 B.O.L.T. Challenges LVMPD Enforcement Policy April 22, 2004 Well, we promised Ted and Jackie Suthers that we would do what we could to bring some light on the subject of the defects in Nevada's helmet law, and true to our word, we persist. Rather than tell the story again, you can read about it for yourself (asuming you have a pdf reader — which you can download by clicking here). The law suit contains: The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Exhibit(s) A, an index page that has pdfs of 12 letters from NHTSA, each one of which makes the point that there is no such thing as a "DOT approved helmet". Exhibit B, an opinion by the Nevada Attorney General which demonstrates there is an actual problem with the helmet law statute. Exhibit C, the original e-mail exchanges that led to the discovery by the NHP that the helmet law statute is "un-workable." Exhibit D, the testimony of the Nevada Legislature, where they agree that the language of the statute is messed up, and problematic, but vote to leave it that way. And Exhibit E, which contains copies of the attitude of the LVMPD as expressed in e-mails by their department heads, essentially saying "no problem for us." They pretty much tell the whole story. As time allows, we'll update the web site to keep you apprised of the progress, if any. We believe the court will issue an order that will bring the defects in the statute to the front, and do what the legislature wouldn't (even though they admitted to the problem), and that is take out Nevada's helmet law. Or at least put a BIG DENT in it. We shall see. | |||
| quig | back | ||
These folks have been real good to us!
If you can send any business their way, please do.
© Copyright 2003 BOLT of Nevada. All Rights Reserved.
Webmaster: quig
