Skip to content

Lawmaker proposes helmets for underage skiers, snowboarders

February 14, 2010

Lawmaker proposes helmets for underage skiers, snowboarders

A state legislator wants the law requiring minors to wear helmets when they ride a bicycle to be extended to skiing and snowboarding.

Charges that the proposal is a new step toward “nanny government” were quick to follow.

State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) has introduced a bill requiring helmets for underage skiers because of concern about the number of head injuries suffered in the sports. Under the measure, parents could be fined up to $25 for more than one violation.

Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach) said he would tend to oppose such a proposal unless strong data showed the problem to be extensive and require government intervention.

“I do worry about what people call ‘nanny government’  taking care of everything for people, and this seems like it would fit into that category,” Harman said. “You get into the question of just how far government should go in protecting people from themselves.

“Wouldn’t common sense say you should be careful when you are skiing through trees?” he said.

— Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento

Here’s the bill, as amended.

SB 880


SECTION 1. Article 3 (commencing with Section 115810) is added to Chapter 4 of Part 10 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

Article 3. Snow Sports

115810. (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate snow skis or a snowboard unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened snow sport helmet that meets the standards of either the Central European Norm CE1077, the ASTM International F 2040, or the Snell Memorial Foundation RS-98, or the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), or standards subsequently established by those entities. This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a seat or any other device that is attached to the snow skis or snowboard.
(b) Any snow sport helmet sold or offered for sale for use by operators of snow skis or a snowboard shall be conspicuously labeled in accordance with the standard described in subdivision (a) which shall constitute the manufacturer’s certification that the helmet conforms to the applicable safety standards.
(c) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, for use by an operator of snow skis or a snowboard any safety helmet which is not of a type meeting requirements established by this section.
(d) Any charge under this section shall be dismissed when the person charged alleges in court, under oath, that the charge against the person is the first charge against that person under this subdivision, unless it is otherwise established in court that the charge is not the first charge against the person.
(e) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than twenty-five dollars ($25).
(2) The parent or legal guardian having control or custody of an unemancipated minor whose conduct violates this section shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed pursuant to this subdivision.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

One Comment leave one →
  1. goldiron permalink*
    February 14, 2010 11:40 am

    ” (e) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a violation of this
    section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than
    twenty-five dollars ($25). ”

    Which, in California, usually means somewhere in the neighborhood of $160.00

    Another fast move, and smoke and mirrors trick from our Progressive leaders.
    Why is California bankrupt and closer to Totalitarianism than (arguably) any other state?
    It has had more Progressive leaders, and more powerful ones at that, for longer than other states. Odd how many internet sources don’t even recognize that the Progressive movement is still alive and healthy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: