPS?

donate u tight fuckers.

https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael

I know the Met can be a pretty inept and incompetent bunch of fuckwits, but they really seem to be going above and beyond on that case, to the point where even I start to wonder what's really behind it. Surely even the Met can't consistently be that useless and cack-handed?

It is possible that the police believe that a helmet could have prevented death so a charge of "causing death by dangerous driving" might not be appropriate. If they think that they should let the judge and jury examine the evidence and make a decision. It does not explain why there was no prosecution for careless driving.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/dead-cyclists-family-let-down-at-every-stage-by-met-police

next time you get collared for riding without lights, just refer the piggys to this case. it would appear they don't believe lights are of any value regardless of the time of day.

It is possible that the police believe that a helmet could have prevented death so a charge of "causing death by dangerous driving" might not be appropriate.

I think this should be rolled out generally. Imagine how many murder cases we could get rid of if we exclude those where stabbing victims aren't wearing stab-proof vests.

It's just baffling, the car (that wasn't Purcell's) was doing less than 30mph. So, it could have been a cyclist. I mean, a cyclist could hit a pedestrian in dark clothing and kill them and nothing would happen and a helmet for the pedestrian wouldn't even be mentioned.

If a cyclist hit a pedestrian and killed them there would be a national uproar and the cyclist would be certain to go to jail.