WPost: Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate

Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate
Risk-Taking Diminishes At Age 25, NIH Study Finds

By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 1, 2005; Page A01

By most physical measures, teenagers should be the world's best drivers.
Their muscles are supple, their reflexes quick, their senses at a lifetime
peak. Yet car crashes kill more of them than any other cause -- a problem,
some researchers believe, that is rooted in the adolescent brain.

A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain
that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25, a finding
with implications for a host of policies, including the nation's driving
laws.

"We'd thought the highest levels of physical and brain maturity were reached
by age 18, maybe earlier -- so this threw us," said Jay Giedd, a pediatric
psychiatrist leading the study, which released its first results in April.
That makes adolescence "a dangerous time, when it should be the best."

Last month, Sen. William C. Mims (R-Loudoun) cited brain development
research in proposing a Virginia bill that would ban cell phone use in
vehicles for drivers younger than 18. It passed Friday.

In Maryland, Dels. Adrienne A. Mandel and William A. Bronrott said the
research could bolster three bills the Montgomery County Democrats submitted
to the legislature Friday. The bills would expand training and restrict
passenger numbers and cell phone use for certain teenage drivers.

The measures also are supported by crash statistics and a soon-to-be
released study from Temple University, which used a driving-style test to
show that young people take greater risks consistently when their friends
are watching.

"This goes toward supporting evidence that the judgment of teens further
deteriorates with distractions. These crashes are preventable," Mandel said.
"I would welcome [researchers'] testimony at our bill hearings."

The research has implications beyond driving: Attorneys cited brain
development studies as the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether juvenile
offenders should be eligible for the death penalty. The court is expected to
reach a decision by midyear.

Critics of brain-imaging research -- and Giedd himself -- emphasize that
there is no proven correlation between brain changes and behavior. Giedd,
however, said that the duration and depth of the study means "it's time to
bring neuroscience to the table" in the teen driving debate.

"We can determine what is the relationship between brain development and
driving ability and what we can do to make it better," Giedd said.

At Temple University in Philadelphia, psychology professor and researcher
Laurence Steinberg plans a new study: scanning teenagers' brains while they
perform a task that simulates driving decisions, in an effort to understand
the biological underpinnings of risk-taking among young people.

Giedd intends to pursue similar studies with his subjects, focusing on ways
to give young people, and those responsible for them, more tools for beating
the odds.

Teenagers are four times as likely as older drivers to be involved in a
crash and three times as likely to die in one, according to the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.

"Right now our first subjects are reaching driving age," Giedd said. "What
better application could there be than saving their lives?"
Environmental Impact

Lily and Zoe Ulrich, 15-year-old identical twins from Frederick, have been
part of Giedd's study at NIH for two years. When they signed up, they
answered questions about their diet, athletics, social habits, peer
pressure, language skills and intellectual achievements.

The blond, 5-foot-4 sisters wear glasses, earn straight A's and often finish
each other's sentences. They will receive their learner's permits this
month. "I'm excited . . . it's really cool," Lily said. "I'm a little more
nervous," said Zoe. "We think the same a lot of the time but not always."

Giedd would like to know why.

Sitting in his closet-size office in NIH's sprawling Building 10, he turns
to his laptop, where the fruit of 13 years' work appears. It's an
eight-second, time-lapse film of the brain, swept by a vivid blue wave
symbolizing maturing gray matter. The color engulfs the frontal lobes, and
ends, in "a direct hit," Giedd said, with the dorsal-lateral prefrontal
cortex, just behind the brow.

About as thick and wide as a silver dollar, this region distinguishes humans
from other animals. From it, scientists believe, come judgments and values,
long-term goals, the weighing of risks and consequences -- what parents call
wisdom or common sense and what science calls "executive functions."

While society and tradition have placed the point of intellectual maturity,
the "age of reason," years earlier, the study -- an international effort led
by NIH's Institute of Mental Health and UCLA's Laboratory of Neuro Imaging
-- shows it comes at about age 25.

The process is generally completed a year or two earlier in women but varies
greatly from person to person. Why that is, Giedd said, "We still don't
know."

"We have to find out what matters. Diet? Education, video games? Medicine,
parenting, music? Is the biggest factor whether you're a musician or a jock
or the amount of sleep you get?"

As important, Giedd said, is the study's finding that the brain matures in a
series of fits and starts. While it remains to be proven, he said, this "may
be a key to when the brain is most receptive" to learning certain skills,
such as driving.

The study, which is ongoing, involves scanning the brains of 2,000 people
ages 4 through 26 using magnetic resonance imaging, a radiation-free tool
that permits researchers to view the organs of healthy people in minute
detail.

Every two years, study participants come to the Bethesda-based National
Institute of Mental Health, where they are scanned and interviewed. Half the
children are healthy, and half have brain-related disorders. In the next
phase, researchers plan to focus almost solely on twins, hoping to expand
beyond the 180 pairs participating now, to measure the impact of
environmental factors on the maturing brain.

Giedd said he's been bashed by teenagers who said the study suggests they're
brain-damaged. On the contrary, he said: "Teenagers' brains are not broken;
they're just still under construction."

The pattern probably serves an evolutionary purpose, he said, perhaps
preparing youths to leave their families and fend for themselves, without
wasting energy worrying about it.

The findings imply that many life choices -- college and career, marriage
and military service -- often are made before the brain's decision-making
center comes fully online. But for young adults, "Dying on a highway is the
biggest risk out there," Giedd said. "What if we could predict earlier in
life what could happen later?"
A 'Period of Recklessness'

Temple's Steinberg said the NIH/UCLA research supports his theory that teen
recklessness is partly the result of a critical gap in time -- starting with
the thrill-seeking that comes in puberty and ending when the brain learns to
temper such behavior. Since children today reach puberty earlier than
previously, about age 13, and the brain's reasoning center doesn't reach
maturity until the mid-twenties, Steinberg said, "This period of
recklessness has never been as long as it is now."

In a study to be published this year, Temple researcher Margo Gardner and
Steinberg illustrated the impact of peer pressure on risk-taking. Volunteers
in three age groups -- 13 to 16, 18 to 22 and 24 and older -- were told to
bring two friends to the study, which involved an arcade-style driving game.

To "win," participants guided a car through a course as quickly as possible.
Periodically, a yellow warning light flashed, and some time later a "wall"
popped up. If players hit it, they lost all their "points."

Participants took the test alone and with their friends in the room.
Researchers found that those in the two younger groups consistently took
more chances with friends present. Those 24 and older behaved equally
cautiously, regardless of whether friends were watching.

The results help show why teenagers are more likely to drink, take drugs or
commit crimes in groups, he said. They're also reflected in auto crash
statistics.

According to the Arlington-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the
chances of a crash by a 16- or 17-year-old driver are doubled with two peers
in the vehicle and quadrupled with three or more. "Every passenger you add
increases the risk," said Alan Williams, chief scientist at the institute.
The brain and behavior studies, he said, "certainly tie in with what we
know."

After a spate of teen driving deaths across the Washington region in the
fall, Maryland is attempting to join Virginia and the District in limiting
the number of unrelated passengers in cars with young drivers. In addition
to cell phone restrictions that the Maryland and Virginia legislatures are
considering, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) is backing a measure
that would revoke the licenses of convicted drunk drivers under age 21, for
as long as five years.

Steinberg said he agrees with such approaches. "We have to limit the harm
adolescents [encounter], rather than to try and change them."

The best way to do that, he added, "is by passing laws."

Staff writer David Snyder contributed to this report.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan31.html

sufaud wrote:
> Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate
> Risk-Taking Diminishes At Age 25, NIH Study Finds
Too bad the "study" doesn't look into ****ty training.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, sufaud wrote:

> Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate
> Risk-Taking Diminishes At Age 25, NIH Study Finds

My god, they could be *on* to something here!

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! NIH THINK TEENAGERS' IMMATURITY MIGHT BE
WHAT GETS THEM KILLED! EXTRA! EXTRA!

The whole idea of letting teens drive is just crazy. As for revoking
the DL of drunk drivers under 21 .... that should be done with all
DUIs.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> The whole idea of letting teens drive is just crazy. As for revoking
> the DL of drunk drivers under 21 .... that should be done with all
> DUIs.

That's ridiculous. If you don't let teens drive then the fast food
industry would crumble. What are you, a communist?

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> The whole idea of letting teens drive is just crazy. As for revoking
> the DL of drunk drivers under 21 .... that should be done with all
> DUIs.

There's no reason why young people shouldn't be able to drive safely.
All we need is a little self control, and the correct tuition for them.
When we feel like taking a risk we can back off and decide not to!

"sufaud" > wrote in message
...
> Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate
> Risk-Taking Diminishes At Age 25, NIH Study Finds
>
> By Elizabeth Williamson
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, February 1, 2005; Page A01
>
> By most physical measures, teenagers should be the world's best
drivers.
> Their muscles are supple, their reflexes quick, their senses at a
lifetime
> peak. Yet car crashes kill more of them than any other cause -- a
problem,
> some researchers believe, that is rooted in the adolescent brain.
>
> A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the
brain
> that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25, a
finding
> with implications for a host of policies, including the nation's
driving
> laws.

Going off-topic he This atricle kind of explains why criminals like
JFK and LBJ just *loved* 18YO's for their draft to fight in their little
"war." (as I'm sure that Bush II and Cheney would were there a draft
today)

In article >,
sufaud > wrote:
>Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate
>Risk-Taking Diminishes At Age 25, NIH Study Finds
>
>By Elizabeth Williamson
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Tuesday, February 1, 2005; Page A01

Or, "Junk Science Shows Old Farts Good, Young Whippersnappers Bad".

>"Right now our first subjects are reaching driving age," Giedd said. "What
>better application could there be than saving their lives?"

Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and harsher
restrictions with higher age limits.


>Steinberg said he agrees with such approaches. "We have to limit the harm
>adolescents [encounter], rather than to try and change them."
>
>The best way to do that, he added, "is by passing laws."

See?

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> sufaud > wrote:
> >Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate
> >Risk-Taking Diminishes At Age 25, NIH Study Finds
> >
> >By Elizabeth Williamson
> >Washington Post Staff Writer
> >Tuesday, February 1, 2005; Page A01
>
> Or, "Junk Science Shows Old Farts Good, Young Whippersnappers Bad".
>
> >"Right now our first subjects are reaching driving age," Giedd said.
"What
> >better application could there be than saving their lives?"
>
> Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and harsher
> restrictions with higher age limits.
>
>
> >Steinberg said he agrees with such approaches. "We have to limit the
harm
> >adolescents [encounter], rather than to try and change them."
> >
> >The best way to do that, he added, "is by passing laws."
>
> See?

They're just confirming what military recruiters have known for a long
time.

On 1 Feb 2005 08:31:18 -0800, "Furious George" >
wrote:

>
>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> The whole idea of letting teens drive is just crazy. As for revoking
>> the DL of drunk drivers under 21 .... that should be done with all
>> DUIs.
>
>That's ridiculous. If you don't let teens drive then the fast food
>industry would crumble.

I'd say the people I see most frequently in fast food drive thrus are
soccer moms

> What are you, a communist?