State legislation takes aim at protecting children while at play

Two safety-related bills now making their way through the state Legislature are being viewed as either examples of exemplary caution or inexplicable nannyism.

While we understand the sentiment of those wanting to protect free choice, we see these bills - one we support and one we oppose - as examples of legislators acting with legitimate concern, not acting like Mary Poppins.

The first is Senate Bill 880 by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, which would require minors to wear a helmet while skiing or snowboarding. The legislation is in response to the many head injuries that occur due to collisions on the slopes involving skiers and/or snowboarders. At the main trauma center in Lake Tahoe, doctors report seeing at least one a day. A study by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission found that 53 percent of the ski and snowboard injuries suffered by children under 15 could have been prevented or would have been less severe had they been wearing a helmet.

Helmet use already is becoming more commonplace at ski resorts. One survey by the National Ski Areas Association found that 48 percent of skiers and snowboarders already are wearing them. A number of resorts require all employees to wear them. Why? Most often it's not because they don't trust their downhill abilities. It's the other guy they worry about, with good reason. Some parents have said they would appreciate having the backing of state law in directing their children to wear a helmet - similar to what occurred with the bike helmet law.

Ski resorts oppose the attempts at legislating helmet use, but the Yee bill would put the responsibility for enforcement where it belongs - on parents. Parents would face a fine of up to $25 if their child is found on the slopes without the required covering.

A competing bill by Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, would unfairly put all of the responsibility on the ski resorts, which would also be required to report on any injury that occurs on their grounds, a challenging task no doubt.

The other safety-related proposal comes from Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. He plans to introduce a bill that would impose a three-year moratorium on the use of metal or composite bats in high school baseball games, pending more study of bat safety. The catalyst for Huffman's proposal was the March 11 accident involving 16-year-old Gunnar Sandberg of Marin Catholic High School, who was hit in the head by a line drive struck by a metal bat. Sandberg was pitching at the time and remains in critical condition at Marin General Hospital.

The risk posed by metal bats has been an emotional issue, made more so by this tragic injury. But we question whether a blanket prohibition such as this will do what it is intended - make kids safer.

The fact is that injuries like this, though rare, occur in baseball regardless of the type of bat used. The Consumer Product Safety Commission looked into the issue in 2002 and found that of the 17 deaths that occurred nationwide as a result of a batted ball between 1991 and 2001, the majority involved wood bats. The commission concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the idea that metal bats presented an "unreasonable risk of injury." Five years later, a team of researchers from Illinois State University looked into the issue and concluded that "there was no statistically significant evidence that non-wood bats result in an increased evidence of severity of injury."

Research shows that balls coming off a metal bat tend to be traveling about 5 mph faster than wood bats. But it's relative how much of a difference that makes in terms of safety. In reaction time, it's a matter of milliseconds.

Nevertheless, changes continue to occur without the mandate of state legislation. College and high school standards already are pushing makers of metal and composite bats to develop products that perform more like wood bats. Meanwhile, some pitchers, who are most vulnerable to laser line drives, are experimenting with using light protective gear while on the mound.

While many questions remain, there's little evidence to support the need for state legislation requiring schools to use wood bats, which break more frequently and are expensive to replace. Given cuts in funding, after-school sports programs are struggling enough as it is.