Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2011 | 4:31 p.m.
Twelve motorcycle riders filed a class action lawsuit Tuesday against Clark County and five cities within the county, charging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of Nevada’s helmet law.
The suit filed in U.S. District Court names as defendants the county and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and Mesquite; and Boulder City.
If certified as a class, the suit could represent more than 40,000 motorcycle riders in the county.
The suit, filed by Las Vegas attorney Travis Barrick, charges "defendants, through their agents, have an ongoing pattern and practice of issuing helmet tickets to the class members that are not supported by constitutionally sufficient probable cause, thereby violating the civil rights of the class members."
This violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution barring unreasonable search and seizure, the lawsuit says.
The suit also alleges violations of the 14th Amendment protections against arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, charging the defendants, through their agents, "have an ongoing pattern and practice of dismissing helmet tickets when contested in the courts or appealed to the courts, thereby denying the class members their due process rights to challenge enforcement of the Nevada Helmet Law."
The suit also alleges there’s a disparity in fines and fees for helmet law violations with no rational basis for the disparities; and that the helmet law is enforced "as a pretext for invading the liberties and civil rights" of the class members.
Barrick wasn’t available to elaborate on the allegations and the defendants have not yet responded to the lawsuit.
Efforts over the years to repeal Nevada’s 1972 law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets as a safety measure have failed, most recently this year.
12 brain dead idiots + 1 lawyer.
I say let them ride as they want, I have seen many motorcycle crashes over the years driving the interstate highways, they all end up dead so the helmet is just there to collect bugs. A safe biker does not need a helmet, the unsafe ones the helmet is not going to help much. Make them have medical insurance in return for no helmet law.
1 brain dead idiot + 1 comment.
I hope this lawsuit finally ends up changing the helmet law. We have been trying for years to get changed. All bikers love going to Arizona because there is not helmet law. The way I see it , it should be riders choice. A piece of fiberglass is not going to save your life going 80 mph. Law enforcement uses this excuse to pull you over and article is correct, tickets are always thrown out.
Travis Barrick wanted to be Attorney General.
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Absolutely moronic. I ride 4 days a week and any idiot tough guy who choses that they don't care about their family or self to wear a helmet deserves a ticket. When these twelve guys filing the suit get plowed and don't die make sure not a single tax dollar goes towards saving them
Man, a tough issue. On the one hand, medical stats clearly indicate the chances of surviving a crash increase significantly if wearing a helmet. Yet, the irony is Nevada allows many other "risky" freedoms (behaviors) other states don't.
I wear a helmet every time I ride. Frankly, I think those who don't are irresponsible. But, maybe it's their right to be irresponsible. I'm not the boss of them.
What would be fair is if those who choose not to wear helmets sign a waiver releasing the rest of us from supporting them in their medical expenses due to brain injuries. We should not have to pay for their choice. Or, have a stratified insurance system wherein those who don't wear helmets pay higher rates (as is currently done with many insurance companies regarding smoking).
The problem with the law is that it is a misdemeanor not a citation and the law doesn't specify that DOT approved helmet be worn so whats's the point. If it's for safety an approved helmet should be specified but if not then it's not for safety it's just for looks.
On one hand it sounds like a good idea to have riders sign a waiver at the time of their license being issued to forego medical assistance and other expenses relating to injuries brought on by their irresponsibility. On the other hand, how could you possibly recuperate financial losses from someone who would then in turn be unable to work a job to pay back those debts?
Just lift the ban and let mother nature take over. You know you'll possibly die, so you're taking responsibility and it's all on you. I don't want to be in your business any more than you want me to, so we're cool.
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Move along people ... nothing to see here: except a collection of no-nothings with the world's stupidest lawyer in tow.
I can't imagine riding a motorcycle here. I get white-knuckle terrified in my little Corolla because of the way these people drive, especially the big trucks. I can't believe people want to do ride in LV without a helmet. Maybe in rural NV, but in Las Vegas??
I rode here for one year. As soon as my registration was due, I sold the bike. Way too dangerous here. I rode "all the gear all the time", even through the summer. With a wife and two kids, it was a "no-brainer".
If these morons want to ride w/o a helmet, have a blast. Enjoy being dead.
I must have got a different version of the story than most. I re read it and still did not see one thing about anyone wanting to ride without a helmet. Maby you will call me brain dead too, but it looks like they are suing for arbitray and dicriminatory enforcement, not the fact that they must wear a helmet.
In response to:
I must have got a different version of the story than most. I re read it and still did not see one thing about anyone wanting to ride without a helmet. Maybe you will call me brain dead too, but it looks like they are suing for arbitray and dicriminatory enforcement, not the fact that they must wear a helmet.
I'll just say:
You obviously read the article... and have some appreciation for what it reported; those arguing the helmet "issue" (wearing or not wearing one) obviously can only read the large print of the headline of the article. This suit is way "bigger" than donning or not donning head gear.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with repeal of the helmet law. It has to do with the arbitrary enforcement of the law as written. If successful, the requirement to wear "headgear" under NRS 486.231 will still apply. BTW, the law does not define "headgear" and the word "helmet" does not appear anywhere.
why worry about medical issues after a wreck? They should be "covered" just as Illegal's or the Prevalent welfare cheats.
@weezy; @dangerous_biker; @DoctorAmmo:
While this article may not have anything to do with the actual Regulatory Statute (referred to as "Helmet Law") per se and does in fact deal with the discriminatory enforcement of said law, the general consensus here is that not only is the law not necessary, but if we were to eradicate it entirely then we wouldn't even be having this debate let alone lawsuit that tax dollars are going to pay for. Remove the unpopular and un-nessiarry law and things would be fine.
Of course that's not going to happen. Police need at least 2 reasons to pull someone over, and just like seatbelt laws they aren't going to give that up. If you can't pull someone over, you can't generate that lucrative ticket revenue, let alone protect yourself from racial profiling lawsuits either.
After Laughlin and Sparks, a state law should be passed were all male bikers will wear pink jump suits, all female bikers must where plaid jump suits with pink polka dots.
The Las Vegas Sun has attempted to cast a negative aspersion in this article. This case is not about motorcyclists nor motorcycle helmets.
This case is all about bad government and the people in government that participate in bully behavior.
Casting aspersions through the use of yellow journalism has not improved this story nor the outcome of the case. Possibly, the Las Vegas Sun is attempting to taint the prospective juror pool by misinforming the general public.
I could less if a rider wears a helmet or not. But, when you have your accident don't expect me to pay for your head injuries!
I even hate the dorky helmets on little kids and their bicycle or skate boards. But, they are going faster and up against bigger elements than a football player, and there are constant injuries on the field.
Catch 22...I would hate to kill someone on a cycle because they had no helmet..but I guess you can involve OSHA. You have to wear hard hats on job sights, helmets during combat, why not on a cycle.
A safe biker doesn't need a helmet? It's a proven fact that the vast majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers who just don't see the motorcycle riders and end up hitting them. The safest motorcyclist in the world has been cut off many, many times by cars, and sometimes they are given no way of avoiding being hit. Your theory only works if we get rid of all the other motorists.
About the only people in favor of helmet laws are the helmet makers...
I don't care how safe you ride, it's usually the "other guy" who causes you to have an accident. In my over 40 years of riding, I've been in two serious accidents, both caused by automobile drivers; one who pulled out right in front of me; and one who forced me off the side of a freeway and down an embankment to the freeway below. Ask yourself,"If my 8 yr old son or daughter was riding with me, would I want them to be wearing a helmet?" If you'd want them wearing one "for their own protection", why then don't you want to wear one yourself? I wear one every time I ride ---- but then Im a sissy ---- a LIVE SISSY!
Only an idiot would ride without a helmet. The government requires seatbelts, it should require helmets also.
On the other hand, surgeons are always looking for more body parts...
Wearing a helmet has saved my life 3 times over the past 30 years, in accidents that i did not cause. only fools ride without a helmet in Nevada. Period.
This is stupid, they need to wear helmets, even the skull caps help a little. If this law is removed the motorcycle insurance is going to SKY ROCKET.
Idiots don't see this?! I guess they want to pay double insurance.
Mike Greenwald - It's nice to see that someone actually understands the article, thanks!
By far hands down the highest percentage of motorcycle accidents are the direct result of inattentive automobile drivers yakking on the phone, texting or applying their makeup.
Speaking of arbitrary enforcement of the law, what about Paris Hiltons cocaine possession case? Should all of the people in prison now in Nevada for drug possession start a class action lawsuit about that too? There is not a single law in this country that is enforced equally to all people. Disbar Travis Barrick, case closed.
This law involves 2 scenarios....PERIOD
scenario 1) tuesday afternoon 2 pm coming back from poker at the bellagio,cops in front,and side of me at lv blvd/warm springs not even a second glance at me with non dot helmet,and apehangers
scenario 2) about a month ago saturday night,again coming home from poker about 3 30 am,and avoiding the heat also,las vegas/blvd/silverado ranch gas station 2 cop cars taking a break,retrieved my gas,got back onto the blvd,and right in front of southpoint,,i was lit up,and thankfully only ran through the ringer,and lectured,but given a warning
that is your law,and the enforcement in this state,,PERIOD
peace out
As a rider who has had two crashes while on a motorcycle, I think that helmets are definately needed for safety. Please, someone, show me an insurance policy that would cover medical bills in the millions if a rider was forced to undergo emergency life-saving care. What if this person was uninsured? His motorcycle insurance policy definately wouldn't cover any care.
It just makes sense to have a helmet law. So many people complained about Nevada's seatbelt law. It's a shame that people complain about regulations aimed at prolonging their life.
The deal is, motorcyclists are getting pulled over for wearing obvious non-DOT helmets. However, the Nevada state law is very vague about what a DOT helmet is. So, enforcement is very subjective.
But, of course, when they get pulled over, they're getting harassed, searched, questioned, and sometimes busted for things like DUI.
HOWEVER, a small group is fight all of this, and if they get pulled over for a non-DOT helmet, and no other charges are filed, they are fighting the helmet charge and winning because the laws are too vague, making it a subjective issue and the court throws it out.
So, now they have made it public and are stirring the crap pot with this lawsuit. But in my opinion, it's going to backfire. Here's why.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the authorities are going to do. They're gonna push back, that's what they'll do. First they'll start enforcing the helmet law even more (more citations), then, they'll start prosecuting non-DOT helmet tickets, and if it's still an issue, they'll change the law tightening and redefining what a DOT helmet is!!
The result will likely be the complete opposite of their objective.
Its not whats outside your head thats going to save your life, Its whats inside!
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
When they start pushing back and harassing everyone else, maybe people will get pissed off and be willing to fight the fight, instead of being one of the sheeple willing to give up their liberty. If a rider gets a ticket, and pays the fine, it costs him money. If a rider gets a ticket and fights it, the city and county won't fight it, but it still costs the rider money. It's a lose-lose for the individual.
Anyone who doesn't support this is a pathetic fool, willing to live their lives at the hand of others.
For the comments aimed at the use and utility of helmets or the insurance and or medical costs, I am certain that you understand that the cause of death for a motorcyclist falls into various categories. The documented categories are blunt force trauma to the torso, bleeding from the limbs and at the bottom of the list is head trauma. The percentages apply to helmeted and non-helmeted riders.
This lawsuit has nothing to do with the helmet. This lawsuit deals only with probable cause, enforcement, and inequality of enforcement of a law.
Mike