Helmet, Police Pursuit Laws Drive Legislature
Helmet, Police Pursuit Laws Drive Legislature Save Email Print
Proposals would change existing legislation
Posted: 11:58 AM Jan 12, 2009
Last Updated: 4:22 PM Jan 12, 2009
Reporter: WOWT
Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com

A | A | A

Some riders swear by them, others swear at them. It appears Nebraska lawmakers may be in for another debate on whether to change the state's motorcycle helmet law.

Under a proposal Monday by Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont, riders 21 and older would not have to wear a helmet. Those aged 16 to 21 could also opt to go helmet-free if they passed a safety course.

Helmets are not required in Iowa, but have been in Nebraska since 1989.

A Nebraska law championed by former state senator Ernie Chambers would be changed significantly under another proposed bill.

The law in question is one that automatically holds Nebraska cities liable if a third party is hurt in a police chase. Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha introduced the bill to eliminate part of the law that holds cities liable regardless of whether officers were negligent.

Nebraska is the only state with such a law. Similar attempts have been made in the past to change the law, but it was long protected by Chambers, who believed police pursuits were irresponsible and dangerous.

He argued the government should be required to financially protect people, regardless of whether police were at fault. Chambers was term-limited out of office this year.

There's a new attempt to create a tax-free holiday in Nebraska similar to the one that's already used in Iowa. Also in the works, a bill that would require employers to explain why workers were fired.

More Stories
Court: Omaha Drug Bust Illegal

Girl Rescued From Pool Doing Better

Driver Gets Probation In Teen's Death

Motorcyclist Killed In Crash

Holiday Enforcement Nabs Drunk Drivers

Lake Assault Could Bring Charges

Omaha Senator Considers Run For Congress

Report: Plane Quit, Restarted, Quit & Crashed

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: RM on Jan 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Let the riders or insurance companies decide if the rider should wear a brain bucket or not.

Posted by: Duh on Jan 14, 2009 at 11:38 AM
No M I"m not saying it is ever okay to run from the police. I was directly responding to Joe who saying that the police could or should shoot anyone that flees. Yes fleeing is bad and should be punished accordingly, but you can't shoot someone just for fleeing. THat was my point. Pay attention to my posts "M" and you'd likely figure out my line of work and that I am pretty pro police.

Posted by: M on Jan 14, 2009 at 08:54 AM
To all you idiots who are trying to use the example of a police car crahing during a pursuit to make your point, you are so off base it is ridiculus. The law they are attempting to repeal makes the city liable for the "fifth time drunk driving felon" who crashes his car into yours, your house, whatever, just because he doesn't want to stop for the police. If a police officer crashes a police car, they are liable. If a fleeing suspect wrecks his car, neither the city, nor the police officer should be liable for that persons incompetence and pathetic decision making skills. Nor should the city or the police department be liable for people who don't want to yield to emergency vehicles.

Posted by: M on Jan 14, 2009 at 08:43 AM
Oh, Duh, I understand what your saying. It should be OK to run from the police as long as your crime isn't that bad? Is that what your saying? If you only did something kind of bad, you don't have to stop for the police. Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Duh on Jan 13, 2009 at 09:45 PM
Joe, I feel your passion, but some people are stupid enough to flee the police simply because they don't have a drivers license or THINK they have a warrant even if they don't. Not really deadly force crimes! When it is a known violent felon that is wanted then the police can justify using more aggressive tactics to end it quickly, but even in those cases you'd have a hard time justifying shooting somebody because they MAY crash into someone.

Posted by: Joe on Jan 13, 2009 at 04:08 PM
As to the police persuits: I believe anyone fleeing from the police should be stopped 'by any means necessary' including shotting them. How many inocent people have to be hurt or killed because these idiot will not stop and then pampered because of 'their rights'?

Posted by: Joe on Jan 13, 2009 at 04:01 PM
I ride and have for over 40 years. I always wear a helmet BUT I feel it is the riders CHOICE. Women have the CHOICE to Kill a baby in the womb but adult motorcycle riders do not have the choice to wear a helmet or not. I am glad to see Ernie Chambers GONE; I think he was an embarassment to this state.

Posted by: LLR on Jan 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Sorry, but it should be ther perpetrator who starts the chase by fleeing that foots the bill. If not, that's why we have insurance. Secondly, helmets are a good idea and we always wear ours when riding at all times (even in Iowa) but it should be our CHOICE. Thirdly, Tocha, Ernie Chambers was the singlest largest obstacle to anything of importance getting passed in this state; at the same time he was the direct cause of some of the most idiotic legislation we have. Get your blinders off, son.

Posted by: Pat on Jan 13, 2009 at 10:11 AM
The kind of people that know that the helmet is not going to save you in anything but a slow slide to the ground. It doesn't matter if your head is intact if your wrapped around a telephone pole or a truck is on top of you. Think it through before you base an opinion

Posted by: Idiots on Jan 13, 2009 at 09:53 AM
Boy some of you people are truly clueless! Anonymous at 1:55, yes the city hires the police and the police decide to chase etc. When they are chasing, they are doing what you are paying them to do, CATCH THE CRIMINALS! You're probably complaining too that the police get paid too much for not doing anything. YOu can't have it both ways. Nichole- If the police officer is driving recklessly and smashes into your car while you are pulled to the right side curb yielding to the lights and sirens then the city would pay no matter what the law is, but if you don't yield and pull out in front of the officer with his lights and sirens on and get hit then they should not be liable for you not paying attention and yielding to an emergency vehicle. $100 fine by the way! Same thing for you D! If a cruiser wipes out and hits your house it is very likely they were driving without "due regard" for public safety and the city would be liable. If bad guy wipes out then why is that the city's fault?

Posted by: Dave on Jan 13, 2009 at 09:50 AM
Ernie is gone things are going to change get use to it a lot fo different bills and laws are goning to try to get through watch

Posted by: TOCHA on Jan 13, 2009 at 09:14 AM
YOU ALL WANT TO BASH CHAMBERS, HE IS A GOOD MAN, PROBABLY BETTER THAN MOST OF YOU TALKING, IF THE POLICE BREAK IT THEY MUST FIX IT, UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOU THEN YOU SHOULD FLIP THE BILL AND THEN SEE WHY THIS WAS PUT INTO PLACE.

Posted by: Joe on Jan 13, 2009 at 08:02 AM
As a long time motorcycle rider, I believe helmets do save lives. However, I also believe it should be my choice to wear one.

Posted by: Magnus on Jan 13, 2009 at 07:03 AM
The police should absolutely NOT be responsible for damages done by someone else that decides to run from them! If the damages done are from the actual cruiser because of the officer, then yes (plus they already do that). But it's ridiculas to place blame on the ones trying to prevent or stop the crime, and not on the ones causing it. Regardless of your views on the police (cop-haters will never change), they are trained and held accountable for chasing when the situation is too dangerous. Some of you just don't have a clue.

Posted by: Just Me on Jan 12, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Well dont they save lives?? What kind of IDIOT would not want to wear one???

Posted by: paul sciarappa on Jan 12, 2009 at 10:36 PM
if you would open your eyes you would see it is not the helmet law and it is. any law that takes another freedom thing away from any one is wrong. if they can tell you when and where you can do or not do something its wrong. how long before they can tell you the type of car you will drive or what you can and cannot wear. or just what you can say or not say. it could get out of hand.....

Posted by: katie on Jan 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM
How is attending a safety class going to prevent someone else from hitting a motorcycler with no helmet and spilling his brains on the pavement. Ridiculuous proposal Charlie Janssen. Although, the more people killing their brains with no helmets equals more organ donors!

Posted by: Rick on Jan 12, 2009 at 06:11 PM
Again, what really has he done? Other than be a big mouth and steer the unicameral to make foolish decisions

Posted by: Anon on Jan 12, 2009 at 05:30 PM
It seems to me whenever any state is the ONLY state with any type of law, that state is probably doing it wrong.

Posted by: Cathy on Jan 12, 2009 at 05:16 PM
It's the land of the free - however, if they want you to do something, they just make it a law. Seatbelts - choice? No. Helmets - choice? No. Sounds Communist to me!

Posted by: D on Jan 12, 2009 at 04:05 PM
Next time a cruiser wipes out and smashes into your house or car, remember they won't be at fault so you pay the bill.

Posted by: Fred on Jan 12, 2009 at 02:53 PM
There is no doubt that the legislature will be more productive without him.

Posted by: get a broom on Jan 12, 2009 at 02:47 PM
This is just the first of a long list of Ernie's messes that will have to be cleaned. Now I have to send my kids to private school since he's in the Learning Community, too.

Posted by: 1upmanship on Jan 12, 2009 at 02:19 PM
Mr. Chamber's initiatives were more braun than brain. It is time to take the wasted muscle Mr. Chambers flexed; stress it, fatigue it and rebuild it into a powerful mass that represents the integrity and moral fibers of this state.

Posted by: Anonymous on Jan 12, 2009 at 02:16 PM
He didn't like police pursuits because they were chasing the male children of his donkey-lever constituents, and he knew how to pander for votes. "Vote for me,I'll make it harder for OPD to arrest your thug son".

Posted by: mTm on Jan 12, 2009 at 02:15 PM
Things can maybe get back to "somewhat normal" now that the cancer is gone.

Posted by: nichole on Jan 12, 2009 at 02:13 PM
so if some police officer hits my car while chasing down some criminal...the city wouldn't be held liable? you got to be kidding me? this better stay....why are they going to waste their time right now to change all of the bills he got approved. there were other senators...you know that had to argee...

Posted by: Dave on Jan 12, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Can't sue the state in Russia either. The government is all powerful.

Posted by: Mike on Jan 12, 2009 at 02:06 PM
I always wonderd why they called it the legislative chambers? Now that he's gone I guess we need to change the name to the legislative co-op (as in cooperative).

Posted by: Anonymous on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Police make the decision to pursue. City hires the police. City pays for the decisions made by police officers.

Posted by: Nick on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:38 PM
Its about time! This state has been living under a rock because of that backwards thinking idiot. Let the cops chase these criminals to Denver.

Posted by: oh no on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Another one of Ernies costly boo boo bites the dust

Posted by: N on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Let the cleanup of Chamber's messes begin!

Posted by: JH on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Let's undo all of the crap this idiot has done over the years. Nebraska has become a national joke due to him.

Special Sections