THE PERILS OF TEXTING : MIS IN ACTION

1.  Many people at state and local levels are calling for a federal law against texting while driving. Use a search engine to explore what steps the federal government has taken to discourage texting while driving.

Government Action

The Department of Transportation is taking steps to address this national epidemic. The plan includes education, funding, technology and legal measures designed to discourage distracted driving.

First an important step is teaching teenagers that texting while driving is dangerous.

Second, the DOT is also providing funding to states to step up police enforcement of state-wide bans and launch public awareness campaigns. At least 39 states, including Massachusetts, have passed anti-texting laws or comprehensive bans on cellphone use while driving.

Third the DOT is also calling for legislation to require automakers to include dashboard technologies that prevent distracted driving, while encouraging manufacturers to voluntarily install such technology. Further, the agency has pressed congress to pass a nationwide ban on cellphone use behind the wheel.

Unfortunately, many drivers continue to use cell phones while sharing the road with other drivers, passengers and by standers. Victims of distracted driving accidents may suffer from permanent disability and the loss of earning capacity for themselves and their families. If a distracted driver caused you injury, contact a personal injury attorney to discuss your legal rights.

2.  Most people are not award of the wide spread impact of texting while driving across the United States. Do a search on “texting” while driving. “Examine” all the search results for the first two pages. Enter the information into a two-column table. In the left column put the locality of thereport and year. In the right column give a brief description of the search result, e.g., accident, report, court judgement, etc. What can you conclude

Location	Report Texting while Driving
2012 Texting Pedestrian Study              Researchers from the University of Washington monitored 20 of Seattle’s busiest intersections and observed	Pedestrians who text are four times less likely to look before crossing the street, cross in crosswalks, or obey traffic signals. They also found that texting pedestrians take an average of two seconds longer to cross the street.
2011 Distracted Driving Statistics Most adults who drive admit to engaging in distracted driving behaviors, according to a HealthDay poll from November 10-14, 2011. More than 2,800 American adults responded to the poll.	Approximately 86% of drivers said they ate or drank while driving at some point, and 57% said they do it “sometimes” or “often.” Over 1/3 of drivers (37%) have sent or received text messages while driving, and 18% said they do it regularly. Forty-one percent of adult drivers have set or changed a GPS system while driving, and 21% do it “more frequently.” Many adult drivers (36%) have read a map while driving, and 10% do it “sometimes” or “often.” One in five drivers have combed or styled his or her hair while driving. One in ten does it regularly. Have you ever seen a driver putting on makeup? Approximately 14% have done it once, and 7% do it frequently. About 13% of adult drivers have surfed the Internet while driving. Results of the poll showed that younger drivers were more likely to engage in distracted driving. Men were more likely to drive while drowsy, drive after drinking, read a map, use a GPS system, and use the Internet. A large percentage of the people said they know distracted driving is dangerous, but do it anyway.
Driver Electronic Use in 2010	According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the percentage of drivers who were using a cell phone (texting or manipulating it in some way) increased to 0.9% in 2010. The percentage of drivers using a cell phone while holding it to their ears was 5% in 2010 The level of hand-held cell phone use was higher among female drivers than it was for male drivers. Younger drivers ages 16 to 24 were more likely to use a hand-held cell phone. More than three-quarters reported that they were likely to answer calls on all, most, or some trips while driving. They also said that they rarely consider traffic situations when deciding to use their cell phones. There were 3,092 deaths in distraction-related accidents in 2010, but the number is likely much higher. Most drivers said they are willing to answer a call or text while driving, but most of these same drivers said they would feel unsafe as a passenger in a car where the driver was sending or receiving text messages.
Texting While Driving Statistics	About 6,000 deaths and a half a million injuries are caused by distracted drivers every year. While teenagers are texting, they spend about 10 percent of the time outside the driving lane they’re supposed to be in. Talking on a cell phone while driving can make a young driver’s reaction time as slow as that of a 70-year-old. Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds. That is enough time to travel the length of a football field.
2009 Cell Phone and Distracted Driving Statistics	In 2009, 5,474 people were killed in the U.S. because of accidents that involved distracted driving. Another 448,000 were injured. Of the 5,474 killed because of distracted driving, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a factor. However, the number of fatalities caused by cell phone use could be much higher. For those who were injured, 24,000 involved reports of cell phone use as a distraction. The under-20 age group had the highest percentage of distracted drivers; 16% of drivers under 20 years old involved in fatal crashes were distracted while driving. The 30- to 39-year-old age group had the highest percentage of cell phone use in fatal crashes. More people are driving while distracted when they are involved in fatal crashes. The percentage of fatalities associated with distracted drivers increased from 10% in 2005 to 16% in 2009. In 2009, 867 fatal crashes were reported to have involved cell phones as a means for driver distraction (18% of all fatal distracted-driving crashes). People driving light trucks and motorcyclists had the highest percentage of total drivers reported as distracted at the time of fatal crashes (12% each). A teen driver riding with one other passenger doubles the risk of being involved in a fatal car crash. With two or more passengers, the risk increases to five times as likely. Research reveals that 46% of drivers under 18 admit to texting while driving. Driver distraction is a factor in 25- to 50% of all car accidents, with 61% of teen drivers admitting to risky driving habits. In 2009, the South had the highest percentage of cell phone use while driving at 6%. The Northeast came in at 4%.
Pennsylvania Cell Phone Car Crash Stats In Pennsylvania, although there are no laws regarding talking on the cell or sending text messages while driving, there are emerging statistics that show the connection between cell phone use and car wrecks.	There were 23,059 crashes involving 16- to 19-year-olds in 2008, resulting in 194 deaths. Driver distraction contributed to about 10% of them, but the number could be much higher. In Pennsylvania, there were 1,298 cell phone related accidents in 2008. Of those accidents, 9 resulted in death. From 2003 to 2006, car accidents from cell phone use lead to 50 deaths across the state of Pennsylvania. Cell phone-related car accidents shot up 43 percent in western Pennsylvania from 2003 to 2006. A normal, undistracted driver fails to notice an important road event (like another driver mistake) 3% of the time. An adult dialing a cell phone misses that event 13% of the time, and a teenager dialing a cell phone misses it 53% of the time. According to PennDOT, from 2002 to 2006 there were 5,715 car accidents linked to the use of hand-held cell phones in PA. PennDOT also reports 367 accidents in the same time period involving hands free cell phones or Bluetooth communication devices. In 2004 alone, hand-held cell phone use contributed to over 1,170 Pennsylvania car crashes. Accidents involving talking or texting on a cell phone rose from 168 in 2003 to 228 in 2005 in the Western Pennsylvania region. That’s a 36 percent increase in over two years.

From table search result above can be conclude that now human most depend on technology like phone, and become addicted where-ever they should use the phone even while driving,or walk.

Texting while driving is a growing trend, and a national epidemic, quickly becoming one of the country’s top killers. Drivers assume they can handle texting while driving and remain safe, but the numbers don’t lie.

THE PERILS OF TEXTING

Cell phones have become a staple of modern society. Nearly everyone has them, and people carry and use them at all hours of the day.

For the most part, this is a good thing: The benefits of staying connected at any time and at any location are considerable. But if you’re like most Americans, you may regularly talk on the phone or even text while at the wheel of a car. This dangerous behavior has resulted in increasing numbers of accidents and fatalities caused by cell phone usage.

The trend shows no sign of slowing down.

In 2003, a federal study of 10,000 drivers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) set out to determine the effects of using cell phones behind the wheel. The results were conclusive: talking on the phone is equivalent to a 10- point reduction in IQ and a .08 blood alcohol level, which law enforcement considers intoxicated. Handsfree sets were ineffective in eliminating risk, the study found, because the conversation itself is what distracts drivers, not holding the phone.

Cell phone use caused 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents in 2002. Related studies indicated that drivers that talked on the phone while driving increased their crash risk fourfold, and drivers that texted while driving increased their crash risk by a whopping 23 times. Since that study, mobile device usage has grown by an order of magnitude, worsening this already dangerous situation. The number of wireless subscribers in America has increased by around 1,000 percent since 1995 to nearly 300 million overall in 2010, and Americans’ usage of wireless minutes increased by approximately 6,000 percent.

This increase in cell phone usage has been accompanied by an upsurge in phone-related fatalities and accidents: In 2010, it’s estimated that texting caused 5,870 fatalities and 515,000 accidents, up considerably from prior years. These figures are roughly half of equivalent statistics for drunk driving. Studies show that drivers know that using the phone while driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do on the road, but refuse to admit that it’s dangerous when they themselves do it. Of users that text while driving, the more youthful demographic groups, such as the 18–29 age group, are by far the most frequent texters. About three quarters of Americans in this age group regularly text, compared to just 22 percent of the 35–44 age group. Correspondingly, the majority of accidents involving mobile device use behind the wheel involve young adults. Among this age group, texting behind the wheel is just one of a litany of problems raised by frequent texting: anxiety, distraction, failing grades, repetitive stress injuries, and sleep deprivation are just some of the other problems brought about by excessive use of mobile devices. Teenagers are particularly prone to using cell phones to text because they want to know what’s happening to their friends and are anxious about being socially isolated. Analysts predict that over 800 billion text messages will be sent in 2010.

Texting is clearly here to stay, and in fact has supplanted phone calls as the most commonly used method of mobile communication. People are unwilling to give up their mobile devices because of the pressures of staying connected. Neurologists have found that the neural response to multitasking by texting while driving suggests that people develop addictions to the digital devices they use most, getting quick bursts of adrenaline, without which driving becomes boring. There are interests opposed to legislation prohibiting cell phone use in cars. A number of legislators believe that it’s not state or federal government’s role to prohibit poor decision making. Auto makers, and some safety researchers, are arguing that with the proper technology and under appropriate conditions, communicating from a moving vehicle is a manageable risk.

Louis Tijerina, a veteran of the NHTSA and Ford Motor Co. researcher, notes that even as mobile phone subscriptions have surged to over 250 million during the past decade, the death rate from accidents on the highways has fallen.

Nevertheless, lawmakers are increasingly recognizing the need for more powerful legislation barring drivers from texting behind the wheel. Many states have made inroads with laws prohibiting texting while operating vehicles. In Utah, drivers crashing while texting can receive 15 years in prison, by far the toughest sentence for texting while driving in the nation when the legislation was enacted. Utah’s law assumes that drivers understand the risks of texting while driving, whereas in other states, prosecutors must prove that the driver knew about the risks of texting while driving before doing so.

1.  Which of the five moral dimensions of information systems identified in this text is involved in this case?

·         Information rights and obligations.

In this case people respect to themself by not using a cell phone when driving they car because talk on the phone at the wheel of car is so dangerous behavior. In here, goverment give a report as an information to the people to not use cell phone when they drive.

·         Property rights and obligations.

Traditional property rights at this time so difficult to be protected for Americans. Because numbers of selling cell phones almost grow up every year.  

·         Accountability and control.

In this case, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) set out to determine the effects of using cell phones behind the whell. After accounting the number of accident and why it can be happen, NHTSA can give the information to the policies. The policies can control it.

·         System quality.

System quality also important for Americans. People may know about data, like how much people got an accident. So we can take care ourself because of that information. Obligation that government made, we should do it for a better safety of society in our life.

·         Quality of life.

Values that should be preserved in information is a right information that include knowledge. In this case, people should be know about the dangereous thing while use a cell phones behind the whell. Institutions that protect us is polices, between we must protect ourself. Quality of life grows up because everyone easier to communicate with other.

2.  What are the ethical, social, and political issues raised by this case?

·         Ethical issues raised when almost American’s in 18-29 years using cell phone (texting) behind whell. Social issues are people communicate easier using a cell phone but if they texting behind the well it can make an accident and make a worst relationship in a social living. About political issues, it’s about the regulation from government that should be assertive.

3.  Which of the ethical principles described in the text are useful for decision making about texting while driving?

·         Maybe they use Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. If an action is not right for everyone to take, it is not right for anyone. Ask yourself, “If everyone did this, could the organization, or society, survive?”

TOO MUCH TECHNOLOGY ??

Do you think that the more information manager receive, the better their decisions?

Well, think again.

Most of us can no longer imagine the world without the Internet and without our favorite gadgets,whether they’re iPads, smartphones, laptops, or cellphones. However, although these devices have brought about a new era of collaboration and communication, they also have introduced new concerns about our relationship with technology.

Some researchers suggest that the Internet and other digital technologies are fundamentally changing the way we think—and not for the better. Is the Internet actually making us “dumber” and have we reached a point where we have too much technology? Or does the Internet offer so many new opportunities to discover information that it’s actually making us “smarter.”

And, by the way, how do we define “dumber” and “smarter” in an Internet age?

Wait a second, you’re saying. How could this be?

The Internet is an unprecedented source for acquiring and sharing all types of information. Creating and disseminating media has never been easier. Resources like Wikipedia and Google have helped to organize knowledge and make that knowledge accessible to the world, and they would not have been possible without the Internet. And other digital media technologies have become indispensable parts of our lives. At first glance, it’snot clear how such advancements could do anything but make us smarter.

In response to this argument, several authorities claim that making it possible for millions of people to create media written blogs, photos, videos—has understandably lowered the quality of media.

Bloggers very rarely do original reporting or research but instead copy it from professional resources.YouTube videos contributed by newbies to video come nowhere near the quality of professional videos. Newspapers struggle to stay in business while bloggers provide free content of inconsistent quality. But similar warnings were issued in response to the development of the printing press. As Gutenberg’s invention spread through out Europe,contemporary literature exploded in popularity, and much of it was considered mediocre by intellectuals of the era. But rather than being destroyed, it was simply in the early stages of fundamental change. As people came to grips with the new technology and the new norms governing it, literature, newspapers,scientific journals, fiction, and non-fiction all began to contribute to the intellectual climate instead of detracting from it. Today, we can’t imagine a world without print media.

Advocates of digital media argue that history is bound to repeat itself as we gain familiarity with the Internet and other newer technologies. The scientific revolution was galvanized by peer review and collaboration enabled by the printing press.

According to many digital media supporters, the Internet will usher in a similar revolution inpublishing capability and collaboration, and it will bea resounding success for society as a whole.

This may all be true, but from a cognitivestandpoint, the effects of the Internet and otherdigital devices might not be so positive.

New studies suggest that digital technologies are damaging our ability to think clearly and focus. Digital technology users develop an inevitable desire to multitask, doing several things at once while using their devices. Although TV, the Internet, and video games are effective at developing our visual processing ability,research suggests that they detract from our ability to think deeply and retain information. It’s true that the Internet grants users easy access to the world’s information, but the medium through which that information is delivered is hurting our ability to think deeply and critically about what we read and hear. You’d be “smarter” (in the sense of being able to give an account of the content) by reading a book rather than viewing a video on the same topic while texting with your friends.

Using the Internet lends it self to multitasking. Pages are littered with hyperlinks to other sites; tabbed browsing allows us to switch rapidly between two windows; and we can surf the Web while watching TV, instant messaging friends, or talking on the phone. But the constant distractions and disruptions that are central to online experiences prevent our brains from creating the neural connections that constitute full understanding of a topic. Traditional print media, by contrast, makes it easier to fully concentrate on the content with fewer interruptions.

A recent study conducted by a team of researchers at Stanford found that multitaskers are not only more easily distracted, but were also surprisingly poor at multitasking compared to people who rarely do so themselves. The team also found that multitaskers receive a jolt of excitement when confronted with a new piece of information or a new call, message, or e-mail.

The cellular structure of the brain is highly adaptable and adjusts to the tools we use, so multitaskers quickly become dependent on the excitement they experience when confronted with something new. This means that multitaskers continue to be easily distracted, even if they’re totally unplugged from the devices they most often use.

Eyal Ophir, a cognitive scientist on the research team at Stanford, devised a test to measure this phenomenon.Subjects self-identifying as multitaskers were asked to keep track of red rectangles in series of images. When blue rectangles were introduced, multitaskers struggled to recognize whether or not the red rectangles had changed position from image to image.

Normal testers significantly outperformed the multitaskers.

Less than three percent of multitaskers(called “supertaskers”) are able to manage multiple information streams at once; for the vast majority of us, multitasking does not result in greater productivity.

Neuroscientist Michael Merzenich argues that our brains are being ‘massively remodeled’ by our constant and ever-growing usage of the Web. And it’snot just the Web that’s contributing to this trend. Our ability to focus is also being undermined by the constant distractions provided by smart phones and other digital technology.

Television and video games are no exception. Another study showed that when presented with two identical TV shows, one of which had a news crawl at the bottom, viewers retained much more information about the show without the news crawl. The impact of these technologies on children may be even greater than the impact on adults, because their brains are still developing, and they already struggle to set proper priorities and resist impulses.

The implications of recent research on the impact of Web 2.0 “social” technologies for management decision making are significant. As it turns out, the “always-connected” harried executive scurrying through airports and train stations, holding multiple voice and text conversations with clients and co-workers on sometimes several mobile devices, might not be a very good decision maker. In fact, the quality of decision making most likely falls as the quantity of digital information increases through multiple channels, and managers lose their critical thinking capabilities. Likewise, in terms of management productivity, studies of Internet use in the workplace suggest that Web 2.0 social technologies offer managers new opportunities to waste time rather than focus on their responsibilities.

Checked your Facebook page today?

Clearly we need to find out more about the impacts of mobile and social technologies on management work.

Sources:

Randall Stross, “Computers at Home: Educational Hope vs.

Teenage Reality,” The New York Times, July 9, 2010;

Matt Richtel, “Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price,” The New York Times, June 6, 2010;

Clay Shirky, “Does the Internet Make you Smarter?” The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2010;

Nicholas Carr, “Does the Internet Make you Dumber?” The Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2010;

Ofer Malamud and Christian Pop-Echeles, “Home Computer Use and the Development of Human Capital,” January 2010; and “Is Technology Producing a Decline in Critical Thinking and Analysis?” Science Daily, January 29, 2009.

CASE STUDY

1. What are some of the arguments and against the use of digital media?

·      If we use our digital media can be more aware of media developments and their usefulness if digital media is appropriate for our needs for the digital media.

·      If we deny the existence of digital media around us then I think we will have difficulty facing any activity that relate to digital media according to date.  

2. How might the brain affected by constant digital media usage?

·         Because our brains continue to respond whenever there is development of digital media, so that our brains are being “massively remodeled” by our constant and ever-growing usage of the web. And it’s not just the Web that’s contributing to this trend. Our ability to focus is also being undermined by the constant distractions provided by smart phones and other digital technology.

3. Do you think this arguments outwheigh the positives of digital media usage? Why or why not?

·         I think these arguments outwheigh the positives of digital media usage, because the argument discuss the values of the positive and negative uses of digital media along with how digital media should be used and at what age should one start using the digital media.

4. What additional concerns are there for children using digital media? Should children under 8 use computers and cellphones? Why or why not?

·         The additional concerns are there for children using digital media is the negative effect that will be received by the children of the digital media is greater than the impact on adults, because their brains are still developing and they have been struggling to set the right priorities and resist impulses.

·         We recommend that children under 8 years old are given enough knowledge abut computers and cellphones, should not be allowed to use it, because it’s for the good of the development.