Sacramento, CA – It’s a different year, a different bill and even a different governor. But for the second time in two years a bill requiring skiers and riders under 18 to wear a helmet in California has been vetoed.

Democratic Governor Jerry Brown on Wednesday vetoed SB105, sponsored by State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), mirroring a similar action taken last year by former Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, a Republication, against a similar bill also sponsored by Yee.

“While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet, I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state,” Brown wrote. “Not every human problem deserves a law. Parents have the ability and responsibility to make good choices for their children.”

Ironically, Schwartzenegger last year had voiced support for a ski helmet law but vetoed the bill due to its ties to separate legislation requiring ski resorts to craft and implement formal safety plans.

“At first glance, it seems as if Governors Christie and Brown have switched places,” commented lawyer David B. Cronheim, Chief Legal Correspondent for First Tracks Online, referencing the New Jersey governor’s approval of a substantially similar measure in New Jersey, the first and only of its kind in the U.S. “Normally, one would’ve expected a Democrat to favor this type of public safety law and a Republican to condemn the bill on the grounds that it’s yet another ‘nanny state’ intrusion upon a citizen’s ever-shrinking personal liberty.”

“Unfortunately, the Governor ignored the pleas of parents who were asking for this law and for a simple tool to help get their kids to wear helmets on the slopes,” said Yee. “California’s ski slopes are perhaps the last area of recreation where we do not have basic safety standards in place for children.”

According to the National Ski Areas Association, 19 of 38 people who died on ski slopes in the 2009-2010 season were not wearing helmets at the time of the injury.

“The California Psychological Association is very disappointed that Governor Brown vetoed SB 105,” said Dr. Jo Linder Crow, Executive Director of the California Psychological Association. “The evidence is clear that the use of helmets can greatly reduce the severity of head injuries resulting in a better recovery process.  We are very disappointed that the Governor ignored the widespread support for this legislation would have protected children and saved lives.”

Half of all skiing deaths are caused by a head injury.  Recent studies show that when helmets are used, the incidence of traumatic brain or head injury has been reduced 29 percent to 56 percent.  The Federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has found that more than 7,000 head injuries per year on the slopes in the U.S. could be prevented or reduced in severity by the use of a helmet.  The CPSC study also showed that “for children under 15 years of age, 53 percent of head injuries (approximately 2,600 of the 4,950 head injuries annually) are addressable by use of a helmet.

“Despite repeated warnings from public health experts, professional athletes, and ski resorts, each winter brings news of hundreds of unnecessary tragedies for the failure to wear a helmet,” said Yee, who is a child psychologist. “SB 105 would have significantly reduced instances of traumatic brain injury or death for such a vulnerable population.”

SB 105 would have also required resorts to post signs about the law on trail maps, websites, and other locations throughout the property.  Following the lead of California’s bicycle helmet law, SB 105 would have imposed a fine of not more than $25 on the parents of children who fail to wear a helmet while skiing or snowboarding.

“One can’t help but wonder if another consideration factored into the governor’s decision – enforceability,” noted Cronheim. “One of California’s most popular ski resorts, Heavenly, straddles the California-Nevada border. Had the governor signed the bill, it would have created a nightmare enforcement scenario. A child who started the day in Nevada without a helmet would have had to don one before crossing the border into the California portion of the resort to be in compliance with California law.”

Just where that boundary lies is unclear to visitors. “There’s no dotted red line in the snow. California law enforcement officials would first have had to figure out whether they were, in fact, in California and whether the offence had occurred in their jurisdiction or on the other side of the line in Nevada,” explained Cronheim. “The law might even have been subject to a constitutional challenge on the grounds that, as applied to Heavenly, it placed an undue burden on interstate commerce or travel in violation of the Commerce Clause.

Cronheim concluded that it is “unlikely the California legislature has the votes, political will, or time remaining in the legislative session to override the governor’s veto.”