AP Associated Press

Car crashes are the leading cause of death for tweens and teens, and a new study outlines some of the most dangerous circumstances: Riding unbuckled with new teen drivers on high-speed roads. These were the three biggest risk factors contributing to car crash deaths for passengers aged 8 to 17, the study found.

While young drivers have higher chances of dying, the six-year study focused on nearly 10,000 children passengers who were killed in car crashes. More than half — 54 percent — were riding with a teen driver. Drivers younger than 16 were the most dangerous.

Also, more than three-quarters of the fatal crashes occurred on roads with speed limits higher than 45 mph, and nearly two-thirds of the young passengers were not wearing seat belts, the researchers found.

Other dangerous circumstances for young passengers included drivers who’d been drinking alcohol, male teen drivers, and driving on weekends.

The message for parents is simple and sobering: Don’t let your teen ride with a teen driver who has less than a year’s experience driving. Insist on seat belts. And practice ways teens can resist peer pressure to ride with other teens, said Dr. Flaura Koplin Winston of The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the study’s lead author.

“Knowing the risks can help parents and teens make smart decisions about which rides are safe, and which ones are off limits,” said Winston, the founder of the hospital’s Center for Injury Research and Prevention.

The researchers examined national data on serious car crashes including those resulting in death between 2000 and 2005. During that time, 2.5 million children aged 8 to 17 were involved in crashes and 9,807 died.

The risk of death for kids riding with drivers aged 16 to 19 was at least double that of those riding with drivers aged 25 and older. There were about two deaths per 1,000 crashes for young passengers with 25-plus drivers, versus more than four deaths in the younger group.

The study, conducted with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., appears in the March edition of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. State Farm funded the research.

Recent federal data indicate that the percentage of U.S. 16-year-olds with driver’s licenses has fallen since 1998 (from roughly 44 percent to about 30 percent), during a time when restrictions on teen driving generally increased.

But no states have all the restrictions recommended by State Farm, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Philadelphia hospital.

For example, they say the minimum age for a learner’s permits should be 16. But nine states grant them to 14-year-olds and at least 30 others give them to 15-year-olds. Also, the groups say drivers younger than 18 should not be allowed to have more than one teen passenger without adult supervision, but only 34 states have that restriction, according to data provided by the hospital and State Farm.

Rosie Jermakian, a Bethesda, Md., 16-year-old, said the study results hit home, particularly because of a recent spate of teen car crashes in the Washington, D.C. area, including one that involved a friend. Rosie’s stepmother does research at the Philadelphia hospital but was not involved in the study.

“Teen drivers don’t always think,” said Rosie, who has a learner’s permit and hopes to get her license soon. “Sometimes they think they’re just in this little bubble where they can’t get hurt and they don’t really think of the consequences.”

Winston, the study author, said that means teen passengers and their parents have to take precautions, and the Jermakian family does.

“I’ve told her flat out, in regard to some of her friends who I don’t believe have been well taught in these areas, that she is not to get in a car with them driving,” said Joel Jermakian, Rosie’s father.

Her parents also have told her to call them for a ride if she ever faces a potentially dangerous driving situation.

Jermakian said the study “reminds us that in raising teens, constant dialogue about all these kinds of things is important.”

Despite decades of research indicating driver education does not reduce crash involvement among beginning drivers, it still has tremendous popular appeal as a means to improve driver safety. Formal driver education programs enjoy widespread public acceptance around the world as the preferred way to prepare beginners for licensure. For example, a survey in the United States found that 86% considered driver education courses “very important” in training new drivers to drive safely. Only 2% thought it was not important.¹ When the young driver problem is addressed in public forums, there inevitably is an appeal for more or better driver education.

YUBANET

More than a third of teenage drivers surveyed by University of California researchers admitted that they have been distracted by young passengers while driving. The most common distraction was talking, yelling, arguing or being loud, but 22 percent of the teenage drivers said they were distracted by passengers doing things like “fooling around,” “messing around,” or “being stupid.”

Even “wrestling” and “dancing” in the car were distractions teenage drivers reported.

About 7.5 percent of the young drivers said a passenger has distracted them intentionally. They said passengers had “punched me in the head,” “tickled me,” “hit me in the face,” or was “squirting guns at me.” Other deliberate distractions were attempts by passengers to control the car, such as “mess around with mirrors,” “messed with my seat adjustments,” and “messing with things in the car, such as radio or hazard lights.”

“Teenagers may find the risky behavior exciting or funny, but it is clear from research that adolescent drivers with teenage passengers have a higher risk of crashes,” said Katherine Heck, the 4-H Youth Development specialist at UC Davis who co-chaired the study. “The distractions that young drivers told us about may be a reason for their higher risk.”

Heck worked with research co-chair Carla Sousa, the UC Cooperative Extension 4-H Youth Development advisor in Tulare County, to examine the ways young passengers distract young drivers. Academic coordinator Ramona Carlos, 4-H Youth Development advisors John Borba in Kern County, Keith Nathaniel in Los Angeles County, and retired advisors David Snell in Fresno County and Joe Camarillo in Madera County also participated in the project.

The researchers surveyed 2,144 seniors from 13 high schools around California in the spring and fall of 2006. The schools varied widely in size and students’ socio-economic status. Forty-two percent of the respondents were white, 38 percent Latino, 6 percent African American, 12 percent Asian or Pacific Islander and 3 percent Native American.

Girls were slightly more likely than boys to report being distracted while driving. There were no significant differences across racial or ethnic groups, or urban, rural or suburban schools in the percent of youth who reported distractions. However, students at lower-income schools were significantly less likely to report passenger-related distractions.

The young drivers who said they had been distracted as a driver were also more likely to say they had driven after drinking, had crashed a car, or had ridden with a dangerous driver.

“These findings suggest that high-risk youth driving behaviors tend to cluster,” Sousa said. “Some of the young drivers who said they were pestered by passengers may themselves cause distractions when they are in someone else’s car.”

Many studies have shown that when teenage drivers carry teenage passengers, they have a higher risk of crashes. A review of fatal crashes involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers who did not have an adult in the car found that more than half had a passenger younger than age 20. In 2000, 63 percent of the deaths of 13- to 19-year-old passengers occurred when other teenagers were driving. Carrying two or more teenage passengers and carrying young male passengers further increased the risk of an accident.

“These statistics are behind decisions in many states, including California, to provide teenagers with provisional drivers’ licenses when they first begin driving,” Sousa said.

In California, new drivers under the age of 18 may not carry teenage passengers for the first year after receiving a driver’s license. They also may not drive between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., a period shown to be particularly dangerous for teenage drivers.

Heck said the research results will help parents understand the prevalence of driving with distractions among teenagers. Parent involvement in teen driving is important. Nearly half the students in the survey said their parents were the most helpful resource for them in learning to drive. However, the survey showed room for improvement.

“Many parents seem to be unaware of the graduated driver licensing restrictions that require teens not to drive with their peers in the first 12 months after getting their license,” Heck said. “Only a quarter of teens in our survey who had been driving less than a year told us their parents don’t allow them to drive with friends in the car.”

Teen passengers aren’t the only distractions. Overall, nearly 21 percent of the young drivers reported that they had an accident as a driver. Of those, 11 percent said a cell phone was involved, either in use by the teen driver or the driver of the other car.

The reasons for teenage driver risks are twofold, according to Heck. Teenagers have less experience behind the wheel and the adolescent brain isn’t fully mature.

“For the majority of teens, their brains simply haven’t developed to the point where they can control impulses,” Heck said. “Brain development typically continues through adolescence and beyond, particularly when it comes to the circuitry that controls behavior.”

The 4-H Youth Development research project also looked into the incidence of teenagers driving without a license. The survey found more than 12 percent of the teenagers regularly drove even though they didn’t have a driver’s license or permit. Fifty-six percent of unlicensed drivers in the survey were male and 67 percent were Latino. Most attended a school with a lower-income population.

Students who did not have a license or permit gave the researchers a number of explanations, such as having no access to a car, the costs associated with driving, or not being allowed to drive by their parents. Unlicensed drivers were more likely to report being undocumented as a reason, and non-drivers were more likely to say, “I just don’t want to.”

The 4-H Youth Development program, administered by UC Cooperative Extension in California, provides youth with opportunities for leadership development and practical, hands-on learning on a wide variety of topics. The academics who oversee the program also conduct research on youth development.

RADIO IOWA NEWS

A research project at the University of Iowa shows video can help new teen drivers learn from their mistakes to become better drivers. Researcher Dan McGehee talked to the Iowa Transportation Commission this week about the study that put cameras and a special recording system in the cars of 25 teens.

McGehee says the device only triggers if the driver brakes or steers abruptly. He says the device can go back to stored video and pulls off a 20-second recording that includes 10 seconds before the event and 10 seconds after the event to give the driver the full context. McGehee says as part of the study they included a report card of sorts that explains what happened in the unsafe driving circumstances, and also shows the teen the video.

McGehee says they found among the riskiest drivers that frequently triggered the system, in just about nine weeks after the drivers got the report card they reduced their unsafe driving by almost 90-percent. “So, a pretty dramatic drop in safety related events in a short amount of time,” McGehee says. McGehee says the video is able to confirm what safety experts have long said were dangerous situations and problems for teen drivers.

McGehee says. “One thing about this type of technology is that is very clear when it triggers, it is not very easy to trigger it. In fact we had quite a high rate of satisfaction among the teens because they felt that when it did trigger and then they saw the event that they indeed had braked too hard or steered to quickly around a corner and so forth. So they believed that sort of the thresholds we had sat were realistic in terms of them accepting what they did as a true safety-related event.” McGehee says teens felt the system was a valuable teach tool that others could learn from.

He says 100-percent of the teens who participated in the Clear Creek Amana study recommended it to other teens. McGehee says this system that only triggers when there is a problem was viewed more a help than a restraint on the young drivers.

McGehee says they asked the teens if the system was an invasion of privacy, and 92-percent felt it was not. He says the teens felt it was a benefit because if you drive normally the video isn’t captured and you aren’t being watched all the time. McGehee says the device becomes a challenge to young drivers to work harder and pay closer attention so the system isn’t triggered. The study was funded by an insurance company and focused on teen drivers in rural areas. McGehee says another study is now underway in Minnesota that is testing the system with new teen drivers in an urban area.

Objectives. In 1999, New Zealand lowered the minimum purchasing age for alcohol from 20 to 18 years. We tested the hypothesis that this increased traffic crash injuries among 15- to 19-year-olds.
Methods. Poisson regression was used to compute incidence rate ratios for the after to before incidence of alcohol-involved crashes and hospitalized injuries among 18- to 19-year-olds and 15- to 17-year-olds (20- to 24-year-olds were the reference).
Results. Among young men, the ratio of the alcohol-involved crash rate after the law change to the period before was 12% larger (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.00, 1.25) for 18- to 19-year-olds and 14% larger (95% CI=1.01, 1.30) for 15- to 17-year-olds, relative to 20- to 24-year-olds. Among young women, the equivalent ratios were 51% larger (95% CI=1.17, 1.94) for 18- to 19-year-olds and 24% larger (95% CI=0.96, 1.59) for 15- to 17-year-olds. A similar pattern was observed for hospitalized injuries.
Conclusions. Significantly more alcohol-involved crashes occurred among 15- to 19-year-olds than would have occurred had the purchase age not been reduced to 18 years. The effect size for 18- to 19-year-olds is remarkable given the legal exceptions to the pre-1999 law and its poor enforcement.

Objective To examine risky driving behaviors and negative driving outcomes in a large sample of adolescents and adults diagnosed in childhood with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) compared with demographically similar controls without ADHD. Methods 355 adolescents and young adults of the Pittsburgh ADHD Longitudinal Study (PALS) (n¼203 probands; n¼152 controls) were administered the Young Adult Driving Questionnaire. Parent and self-report of current ADHD symptoms and conduct problems were tested as potential mediators of the association between childhood ADHD and negative driving outcomes. Results ADHD group differences, of small to medium effect size, were found for number of tickets and accidents, and hyperactivity–impulsivity at follow-up emerged as a significant mediator of this association. Current conduct problems were associated with both risky and alcohol-impaired driving. Conclusions Childhood ADHD elevates risk for driving-related problems, especially when symptoms persist. Co-occurring conduct problems capture some of this risk

This paper reviews European trends regarding young drivers’ accident risk and the effects of countermeasures. Young driver risk differs between countries, and has improved in the last decade, probably as a result of general improvements in road safety levels. Young male drivers’ relative risk is rising, indicating that current policies are less effective for males than for females. Further research is needed to understand the causes of this development. In Europe, most countries are moving toward multiphase licensing systems, including elements like accompanied driving, protective measures, and probation periods. European evaluation studies show mixed results regarding these elements, pointing to a need for more research into the effective components.

Problem It has been established that graduated licensing systems lead to crash reductions among beginning drivers. What is the contribution of the various components of graduated licensing to these reductions, and how can their effectiveness be increased?Method Literature review and synthesis.Results Extended learner periods, nighttime restrictions, and passenger restrictions have contributed to crash reductions. Presently there is insufficient evidence concerning the contribution of seat belt or cell phone provisions, or contingent advancement penalties.Discussion There is more to learn about graduated licensing and its component features. However, there are ways to increase the contribution of all the components through stronger laws and greater compliance. With the right kind of community commitment and focus, substantial further reductions in young driver crashes are achievable.Impact on Industry The results can guide states in establishing graduated licensing systems that maximize crash reductions.

Introduction The crash risk of teens is high, with fatal crash rates of teen drivers higher than any other age group. New approaches to reduce teen traffic fatalities are clearly needed.Method A possible approach to reduce the incidence of teen driver crashes and fatalities is through the use of vehicle-based intelligent driver support systems. To be most effective, the system should address the behaviors associated with an overwhelming number of teen fatal crashes: speed, low seatbelt use, and alcohol impairment. In-vehicle technology also offers an opportunity to address the issue of inexperience through enforcement of certain Graduated Driver’s License provisions.Results To fully understand the capability of such technologies, there should be a concerted effort to further their development, and human factors testing should take place to understand their effects on the driver.Impact If successfully implemented, a Teen Driver Support System (TDSS), such as the one described here, could significantly decrease the number of teens killed in traffic crashes.

Objectives To review the research evidence concerning the effects of passengers on teenage driving and crash involvement, and to explore ways to reduce negative effects.Methods Review of the international literature on these topics.Results Passenger presence increases crash risk for teenage drivers, especially when the passengers are other teenagers and especially when they are male. Female passengers do not have the same effects. Teenagers are more susceptible to peer influences than adults. The combination of passenger-induced distraction and driving inexperience can disrupt driving behavior, and there is evidence that teenage driver risk taking increases in vehicles with multiple teenagers. Possible ways to reduce the resulting crash problem include altering the in-vehicle behavior of teenagers or influencing their selection of travel partners. Legal restrictions on passengers with teenage drivers have been found effective in reducing the crash problem. Parental monitoring of teenage driving behavior, and programs aimed at teenagers themselves, could be other options but their efficacy is unproven. It currently is unknown why female passengers have a different effect than males or if that might offer clues about future interventions.Conclusions Despite passenger restrictions in the majority of states, 42% of 16- and 17-year-old drivers in fatal crashes in 2005 were transporting teenagers with no adults in the vehicle; 61% of teenage passenger deaths (1,222 in 2005) occurred in vehicles driven by other teenagers. Wider application of passenger restrictions is indicated.Impact on Industry Ways to make passenger restrictions more effective are needed, and other techniques for reducing this major problem need development and testing.