By: Craig Davis
Nevada Bicycle Coalition Board Member
Chair, Technology & Government Relations Committee
Founder, BikeRackMap.com
As a full-time e-bike commuter and a former road cyclist that pedaled 36 miles every morning in Northwest Las Vegas, there are significant opportunities to improve Nevada’s e-bike laws: 1) law enforcement needs to enforce existing laws for cycling safety that could proactively prevent collisions, injuries and fatalities, 2) some laws are dangerous and unenforceable 3) some laws are discriminatory, and 4) some laws need improvement.
When I testified last year against provisions in Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones’ “e-bike” bill, the County District Attorney stated that they copied the bill’s language from state statutes so we would have to change the state statutes. It’s not clear if changing state statutes trickles down to every ordinance that copied the language.
Law enforcement needs to enforce existing laws for cycling safety
Twelve years ago, I tried submitting assault, reckless driving and three-foot violation incident reports to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro}, and to the Nevada Highway Patrol. They told me there was no process for cyclists to submit near-miss incident reports.
Three years ago, I was assaulted twice by the same vehicle within one minute, six days before and 200 yards from where Andreas Probst, a retired California police chief, was murdered in Northwest Las Vegas while riding his bicycle. I had video evidence of my assault and yet Metro refused to accept my incident report. Could an investigation have revealed that I was assaulted by the same juveniles that killed Andreas and possibly prevented his murder?
A Review Journal article quoted Metro as saying: “The Metropolitan Police Department said it does not take near-miss reports because it would be overwhelmed with reports. Police investigate near-misses that are determined to be intentional.” My video evidence objectively documented that my incident was intentional and yet Metro refused to accept the incident report and investigate.
The overwhelming majority of near-miss incidents are three-foot violations. Metro does not need to cite three-foot violations. Instead, they could use the three-foot warning letter we developed with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) eleven years ago.
Metro should investigate assault and reckless driving incidents because they endanger cyclists’ lives. Assault is always intentional. Reckless and distracted driving can be intentional or unintentional, but no less life threatening.
As of 7/19/26 Metro’s weekly traffic statistics reported 9,394 collisions resulting in 6,026 injuries: 106 were fatal and critical Injuries resulting in 63 fatalities. Reckless driving is the only listed top causal factor never cited. Assault and distracted driving are not included in the statistics.
In all of 2025, Metro reported 17,964 collisions, resulting in 11,448 injuries: 228 were fatal and critical Injuries resulting in 160 fatalities. Reckless driving was the only listed top causal factor that was never cited.
We can proactively change dangerous drivers’ behavior and prevent collisions if law enforcement enforces existing near-miss laws for cycling safety: specifically distracted driving, reckless driving and assault.
As a comparison, “Aviation is up to 1,000 times safer than driving by passenger-mile fatality rates” in large part because they focus on preventing near-miss incidents. Their philosophy is that “catastrophic failures and harm must be systematically prevented, not merely mitigated or responded to after they occur.”
Unenforced near-miss laws that could proactively change dangerous drivers’ behavior to prevent collisions
- NRS 484B.270 – The three-foot law has never been enforced except for a few random sting operations that stopped and counselled violators such as one on 5/4/22 where NLVPD, Metro, School Police, UNLV Police and NHP collaborated from 7 am to 3 pm. There were 172 stops with 124 drivers cited for three-foot law violations in 8 hours, on a single day, on specific road segments. Extrapolated to 365 days/year, that would total 45,260 three-foot law violations, for just the road segments that were included in the sting.
Many drivers ignore the three-foot law and don’t know they are required to move over a lane if it’s safe to do so. We recommend sending a hand-signed three-foot violation warning letter when a cyclist reports being endangered by a three-foot violation, modeled after the letter CyclistVideoEvidence.com developed with the California Highway Patrol, as the best non-punitive educational tool. Drivers take notice when they receive a hand-signed letter from law enforcement.
- NRS 484B.653 - Reckless driving: Drive a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property. Never enforced per Metro’s weekly traffic statistics.
- NRS 200.471 – Assault: Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm. Not reported in Metro’s weekly traffic statistics.
- NRS 484B.165 - Distracted driving: Using handheld wireless communications device to type or enter text, send or read data, engage in nonvoice communication or engage in voice communications without use of hands-free device prohibited. Not reported in Metro’s weekly traffic statistics.
Dangerous and unenforceable laws that encouraging unsafe cycling
- NRS 484B.783 - Brakes on bicycles, electric bicycles & electric scooters: Every bicycle, electric bicycle, or electric scooter must be equipped with a brake that will enable the operator to make the wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
Skidding is uncontrolled braking. The automotive industry spent decades and millions of dollars in automotive research and development to design and implement anti-skid, anti-lock brakes that prevent uncontrolled braking and hydroplaning. It is dangerous and irresponsible for Nevada law to require this unsafe behavior.
Discriminatory and confusing laws
- Clark County Resort Corridor Operations: E-bikes are prohibited from operating on public sidewalks and public pedestrian easements in the resort corridor.
Clark County Code 4.18.037 provides an insanely complex definition of the Resort Corridor.
Clark County Code 14.42.058 changes “resort corridor” to “restricted area.”
Clark County Code 14.42.020 provides a complex definition of the restricted area.
According to the Clark County Attorney, regular bicycles are not prohibited.
Resorts encourage their cycling employees and adult e-bike commuters by providing bicycle parking as documented in this BikeRackMap. Are the resorts and their employees violating the ordinance and subject to penalties?
Clarification is required along with a simple map of the prohibited area.
- NRS 484B.017: states that Class 2 e-bikes can use the throttle to 20 mph. Many e-bikes have user selectable modes where they can switch from Class 2 to Class 3. Since using a throttle to 20 mph is legal for Class 2 e-bikes, it should also be legal for Class 3 e-bikes.
- Clark County's 15 mph E-Bike Rule: e-bikes are limited to 15 mph in county parks and on county trails. There's no specific speed limit for regular bicycles in Clark County's ordinance so pedal cyclists can, and do, ride over 15 mph. The speed limit should be 15 mph for all cyclists "when others are present," like school zone speed limits “when children are present.”
- NRS 484B.784: A class 3 electric bicycle must be equipped with a speedometer that displays the speed the electric bicycle is traveling in miles per hour. Speedometers should be required on all e-bikes since they are standard equipment.
Recommended improvements
- No state law: cycling helmets, not DOT motorcycle helmets, should be required for all cyclists to prevent head injuries, including bleeds, concussions and traumatic brain injuries. According to this July 23, 2024 Journal of the American Medical Association research: "Helmet use is perhaps the best protective mechanism to prevent brain injury while bicycling. Therefore, helmet use during micromobility use should be highly encouraged."
A subsidy program should be implemented for those needing financial assistance.
- NRS 484B.017, the definition of an electric bicycle states that it must have "an electric motor which produces not more than 750 watts."
NRS 484A.125 - "Moped" is defined as having a motor not more than 1500 watts and speed limited to 30 mph.
NRS 483.090 - A moped is defined as a "motor vehicle" so a driver's license, registration and a Nevada Department of Transportation approved helmet are required.
Current law implies e-bikes with motors greater than 750 watts are mopeds, but e-bikes are not mopeds.
There are adult e-bike commuters with motors greater than 750 watts that are needed for cargo bikes with children, heavy groceries or other heavy loads, heavier riders, and those who have to ride up hills or in heavy winds.
E-bikes with motors greater than 750 watts should have the Class 3 pedal speed limit of 28 mph and a Class 2 throttle that is speed limited to 20 mph. Manufacturers should be penalized for exceeding these speed limits.
Cyclists should be required to wear a cycling helmet and no license or registration should be required.
- NRS 484B.784 - Electric bicycle to be labeled by manufacturer or distributor -
(a) Contain the classification number, maximum assisted speed and wattage of motor of the electric bicycle.
Law enforcement officers should be required to note this information when taking reports on injuries or collisions. This information should be included in Metro's weekly traffic statistics as groundwork for data-based e-bike policy.
- Pass Assembly Bill 168 (2025) — The "Idaho Stop" Proposal – traffic lights turn green when they recognize waiting cars but they do not recognize bicycles.
Cyclists often have to wait multiple stoplight cycles or until a car is also waiting. This discourages cycling.
- NRS 484B.783: Lamps, reflectors and brakes required on bicycles, electric bicycles and electric scooters.
1. Every bicycle, electric bicycle or electric scooter when in use at night must be equipped with:
(a) A lamp on the front which emits a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front;
A blinking white headlight is highly valuable cyclist safety equipment on trails and roads when oncoming bikes are shrouded in heavy daytime shadows or at night. It also uniquely identifies an approaching bicycle.
Let us know your thoughts and comments below, and share this post with everyone who cares about laws for cycling safety.
Your article is a great lesson in understanding the importance of consistent, useful and reasonable regulations. It also balances the desperate need for enforcement with the cyclists fully understanding the laws governing their activities.
Thank you Cathy! We especially appreciate your comments from the perspective of a BikeRackMap.con member who experiences cycling across the nation and in countries around the world.
🚴🏽👍🏽
🚴🏽👍🏽always interesting to see how jurisdictions around the world treat this best transportation mode.
If we could only enforce existing law. It is so frustrating to hear of example after example of law enforcement and district attorneys encouraging dangerous driving behavior by refusing to pursue them thru our legal system. Our system clearly does not work.
Thank you for your support over the last thirteen years and for sharing your insights from the San Francisco Bay area Bruce.
I do think, the laws for e-bikes that can travel at different speeds, that speed level, should be a factor in regulation.
There will be, and I fully support e-motorcycles, which are just an end of the e-bike spectrum of vehicle capabilities.
With the Clark County 15mph speed level, although I agree with you pointing out average cyclists can easily exceed 15mph, (I know I did), I am concerned about any new requirement/obligation, for a cyclist to then need to/be required to, have a speedometer in their bike.
I never regularly had a speedometer on a bike, and honestly don’t look at the one on my class 2 ebike. If I use anything on the display, it’s the odometer, and I only sporadically bother looking at that.
I believe there is an ignored aspect of this reality: basic cycling education, in the whole country.
We are seeing the expected consequence of unregulated, expanded bicycle/scooter access with such e-vehicles, but the continued ignoring of OPERATOR instruction/advice which, in this country, is already, zero. That’s a primary driver(!) of existing rider dangers.
I cycle commuted regularly for 20 years, often, I would feel sad or frustrated I rarely to never saw others on my commute.
Over time though, even from behaviors from the sporadic riders I would encounter on my commutes, I realized I was commuting in a Golden Age, and the reality of regular cycling traffic on a commute , would far more likely than not, be a nightmare. ☹️
Cycling in Europe recently, only reinforced that expectation.
I’ve got no constructive suggestions, other than, a rigorous cycling curriculum for students in grade school and pre-school, then ignore and give up on the existing adult riders before the kids cohort nationwide went through cycling education, before cycling improves in this country. 🤷🏼♂️☹️
Thank you for your sharing your insights from Northern Nevada Leo.
I’ve read this article a couple of times and the best response I can provide is to “Never give up.”
I started riding with high-resolution video cameras on my bikes 5 years ago and have recorded over 30 incidents of near-misses and reckless driving. I’ve reported these to the local Sheriff’s Department, the California Highway Patrol, the Directors of Engineering of local towns and cities, the local Fire Chief, and hundreds of local cyclists. Fortunately, 95% of the time all this videography just adds more workload to my life. I wouldn’t put up with that, except that the other 5% is really important!
Using video, I’ve been able to: 1) Get a dangerous intersection redesigned, 2) Get law enforcement to visit near-miss perpetrators at home to confront them with their reckless driving, using my video, 3) Get “PASS BIKES 3 FT MIN” signs installed on three dangerous 2-lane roads – with more in the planning, 4) Get safe passing of cyclists added to the training for local fire-engine companies, and 5) Start conversations with 2 different municipalities on adding bike turnout lanes at dangerous locations on narrow rural roads. Video documentation has often been key and I focus on providing complete documentation, while avoiding anything glitzy.
That may sound like a lot accomplished, but it feels very modest given the amount of time and effort that it’s taken to get there – never with any promise of return. I consider it really important to network with everyone in my community that I can, attending local community meetings (even though cycling usually isn’t on the agenda) so that local officials start to recognize me part of their community. If local law enforcement sponsors an event, like a bike rodeo or a memorial ride for a fallen officer, I don’t hesitate to sign up and help recruit other attendees. I need this to be a partnership.
NEVER GIVE UP! We’re all in this together and I’m as dependent on your good efforts, as you are on mine. Thank you!
Thank you for your outstanding and impactful cycling safety work in Northern California Steve.
Nice article.
I’m with you on most of what you wrote, except for the helmet law. “No state law: cycling helmets, not DOT motorcycle helmets, should be required for all cyclists to prevent head injuries, including bleeds, concussions and traumatic brain injuries.”
I’m sorry, but cars are the danger factor, not the bikes. When I’m driving 15 on an acoustic bike to head to the store, and I have the right-of-way, and a car rider does the things you cite in your experiences, it should not be my burden to armor myself simply due to their actions any more than a pedestrian should be required to wear a helmet or wave flags to cross the street safely. There has been a study that shows that car riders tend to get more daring around bikers when they wear helmets. There’s a psychological effect that a helmet signals to a motorist.
As for NRS, I’m fully with you on this and you taught me a couple good points. NRS is a complicated mess, most of which even police officers are not aware. I once had to travel clear to the Sparks, NV Police Station on Prater to report a reckless driver on Wedekind Road who attempted to intimidate me off the road when I took the lane. NRS 484B.777 2b states that if a lane is too narrow to safely pass, bicycles are allowed to use the full lane. The police told me I was in violation of the law until I pointed the Lieutenant to the law, which he read for the first time, and apologized, so we did eventually file a reckless driver report. It sounds, though, that down in Vegas, they are not even at that level.
I always tell people, if the infrastructure is not safe enough to walk, it’s not safe enough to bike. That is the standard in more civilized places. Bikers are wheeled pedestrians, not vulnerable road-users. Anyone not in a 2-ton cage of steel and aluminum has the right-of-way when it comes to being on the road, but only if the infrastructure is built to accommodate those people, otherwise it’s all car supremacy. We need to stop requiring licenses for engineering and provide immunity to them, just like they do in Netherlands, but also like NL, the imperative must be a mandate. The political acceptance and burden must be there, or else it will never happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ya3V-s4I0
Nice video, thanks Lufi.
We agree that the lack of safe, shared streets is the problem, however, the most precious assets we have collectively and as individuals is our brain and bodies, and most Americans are one serious injury away from bankruptcy or homelessness. The cost from serious injuries and deaths ripple out from the individual to families, communities, companies, organizations and economies. Wearing a helmet is an inexpensive and easy way to protect ourselves and those in the ripple’s wake.