Nevada State Motorcycle Helmet Law

Larson 1

Peter Larson

Business Law 302.5

18 April 2007

The current Nevada state motorcycle helmet law states that “The Department shall adopt standards for protective headgear and protective glasses, goggles or face shields to be worn by the drivers and passengers of motorcycles.” (NRS 486.231) This law, passed in 1985, benefits only one party: the manufacturers of motorcycle helmets. There are many parties that suffer because of this law. Possibly the most important party that suffers from this law is the rider in

Nevada. Another party that suffers is any motorcycle shop in the state. Due to this regulation, fewer bikes are sold each year. For Las Vegas in particular, the tourism economy is suffering because of the unethical passage of this law. I would like to propose a law that would benefit all parties that have an interest in motorcycles and motorcycle safety. The Nevada helmet law should state that anyone under the age of 18 or anyone with less than one year of riding experience should be required to wear a helmet.

A few changes would occur if this law was passed. Most motorcyclists could choose when to wear a helmet. This is not an anti-helmet position, but more a freedom to choose. In adverse road conditions a helmet may be desired, but at other times a helmet may take away from the ability to ride safe. This change would mean that Nevada’s law enforcement could spend less time monitoring what a rider is wearing and more time on how they and other drivers act on the roadways. Motorcycles have lower gas consumption and less wear and tear on the Larson 2 roads. Passing this law would increase motorcycle usage and therefore be better environmentally.

When the current law was enacted, there was debate as to the legality to force someone to wear a helmet. The questions of rider’s choice and equal protection of laws were raised as concerns. At that time the courts decided that the “statute was legitimate exercise of state's power to preserve and improve public health, safety, morals and general welfare.” The courts go on to say the statute “did not violate provisions of U.S. 14th amendment or Nev. Art. 4, s 21 guaranteeing equal protection of laws.” They stated three reasons riders’ rights were not violated: because it was in the state’s interest to reduce the severity of injuries to motorcyclists, protecting public from increased medical costs involving motorcycles and promoting safety on public highways (State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court). These reasons are without basis.

This proposal for a less restrictive law would not greatly affect helmet sales. A beginning rider would still be required to purchase a helmet. The number of riders would increase, and as a result more helmets would be sold. As the law is stated now, it requires everyone operating a motorcycle to strap a three pound bucket to their head. At a certain riding level, this law may have some benefits; but when a rider’s expertise exceeds a beginner level, wearing a helmet becomes more of a problem than a benefit. Anyone hearing this for the first time might ask himself, how that is possible. Only someone who has never been on a motorcycle would ask that question. Only a biker should have to decide what he should or should not have to do when riding. The following will explain it to you. Larson 3

The motorcycle operator’s manual issued by the State of Nevada Department of Motor

Vehicles states, “crashes are fairly common among beginning riders-especially within the first months of riding. More than half of all crashes occur on motorcycles ridden by the operator for less than six months.” At this stage the helmet is not the cause of the accident. The rider uses the helmet as a precautionary device to counter inexperience. But when a rider is experienced, the helmet becomes a hindrance to their safety. The summers in Nevada are very hot. A rider can easily become fatigued when wearing something so big and bulky. This draws the biker’s attention from the road conditions to his own conditions. Wearing a helmet may cause more accidents because it cuts down on a rider’s ability to hear. This reduces his ability to react to the elements that may cause accidents. A helmet may also interfere with sight. Reduced peripheral vision, along with scratches on the visor, can cause many problems. Due to all these factors, the current law may be causing more accidents than it is preventing.

In 1997 a similar bill was proposed to the legislature. At that time Assemblyman Don

Gustavson’s (R- Reno) bill was to remove the helmet requirement for all those over 21. That bill passed the assembly but died in the senate. Legislative analysts calculated that passage of that bill in 1997 would cost the state about 3.5 million dollars a year for additional medical treatment due to brain related injuries (Vogel C1). It is unknown how they calculated this number, but it does not apply to this situation. Much research has been done in more recent years questioning the validity of these claims. There are studies that prove helmets may cause more harm in the event of an accident. For example, researchers in Adelaide’s Cranio Facial Unit have found the Larson 4 standard helmet worn by eighty percent of riders may instead cause fatal injuries. Dr. Cooter told the Post, “It surprised us that when motorcyclists suffered a lot of facial fracturing they often had little or no brain damage…On the other hand, we examined riders who had been wearing full face helmets and had suffered little face injury yet died from skull-base fractures often running from ear to ear (“Australian” par. 5).” The findings were backed by accident reports from both

Europe and the United States. This is just one study performed that questions the safety of motorcycle helmets. From a medical standpoint, putting this new law into place may cost hospitals a few more dollars, but it is more important to keep motorcyclists alive. If their brainstem is immediately severed the hospital bills do not exist, but think about the life that is lost.

Another example that helmets are not doing as much good as claimed is found from the

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Their studies show that from 1992 to 1999 more fatalities on motorcycles happened while the rider was wearing a helmet. In 2004 there were

4008 motorcyclists’ deaths in the United States. Helmets were worn in 2216 of these incidents, or approximately 55.3 percent. Approximately 44.7 percent, 1791, were not wearing helmets.

This shows that helmet use had little to do with whether the rider was fatally injured in the event of an accident (NHTSA). The key to reducing the cost to hospitals is preventing the accident altogether. As stated earlier, this is done by having inexperienced riders wear a helmet and by allowing advanced riders to decide for themselves when to wear one.

Here is another perspective. Since the beginning, motorcycles have stood for freedom.

The feeling of the open road with the wind in your face and the roar of your engine is something Larson 5 that is difficult to explain to someone who has not experienced it. The old saying goes that if I have to explain it, then you wouldn’t understand. Most people don’t understand the relaxing feelings that come from cruising down the highway after a long day at the office. When these freedoms are restricted, motorcycle use goes down. The pleasure of riding a motorcycle is reduced and motorcycle sales suffer. Putting this law into place would benefit any company that has an interest in motorcycle sales.

To prove this fact, we turn to the California DMV. When the California helmet law was enacted in 1991, motorcycle registration per year was about 650,000. The following four years showed a decline of motorcycle registration by 138,292. This is a drop of about 22 percent. At the same time, total motor vehicle registration showed a steady one percent increase. Fewer bikes being registered is a sign of fewer bikes being sold. I am sure that many motorcycle companies in California wish to have the sales they had before the helmet law. The reason for the decline is that motorcyclists forgot why they rode. Wearing a helmet prevented them from relaxing and feeling the excitement that motorcycling provides. Did motorcycle fatalities go down? Of course accidents and fatalities dropped, but not by the same proportion registration dropped. The conclusion is that by putting this law into place, Nevada would see an increase in revenue far greater than any expense it may be causing.

Here is a real life example from the state of Florida. Bill Bish of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists did research regarding the economic impact to Florida for the three years after they repealed their helmet law. His findings show that from 2000 to 2003, motorcycle Larson 6 registration went from 228,914 to 355,007. This is a fifty-five percent increase. To put this into dollars and cents, we estimate that at a low average of $10,000 per motorcycle, sales alone made approximately $1,144,570,000. Sales tax on motorcycles at six percent calculated to about

$68,674,200. Registration fees on motorcycles equaled $4,578,280, and change of title fees equaled $3,406,094 (Bish). Why were there so many more registered motorcycles? When riders are able to choose for themselves whether to wear a helmet, they have more of a desire to ride.

This means more bikes sold and more revenue, not just for the dealers, but for the whole state.

Putting this law into place in Nevada would also translate to more motorcycle sales. Dale

Andrus, Treasurer of A.B.A.T.E. of Northern Nevada and a member of American Motorcycle

Association, compiled hypothetical figures of the economic impact if Nevada were to revise its helmet law. Florida’s population is 17,397,161. Nevada’s population is 2,410,768 with 43,282 registered motorcycles. If we expect a 55% increase in motorcycle registration, as was seen in

Florida, then 23,805 more registrations would take place. That would be about $238,050,000 spent on motorcycles in the next three years. Additional sales tax at seven percent calculates to about $16,663,500. Registration fees at approximately $200 and title fees at $20 would be

$4,761,000 and $476,100 respectively. Currently there is also a rider safety program that costs six dollars per person that would generate $142,830. These numbers can be a little confusing, but what it boils down to is total state revenue of $20,853,180, not including sales of motorcycles and motorcycle accessories.

With this in mind return to the hypothetical number of 3.5 million dollars a legislative analyst calculated. Again, he claimed that removing the helmet law for those over 21 would be a Larson 7 hindrance to the state of Nevada due to brain-related injuries. It appears he did not take all things into consideration. The fact is that Nevada would see an increase in motorcycle accidents, and perhaps deaths, due to the increase in motorcycle purchases and registration, but not as a result of fewer helmets being worn. As more people enjoy life through the pleasure of motorcycling, they are also spending money to pursue this hobby.

The current law is preventing many motorcyclists from riding through Nevada. Tourism dollars would increase if this law was changed. Nevada has a great motorcycle rally in

Laughlin. Many bikers come from around the nation to attend. If Nevada became a free choice state, then many more bikers would attend the event. Motorcyclists are not the poor, uneducated people that they are stereotyped to be. The average Harley-Davidson costs over $20,000. The owner of this same machine makes about $70,000 per year. Harley owners are mainly professionals with a few weeks vacation each year. When they get on their bikes to go for a vacation, they have money to spend and many events to choose from. The majority would choose to ride through states where they could enjoy the scenery without the hindrance of a helmet. Arizona also has a motorcycle rally once a year called Arizona Bike Week. Many choose to attend the event in Arizona because it is a state that allows those over 21 to choose. As a matter of fact, many bikers choose to ride around Nevada to get to Arizona because of the helmet law.

A.B.A.T.E. of West Virginia conducted a twelve month survey of 328 motorcyclists regarding their riding habits. The reason for the survey was to inform their states legislatures of the affect the helmet law has on tourism. The average rider attended 37.29 events per year. Larson 8

When asked whether helmet laws played a part in which states they traveled, 95.59 percent said yes. People avoiding states with helmet laws totaled 85.06 percent and 94.6 percent said that changing the law would cause them to come to West Virginia more often (“A.B.A.T.E.” pg. 6).

Why would they spend an extra tank of gas or an extra night in a hotel just so they don’t have to wear their helmets? Because as has been shown time and time again, removing a riders choice to wear a helmet causes more harm than good.

Out of the 50 states, only 20 have requirements that all motorcyclists wear helmets. This proposal is not something outrageous. It is nothing new. It is similar to 26 other states that require helmets for those under a certain age, usually 18. The amount to gain from passing this law far surpasses any reason to keep it the way it is. It is clear the current law is costing Nevada.

Because of helmet requirements, tourism dollars are lost, motorcycle sales are down and tax revenue is down. There is little evidence proving injuries or deaths are decreased because of the current law. This new law could benefit Nevada economically and socially. Larson 9

Works Cited

“A.B.A.T.E. of West Virginia Tourism Survey” A . B . A . T . E . of Nebraska, Inc. 26 Nov. 2006.

“Australian Research Article – Dr. Cooter’s Findings.” Reprint from the Australian Post, 2

Dec. 1989. August 1990. .

Bish, Bill. Biker’s Rights. 21 Feb. 2006

=022106>

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Nhtsa . dot .gov. Traffic Safety Facts. 2004 data.

State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, No. 16259, Supreme Court of Nevada, 101 Nev. 658; 708

P.2d 1022; 1985 Nev. LEXIS 485, November 5, 1985, Filed

Vogel, Ed. “Nevada, Motorcycle Helmet Debate Returns.” Las Vegas Review-Journal

2 Feb, 1999: C1.