77th (2013) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| AB101 | ||
| - | ||
| For | Apr-26-2013 | |
| For | THIS IS SMART AND A GOOD SOURCE OF REVENUE | Apr-10-2013 |
| For | The State of Nevada should mirror what other states have done long ago in requiring mopeds to be registered. Registration will assist in the recovery of stolen mopeds throughout the State while reducing the overall theft rate. | Mar-27-2013 |
| Against | for years mopeds have been a way for poorer citizens to have transportation. so much for that. our legislature has not a clue to the way people have to live. back off the citizens and work FOR THEM and not AGAINST THEM FOR A CHANGE. | Mar-21-2013 |
| For | I observe mopeds/scooters travel on the public roadways everyday at speeds between 30 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. I believe that all mopeds and scooters should be required by law to register with the Nevada DMV and also be insured. The reason why I believe this is those who operate mopeds/scooters are just as susceptible as any other vehicle and possibly more susceptible to be invovled in a collision. | Mar-20-2013 |
| For | I think mopeds/scooters should have to be registered and insured. Having them registered will make it easier for police to identify stolen mopeds/scooters. It will also generate more revenue for the State of Nevada. At a very minimum I this these vehicle should have to be insured. I'd be very upset if I'm sitting at a traffic light and get rear ended or side swiped by one of these vehicles. More then likely I would end up having to pay the bills without being reimbursed by the at fault party that doesn't have insurance. | Mar-19-2013 |
| For | Due to the recent downturn in the economy and other reasons the number of moped/scooters have dramatically increased on our roadways. Currently these vehicles do not need to be registered or insured which causes a major headache to the other motorist on the roadway. Several of these type of vehicles have been involved in the past in serious and even fatal collisions. Registering these vehicles and requiring drivers to carry insurance only makes common sense and would protect the rest of the drivers on the roadway. Not to mention it would benefit all by keeping our insurance rates at a managable levels. | Mar-19-2013 |
| Against | Mar-19-2013 | |
| Against | Mar-19-2013 | |
| Against | Mar-13-2013 | |
| Against | Mar-13-2013 | |
| Against | We have enough fees & restrictions!! | Mar-12-2013 |
| For | I think mopeds should be registered and insured as motor vehicles. The use the roads just like any other motor vehicle and the operator should be as financially responsible for their actions as any other motor vehicle operator. | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | Mar-07-2013 | |
| Against | Although I do see plenty of moped riders obstructing traffic and riding without any safety equipment, I am still against this bill. There should be a bill introduced that requires moped riders to wear helmets and eye protection instead. | Mar-06-2013 |
| Against | Mopeds are NOT motorcycles. They are NOT and CANNOT be operated on a highway. They don’t have the horsepower to attain highway speeds to flow with traffic. They are highly economical and efficient means of getting around town, at the speeds appropriate in town. Their use should be encouraged, not inhibited with registration and licensing requirements. | Mar-04-2013 |
| Against | Here is a fine example of a Democrat Assemblyman Richard Carrillo, He runs in a lower income Hispanic District and this is how he represents the poor? Richard your next slogan on your campaign signs should read TAX THE POOR! Nobody can bring this budget buster to your constituency, except you! The courts are overcrowded, the jails are overcrowded.. And you threaten the poor with violence, over a non violent act! If you bring this to vote.... You Sir are the problem. | Mar-04-2013 |
| Against | Follow the money! Once again we are facing taxation without representation from our legislature in the form of AB101. This bill serves only one purpose, to raise revenue. Mopeds over 50cc's are already regulated the same as motorcycles/vehicles the thinking there of course is because they are able to travel at higher speeds thereby making them legal to ride on a greater number of thoroughfares. The one's under 50cc are extremely efficient and safe with a top speed that in most cases does not exceed that of a majority of the bicyclists that you see on our surface streets and do not require additional government intrusion; while you are at it why don't you tax the bicyclists (they use the same surface streets in question here) then add in the skateboards the razors and then go after the power walkers and joggers. If the committee proposing AB101 is so confident that yet more regulation is needed why not put it to the voters which is where all revenue issues should be vetted. Has this committee considered the fact that this bill will serve to punish the lower income person that likely can't afford a more expensive form of transportation? The vast majority of vehicle v. moped accidents have been proven to be the fault of the vehicle which would make the liability insurance that will be mandated useless as the property damage portion of liability insurance will only be of benefit if the moped is at fault. Please vote against AB101. Signed electronically via email, Eric Odle | Mar-03-2013 |
| Against | •Negative economic impact on financially distressed community-particularly those with low or fixed incomes. With rising gas prices and continued challenging economy citizens look for ways to mitigate these circumstances. Current legislation for mopeds provides a low-cost option to accomplish this. •Bill unfairly targets citizens operating mopeds that are positively impacting the environment through the use of extremely low emission, fuel efficient transportation. The bill attempts to financially burden the very group contributing a significant part to improve community EPA standards compliance. •Bill unfairly targets operators of low cost transportation by imposing a greater percentage of registration/licensing/insurance costs relative to the actual cost of the moped itself. •Bill imposes insurance requirements for operators that would be cost prohibitive for some and adding an unnecessary taxation burden to others that may still be able to afford it. It is well-established that most accidents involving motorcycles are the fault of the other driver or are singular in nature. It is reasonable to extrapolate that this is true with accidents involving mopeds as well. •Bill will negatively impact commercial suppliers of mopeds and moped dealerships through lowered sales volume. This will also ultimately impact sales tax revenue currently flowing to the State of Nevada. •Bill financially impacts and punishes law-abiding citizens in an attempt to address issues that can be enforced under existing laws •The provision for mopeds was passed many years ago for good reasons by sound-minded legislators. They were forward-thinking in understanding the rationale listed above as reasonable, justifiable and for the best benefit of citizens and the environment. 23 other U.S. states follow similar legislative provision. •Theft concerns may already be addressed through alternate avenues. Existing laws address impaired operation or driving under the influence that cover mopeds. | Mar-03-2013 |
| Against | Mar-03-2013 | |
| For | Feb-28-2013 | |
| For | It's about time the same laws are impossed on mopeds as are on all other drivers. I also think that since motorcycle riders are required to wear helmets, moped riders should be required to also.Or drop the helmet law alltogether. | Feb-28-2013 |
| Against | I just use my moped for transportation to the tennis courts in my association so my big suv is not blocking the streets (I got my mirror busted off once) because we have narrow streets in our planned development. I intentionally purchased 49.5CC so i wouldn't have to register it. PS I always wear a helmet! | Feb-28-2013 |
| Against | Feb-28-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-26-2013 | |
| Against | The legislature should encourage moped use, instead of discouraging it through the proposed registration and fee. If the legislature wants to raise more money from vehicle registration, then registration fees should vary based on fuel-efficiency. Vehicles with poor fuel-economy use excessive amount of gasoline, cause more air pollution, and are more dangerous to other vehicles due to their capacity for speeds far in excessive of our speed limits, along with their heavy weight. Therefore, their registration fees should be ten times the fees for a Chevy Metro getting 48 miles per gallon. Please think of taxes and fees as a way to influence behavior for the betterment of society, not simply as a way to raise more revenue. | Feb-24-2013 |
| Against | The answer to every problem is not increased government regulation and fees. Without needing registration, a moped could be decent investment if you make a lot of short trips in areas with low speed limits, by saving on gas. After registration fees, no one will take advantage of the economic and environmental benefits of owning an additional vehicle for such purposes. I also resent the constant intrusion of the government into every single aspect of life. | Feb-24-2013 |
| Against | Feb-24-2013 | |
| Against | Consider JUST prohibiting moped operation on roads with a speed limit greater than 35mph, with no other changes. From a revenue perspective, the current moped stipulations are sufficient . . no rear plate, clocked exceeding 30mph, fair game for numerous citations. | Feb-17-2013 |
| For | Feb-15-2013 | |
| For | We need to regulate mopeds | Feb-13-2013 |
| Against | Mopeds are NOT motorcycles. They are NOT and CANNOT be operated on a highway. They don’t have the horsepower to attain highway speeds to flow with traffic. They are highly economical and efficient means of getting around town, at the speeds appropriate in town. Their use should be encouraged, not inhibited with registration and licensing requirements. If any change in the law is needed, it is to make it legal to ride one on the shoulder of a highway, so that it would be physically possible to ride one from Carson City to Topsy Lane or Centennial Park,, for example. | Feb-13-2013 |
 Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us © 2013 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau |
|