STATUTE:

Title 43. Vehicles and Watercraft. Chapter 486. Bicycles, Motorcycles and Similar Vehicles. Operation and Equipment. Section 486.231. :

"1. 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 and transparent windscreens for motorcycles.

"2. Except as provided in this section, when any motorcycle, except a trimobile or moped, is being driven on a highway, the driver and passenger shall wear protective headgear securely fastened on the head and protective glasses, goggles or face shields meeting those standards. Drivers and passengers of trimobiles shall wear protective glasses, goggles or face shields which meet those standards.

"3. When a motorcycle or a trimobile is equipped with a transparent windscreen meeting those standards, the driver and passenger are not required to wear glasses, goggles or face shields.

"4. When a motorcycle is being driven in a parade authorized by a local authority, the driver and passenger are not required to wear the protective devices provided for in this section. . . ."

FINE:

If you have information about the amount of the fine for violating Nevada's helmet law, please e-mail it to us. Thanks.

STANDARDS:

Title 43. Vehicles and Watercraft. Chapter 486. Bicycles, Motorcycles and Similar Vehicles. Operation and Equipment. Section 486.231. :

"1. 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 and transparent windscreens for motorcycles. . . ."

COURT DECISIONS:

"Statute was legitimate exercise of state's power to preserve and improve public health, safety, morals and general welfare. NRS 486.231, which requires drivers and passengers of motorcycles to wear protective headgear when operating motorcycle on highway, was legitimate exercise of state's power to preserve and improve public health, safety, morals and general welfare." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 101 Nev. 658, 708 P.2d 1022 (1985)

"Statute did not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws. NRS 486.231, which requires drivers and passengers of motorcycles to wear protective headgear when operating motorcycle on highway, did not violate provisions of U.S. 14th amendment or Nev. Art. 4, s 21 guaranteeing equal protection of laws, because statute was rationally related to legitimate state interest in reducing severity of injuries to motorcyclists, protecting public from increased medical costs as result of accidents involving motorcycles and promoting safety on public highways. State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 101 Nev. 658, 708 P.2d 1022 (1985)

"Statute did not violate right to privacy. NRS 486.231, which requires drivers and passengers of motorcycles to wear protective headgear when operating motorcycle on highway, did not violate defendant's right to privacy under U.S. 9th amendment or Nev. Art. 1, s 20, because right to be left alone did not include right to do as one pleases on public highway." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 101 Nev. 658, 708 P.2d 1022 (1985)

These decisions have to do with the question of the State's right to impose safety regulation on individuals under the police powers, and not on the subject of unconstitutional vagueness. In other words, the definition of "protective headgear" provided in the statutes is vague; which means the Nevada statute requiring motorcyclists to wear "protective headgear" is vague; which means the Nevada helmet law is unconstitutional . . . State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, notwithstanding.

COMMENTARY:

From our beginning in 1993, it has been the position of the Helmet Law Defense League that all helmet laws are unconstitutional , in the absence of clear guidelines on how to comply with the statute -- like with a list of "approved helmets."

NO LIST? NO LAW! If a state, any state, cannot answer the question: "How can a motorcyclist comply, with certainty , with the provisions of the helmet law?" that state's statute(s) requiring the wearing of a "helmet," "safety helmet," or "protective headgear" is unconstitutionally vague.

If the "Department" has adopted anything other than Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 218 -- the Federal standard for, or definition of, a so-called "safety" helmet (aka: "protective headgear") -- the Nevada helmet law can be successfully challenged on that basis alone, and removed. (see Juvenile Products v. Edmisten, 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983))

If the Department has adopted FMVSS 218, which the law insists that it ultimately must, the Nevada helmet law is thereby rendered unconstitutionally vague and can be challenged on that basis, and removed. (see Washington v. Maxwell , 74 WASH.APP. 688, 878 P.2D 1220 (1994))

We believe that if you will write to the Department of Motor Vehicles or Highway Patrol for Nevada and ask for a list of helmets that comply with the Nevada helmet law -- tell them you are attempting to determine how to comply with the helmet law, "with certainty" -- someone can take whatever answer (or, more likely, a refusal to answer) to the courts, and Nevada bikers will be 100% FREE of the helmet law!