<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Robert,<br><br>I suggested that we just charge people more money for the "M" endorsement without a helmet. And allow the insurance companies to charge a different rate for people with and without an endorsement. This would make motorcycle riders without helmets recoup the dollars we lose.<br><br>Best Regards,<br><br>Donovan<br><br>--- On <b>Sat, 2/28/09, Robert Dickow <i><dickow@turbonet.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">From: Robert Dickow <dickow@turbonet.com><br>Subject: [Vision2020] new bike helmet law proposal<br>To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 8:22 AM<br><br><pre>Idaho loses tons of federal highway funding because we refuse to institute a<br>helmet requirement for motor cyclists, etc.<br> <br>I have an idea for the helmet
thing-- a sort of compromise package: Create<br>a law that basically says that any cyclist who is injured when not wearing a<br>helmet will not be able to make any insurance claims against any other<br>parties involved in the accident. (With some restrictions, such as when the<br>other party is DUI or driving illegally, etc.)<br><br>Would that work? I'll bet we'd see a lot more helmets out there.<br><br>Bob Dickow, troublemaker<br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> http://www.fsr.net <br> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================<br></pre></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>