MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
May 12, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 12, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, District 11
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Fowlston, ABATE of Nevada
Fred Harrell, Motorcycle Dealers Association of Nevada, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists, and ABATE of Nevada
Larry Ingram, Motorcyclist of Nevada
Richard R. Reese, Motorcyclists of Nevada
Dennis D. Taylor, Motorcyclists of Nevada
David Hallet, Lyon County SAFE Kids
Marlene Schultz, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Colonel William Yukish, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Lt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Kimberly Binnion, Nevada Triple A
Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County
Capt. Randy Oakes, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Ron Hill, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 428: Allows issuance to driver or adult passenger of motorcycle for failure to wear protective headgear only if driver is stopped for another offense.
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, District 11, testified from prepared testimony in support of A.B. 428 (Exhibit C).
Jim Fowlston, ABATE, Northern Nevada, stated he had been a motorcycle veteran of motorcycling and a fireman for the past thirteen years. He urged passage of the bill. Although he wore a helmet, Mr. Fowlston felt many tourists by-passed the state because of the mandated helmet law. He informed the committee interest did exist in bringing large motorcycle activities to the state which in turn would bring revenue. Mr. Fowlston observed many of the injuries involved in motorcycle accidents were from the hip on down, whereas most automobile accident injuries were from the chest up. He felt the mandated helmet might be more useful in automobiles.
Fred Harrell, representing National Association of Concerned Motorists, ABATE of Northern Nevada, and Motorcycle Dealers Association of Nevada, from prepared testimony, testified in support of the bill (Exhibit D). Mr. Harrell distributed other material referenced during his testimony (Exhibit E). Mr. Harrel stated he did utilize a full face helmet by choice; however, he felt education was not considered in Nevada until pushed by motorcyclists.
Mr. Anderson commented passage of the bill would not place Nevada in any established state status category. Mr Harrell agreed; but from his standpoint, attempts had been made to amend or appeal the helmet law. He felt political reality in Nevada would never be changed to allow total freedom of choice, but he felt the penalty phase needed to be placed into perspective.
Mr. Anderson in reading the bill, asked if the police officer would be able to pull the motorcycle over if the passenger not wearing a helmet was a minor. Mr. Harrell replied under the bill, police would not be able to stop motorcyclists without probable cause. Mr. Anderson asked the age at which a minor could safely hold on in riding a bike. Mr. Harrell replied he did not have children but it was his opinion that he would not allow a child under the age of twelve to ride on the back of a motorcycle. He felt those children under twelve years of age were incapable of making a decision. Another factor at that age involved the inability to reach passenger pegs. Seeking further clarification, Mr. Anderson inquired if a motorcycle pulled over for a lane violation with a minor child aboard who was not wearing a helmet, would receive a citation for both the traffic violation and motorcycle helmet infraction. Mr. Harrell agreed.
Mr. Garner, embarking on Mr. Harrell's experience with motorcycle lobbying, asked Mr. Harrell's opinion on current status of motorcycle safety education. Mr. Harrell explained A.B. 490 (of the 66th Session) elevated education in community colleges to another level. He stated his organization's goal was to increase education sites. Approximately $100,000 was needed to achieve the goal of three rural sites and currently, start up money was in the process of being collected. Mr. Harrel further elaborated on the motorcycle education system. Mr. Garner interpreted Mr. Harrell as saying education was the solution to the motorcycle helmet problem, but yet, the educational program was not adequate. Mr. Harrell replied the education program was fair, but felt it could have been expanded with implementing motorcycle education as early as 1971. Mr. Harrell discussed early motorcycle laws and felt, rather than education, the state simply mandated laws without any effort in providing education.
Answering a question from Mr. Toomin, Mr. Harrell stated he chose to wear a helmet because, although it did not make him feel any safer, it helped with the fatigue factor. He stated long rides without a helmet wore greatly on the face, but the helmet provided comfort from the wind, etc. Embarking on a previous motorcycle accident he was involved in, Mr. Harrell realized a matter of luck assisted him from not hitting his head in any of the accidents. He stated wearing a helmet was safety after the fact because wearing helmets did not prevent accidents.
Mr. Toomin recollected various attitudes of law enforcement officials toward motorcycle riders. Mr. Harrell replied in the early 1970's, there might have been a "harassing" attitude; however, through time, the harassment no longer existed. Mr. Toomin questioned if the helmet law was a secondary offense needing the establishment of probable cause before stopping, the potential for harassment might exist. Mr. Harrell agreed the potential might be present; however, a pattern would develop internally that would solve any problem that might arise.
Larry Ingram, Motorcyclists of Nevada, from prepared testimony (Exhibit F), voiced support for the bill. Chairman Spitler also entered into record two letters previously received from Mr. Ingram voicing support for the bill (Exhibits G and H).
Richard R. Reese, Motorcyclists of Nevada, voiced support for the bill.
Dennis D. Taylor, Motorcyclists of Nevada, voiced support for the bill.
David Hallet, Lyon County SAFE KIDS, from prepared testimony, voiced opposition to the bill (Exhibit I). Mr. Hallet also distributed and information packet to each committee member (Exhibit J). Mr. Hallet distributed a position paper from DeAnn Johnson, RN, Project Manager, Nevada Emergency Medical Services for Children opposing the bill (Exhibit K).
Marlene Schultz, Division Chief, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, distributed a letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which included a position paper regarding secondary motorcycle law enforcement (Exhibit L). Adding comments to the distributed material, Mrs. Schultz stated Nevada's motorcycle fatality rate averaged six percent for the past three years. She stated the helmet use law had been surveyed at 99.6 percent. She stated of the 20 fatal motorcycle accidents, seven had not been wearing a helmet and alcohol was a primary factor in thirteen of the fatalities. Mrs. Schultz stated Nevada had joined a forty-state effort to educate and improve skills of motorcyclists. She urged assistance from the committee in retaining a primary motorcycle helmet law considered a cornerstone of successful motorcycle safety programs.
Colonel Bill Yukish, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, distributed informational statistics from the State Law Facts 1992, and Fatality Facts 1992 (Exhibits M and N). He stated the position of the highway patrol and DMV was not against the knowledgeable and experienced motorcyclist who had testified earlier, but the information they wished to present dealt with motorcycle helmet laws and the states experience in dealing with the laws. Mr. Yukish addressed the statistics he had distributed. Mr. Yukish concluded statistics indicated a higher death and injury rate would result if the helmet law was repealed or weakened by reducing it to a secondary offense. From a neutral standpoint, Mr. Yukish stated the department did not feel the law was in the best interest of the highway users.
Mr. Anderson asked the percentage of motorcycle drivers in the 16-29 age group and if the figure used in motorcycle accidents was disproportionate to the total accidents for that age group. Colonel Yukish did not have the information present but he would obtain it. Mr. Toomin also requested informational statistics on accidents and fatalities between states with helmet laws and those without.
Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, a previous motorcycle owner, wished to address his concerns with A.B. 428. Lt. Nadeau stated it would make no difference if the passenger of the motorcycle was a 20 year old or three year old not wearing a helmet as no enforcement action would be able to be taken. He stated under the proposed language, if a motorcyclist from a state without a helmet law passed through Nevada, law officers would not be able to stop and advise the driver that a secondary helmet law existed. Additionally, Lt. Nadeau stated the bill mandated law enforcement officers to issue citations to motorcyclists if they were stopped for another offense. There was no discretion allowed. He also stated no testimony was given indicating current law was not working. In fact, Lt. Nadeau stated testimony from both sides stated people were wearing helmets. Lt. Nadeau relayed deaths of acquaintances could have been avoided if they had been wearing a helmet. In comparing the helmet law to the seatbelt requirements, Lt. Nadeau believed it was the intent of the legislature at the time the seatbelt law was passed as secondary, that it might be perceived if the seatbelt law was primary, it could be intrusive for law enforcement to stop vehicles for not wearing a seatbelt. He said often it could not always be told by driving down the road that one was not wearing a seatbelt; however, it was obvious when one was not wearing a helmet.
Mr. Hettrick commented an informational sheet distributed by the Highway Patrol on helmet laws based a good argument for as it did against the helmet laws. He stated if the intent of the argument was to prevent deaths or injuries, perhaps motorcycles should be banned. He noted in looking at the intent reasonably, motorcyclists understood the risk they took in riding a motorcycle. Mr. Hettrick pointed out a risk was also involved in getting in cars; however, there was no move to ban automobiles. As a matter of choice, Mr. Hettrick stated motorcyclists chose to ride and understood the risk they took when they chose to not wear a helmet. He felt freedom was eroded in every step. He indicated he had a difficult time in balancing the logic that motorcycles had more accidents and injuries with people's right to choose. Colonel Yukish replied it was his personal opinion the legislative body needed to look at issues that would assist in preserving safety and welfare of citizens, and some issues were "just good to have." He felt the motorcycle helmet law fell into that category. From the highway safety standpoint, Colonel Yukish stated motorcycle helmets decreased death and injuries and by saving lives, the motorcycle helmet law became a highway safety issue and was good policy.
Mr. Toomin commented testimony given indicated motorcycle helmets would prevent deaths, but there was no testimony given that motorcycle helmets would in anyway decrease accidents.
Kimberly Binnion, Nevada Triple A, testified in opposition to the bill. She stated it had always been the policy of Triple A in Nevada and California to support helmet use nationwide and opposed watering down of the current law.
Laurel Stadler, representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County and Clark County Chapters, testified in opposition to A.B. 428. By definition, Mrs. Stadler stated their group would oppose any proposal which compromised existing laws in the area of public safety. Regarding equity between helmet laws and seatbelt laws, she stated they would be in support of primary seatbelt laws.
Captain Randy Oakes, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified in opposition to the bill. He expressed his surprise with extensive debate on public policy as a helmet law would still exist with or without the proposed bill. Captain Oakes stated it seemed preposterous to make a violation of the state unenforceable when the violation was obvious to a police officer. He stated the bill tied the hands of law enforcement officers.
Ron Hill, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation, testified in opposition to the bill. The department opposed the bill for two reason. The first reason, Mr. Hill stated, was the obvious inherent safety benefit loss, and secondly, there would be a $1 million sanction placed upon Nevada DOT construction fund. He stated after the first year, the funding loss would be $2.1 million for every year thereafter in not having a motorcycle helmet law.
With no further testimony, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
May 12, 1993
Page 1