A client recently received a traffic citation for driving his motorized scooter on the shoulder of a city street in Las Vegas, Nevada, after an accident with another vehicle. The citation listed 0610 “restricted access” as the violation. I have seen many scooters drive on the shoulder of a road in the Las Vegas area; thus, I wondered whether the officer was correct in asserting that it is illegal for scooters to drive on the shoulder.1)For purposes of this blog post, “shoulder” means the area of the road to the right of the right-most lane, on the opposite side of the white, solid line.
The short answer is “most likely.” There is ambiguity in the law, but for the reasons stated below, an officer is most likely supported in citing a scooter driver for violating the law if driving to the right of a solid white line on a shoulder. However, if the scooter driver is involved in an accident while driving the scooter that was not his fault, he may not be precluded from recovering damages from the accident.
The rights of motorized scooters are not fully defined in the NRS
The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that pertain to traffic laws and are found in NRS 484A-484E, and they do not contain a provision or law that appears to match the violation of “restricted access” cited by the police officer in my client’s case. A statute that refers restricted areas that may be the closest to the relevant situation is found in NRS 484B.510, which is titled “Stopping, standing or parking in restricted parking zone.” The NRS does not specifically define restricted parking zone, but the text of this statute makes such a zone sound like an area that has signs marking it—such as a 10 minute loading zone or similar. This is not the typical roadway shoulder found in the Las Vegas valley.
The violation of crossing a white line on the freeway is governed by NRS 484B.587, but there is no reference to non-freeways. Thus, while an officer may be supported in believing there was a violation for the driving of a scooter on the shoulder of a non-freeway, the “restricted access” violation likely does not match with the alleged improper actions.
Applying statutory definitions of moped, vehicle, roadway, and shoulder to better understand the rights of a motorized scooter
My conclusions that scooters are nonetheless not permitted to drive on the shoulder are almost exclusively based upon the definitions found in the NRS with some corroboration with the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) and the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Case law on the topic in Nevada is silent. The main definitions upon which I rely are “moped,” “vehicle,” “roadway,” and “shoulder,” the last of which is only provided in the NAC.
Under Nevada law, a motorized scooter is identified as a “moped,” which is defined under NRS 484A.125:
a motor-driven scooter, motor-driven cycle or similar vehicle that is propelled by a small engine which produces not more than 2 gross brake horsepower, has a displacement of not more than 50 cubic centimeters or produces not more than 1500 watts final output, and
1. Is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground but is not a tractor; and
2. Is capable of a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on a flat surface with not more than 1 percent grade in any direction when the motor is engaged.
NRS 484A.125 specifically states that “moped” does not include an electric bicycle. On the other hand, a moped is a “vehicle” under NRS 484A.320 because it is a transportation device that may be used on a highway and is not moved by human power: NRS 484A.320 defines a “vehicle” as follows:
“Vehicle” means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except:
1. Devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails; and
2. Electric personal assistive mobility devices as defined in NRS 482.029.
Since a moped is a transportation device not moved by human power nor is it an electric personal assistive mobility device, it is a vehicle under Nevada law. There is some circularity in the definitions here because the definition of highway under NRS 484A.095 states that it designed for vehicles, and the definition of vehicle states it is a device allowed on a highway. However, to say that a moped is not a permitted on a highway would lead to an absurd result of not allowing a moped on the road at all; therefore, my conclusion assumes that mopeds are permitted on the highway and are thus vehicles. This means that any law that applies to vehicles also applies to mopeds unless there is an exception.
It is important to recognize that a highway in Nevada is defined very broadly as follows:
“Highway” means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way dedicated to a public authority when any part of the way is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic, whether or not the public authority is maintaining the way.2)NRS 484A.095
Many people may think of a highway as a major street or road that is not a freeway, often due to famous highways such as Highway 69 or 101. As shown by the above statute, when dealing with the Nevada laws on traffic, the word “highway” is specifically defined and is simply the entire publicly open surface available for “vehicular traffic.” Under NRS 484A.215, a “road” is basically the same as a highway except that it is “outside the territorial limits of a city.”
On the other hand, a “roadway” is narrower in scope than “highway” because it includes just the improved portion of the surface that excludes the shoulder. NRS 484A.220 defines “roadway” as “that portion of a highway which is improved and ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, exclusive of the shoulder.” (emphasis added). The definition of roadway thus shows that the shoulder is not a part and it is for vehicles, which includes mopeds. It does not state that vehicles are not permitted to travel in the shoulder. The term “shoulder” is not defined in NRS 484A-484E.
It is a false inference to think that because the roadway is for vehicles, the shoulder is not. The fact that the roadway excludes the shoulder just differentiates the roadway from the shoulder, but there is nothing that states that the roadway is the only area for vehicular traffic or that the shoulder is not for vehicular traffic; the roadway is ordinarily used for vehicular traffic as opposed to the traffic of horses, pedestrians, bicyclists, sheep, or other possible roadway users, all of which may be permitted but are not the ordinary users. Just because the roadway’s ordinary use is for vehicular traffic does not mean that the shoulder is not also for a similar use.
The same logic may be applied to NRS 484A.300, which is titled “Traveled portion of highway” and is defined as that portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, exclusive of the berm or shoulder.” Just because the traveled portion of the highway is designed for or used by vehicles does not mean that the shoulder is not. The exclusion of the shoulder as part of the roadway or traveled portion of the highway is a physical characteristic of the respective public thoroughfares, and the use by vehicular traffic is a characteristic of its intended use.
There is no statute that specifically states that vehicles, including mopeds, are not allowed on the shoulder; however, there would be an absurd result if vehicles were permitted to travel on the shoulder. The shoulder is separate because it has a different function; it is also usually marked with a solid white line. If the shoulder were permitted for vehicular travel, then why paint the solid white line at all or even refer to it as a shoulder? Frequently, the shoulder is not large enough to safely drive a vehicle while remaining entirely on pavement and not encroaching on a neighboring lane.
Thus, logically, the shoulder is different from a regular vehicle travel lane, and since it has no specifically stated purpose, it is likely not a lane designated for ordinary vehicular traffic. It is a commonly accepted rule that cars and trucks are not permitted to drive on the shoulder. The law establishes that mopeds are vehicles. If you put the two together, mopeds are not allowed to drive on the shoulder.
The Nevada Administrative Code is instructive
The Nevada Administrative Code3)NRS 408.215  grants authority to the Director of the Department of Transportation to “adopt such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and enforce” the intent of the NRS with regards to transportation regulation, while not a direct authority, provides more specific guidance. It defines “roadway” and “traveled way” similar to the NRS but also includes a definition of “shoulder.”4)NAC 408.245, 408.260 NAC 408.250, it states that “Shoulder” means the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for the accommodation of stopped vehicles, emergency use and the lateral support of the base and surface.
Thus, when read with the NRS definition of vehicle to include mopeds, NAC 408.250 shows that shoulders are not available for moped travel and may only be used for stops and emergencies.
The DMV Driver’s handbook contains a more thorough statement regarding the purpose and function of solid white lines. It states that “a solid white line is also used to mark the edge of the highway as well as the boundary between a travel lane and a highway shoulder.”5)DMV Driver’s handbook, page 30, July, 2014 While the DMV handbook is not an authority, it would be persuasive in its interpretation of the law.6)particularly because the term “boundary” is not defined in the NRS
While it is likely that a traffic citation issued to a driver of a scooter or moped for driving on the right side of a solid white line is likely proper. The law is not clear that mopeds are not allowed to drive on the shoulder, but the law identifies mopeds as vehicles, and vehicles should not drive on shoulders.
Even if a person violates that law by driving on the shoulder on a scooter, other drivers have a duty to drive safely and watch for other users of the highway. Just because the scooter driver was driving on the shoulder at the time of the accident does not mean that they will be found at fault for the accident. In 2005, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a violation of a traffic statute by a victim of a vehicle accident will not preclude the victim from recovery. You can read Langon v. Matamoros here.
The outcome of every case is fact sensitive. Please contact an attorney if you have questions about this or any related matter as this is not legal advice.
Footnotes [ + ]
|1.||↑||For purposes of this blog post, “shoulder” means the area of the road to the right of the right-most lane, on the opposite side of the white, solid line.|
|3.||↑||NRS 408.215  grants authority to the Director of the Department of Transportation to “adopt such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and enforce” the intent of the NRS with regards to transportation regulation|
|4.||↑||NAC 408.245, 408.260|
|5.||↑||DMV Driver’s handbook, page 30, July, 2014|
|6.||↑||particularly because the term “boundary” is not defined in the NRS|