BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 105
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 105 (Yee) - As Amended: June 22, 2011
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:8-2
Health Vote: 13-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires an individual younger than 18 years of age to
wear a properly fitted and approved helmet when downhill skiing
or snowboarding. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires helmets to meet the standards of specified national
or international safety organizations.
2)Establishes a fine for an infraction of the helmet requirement
of not more than $25.
3)Requires ski resorts to post signs about the helmet
requirement and to provide written notice on trail maps and
websites.
FISCAL EFFECT
No direct state fiscal impact. This bill contains no specific
enforcement or reporting requirements.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This bill is sponsored by the California
Psychological Association to establish basic safety standards
for children who ski and snowboard at California resorts. The
author and sponsor indicate more than 7,000 head injuries
occur annually at American ski resorts. Research indicates the
use of a helmet for skiing and snowboarding reduces head,
neck, and face injuries by 40% to 50%. The benefits of helmet
protection are particularly pronounced for children.
SB 105
Page 2
2)Related Legislation .
a) SB 880 (Yee) Chapter 278, Statutes of 2010 was nearly
identical to SB 105. SB 880 included a provision making
the bill contingent on the enactment of AB 1652 (Jones).
AB 1652 was vetoed by the governor, which subsequently
voided SB 880's chaptered status.
b) AB 1652 (Jones) in 2010 required ski resorts to prepare
an annual safety plan, make the safety plan available to
the public, and make available to the public a monthly
report with specified details about any fatal incidents at
the resort which resulted from a recreational activity. It
also required a ski resort to establish its own signage
policy and its own safety padding policy for the resort.
AB 1652 was vetoed.
c) SB 278 (Gaines) is nearly identical to AB 1652 (Jones)
of 2010. This bill is currently enrolled.
Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081