Ten-year-old invents light-up crosswalks, IBM makes them real(grist.org)
grist.org
Ten-year-old invents light-up crosswalks, IBM makes them real
http://grist.org/list/ten-year-old-invents-light-up-crosswalks-ibm-makes-them-real/
9 comments
Although having the stripes light up makes it even more visible. So its not really a new idea, and IBM isn't really in the business of making road signage, but as a marketing campaign it gets their message across in a nice way that their main business (which is consulting) is willing to implement "your" (and by that I mean the customer) bright ideas.
I'm curious about Cringely's ceaseless attacks on IBM. I wonder how legitimate they are -- claiming that IBM is rapidly outsourcing almost everything, not delivering as a consultancy, etc.
I only know IBM Labs people, who do complain about weird bureaucratic stuff, but no worse than anywhere else, and a few barely-competent people who work as "solutions architects", but they may just be outliers.
I only know IBM Labs people, who do complain about weird bureaucratic stuff, but no worse than anywhere else, and a few barely-competent people who work as "solutions architects", but they may just be outliers.
Cringley's attacks always struck me as being more hyperbole than substance. If IBM was not 'delivering' as a consultancy then it's highly doubtful they would be enjoying the growth and financial success that they are since it is their Services organisations that have, year on year, been amongst the most successful.
That said, IBM has changed and will continue to change. They constantly remix their portfolio, adapt and evolve and that has been the only way they have been able to survive over 100 years and prosper at a time when their traditional competitors, such as HP, are failing. One can see how they made the transition from a hardware-led business to a services-led business as a good example of that constant transformation.
Lastly, why is 'outsourcing' necessarily perceived as a negative thing? I see IBM and other multinational's ability to move work to the most effective -- from both a cost and skills perspective -- location as a very important tool in maximising shareholder value and ensuring profitability now and in the future. It's a fact that the world is evolving and, with it, labour traditionally sourced in local markets can now be found in low cost countries and hence in order to remain competitive globally companies must take advantage of this. Unfortunately, this often leads in a rebalancing of headcount in more developed (i.e. expensive) countries and this can sometimes lead to 'layoffs' but this is a fact of life and, I think, the consequences of ignoring it would be far worse for the other employees of the company as well as shareholders and the marketplace.
That said, IBM has changed and will continue to change. They constantly remix their portfolio, adapt and evolve and that has been the only way they have been able to survive over 100 years and prosper at a time when their traditional competitors, such as HP, are failing. One can see how they made the transition from a hardware-led business to a services-led business as a good example of that constant transformation.
Lastly, why is 'outsourcing' necessarily perceived as a negative thing? I see IBM and other multinational's ability to move work to the most effective -- from both a cost and skills perspective -- location as a very important tool in maximising shareholder value and ensuring profitability now and in the future. It's a fact that the world is evolving and, with it, labour traditionally sourced in local markets can now be found in low cost countries and hence in order to remain competitive globally companies must take advantage of this. Unfortunately, this often leads in a rebalancing of headcount in more developed (i.e. expensive) countries and this can sometimes lead to 'layoffs' but this is a fact of life and, I think, the consequences of ignoring it would be far worse for the other employees of the company as well as shareholders and the marketplace.
"If IBM was not 'delivering' as a consultancy then it's highly doubtful they would be enjoying the growth and financial success that they are…"
A priori reasoning doesn't work in Big Biz Land. As a (former) high-priced consultant, who worked with many other high-priced consultants, inside Fortune 100 companies and out, let me assure you… the actual effectiveness of a consulting co. has nothing to do with how many contracts they score or what their profit is.
A priori reasoning doesn't work in Big Biz Land. As a (former) high-priced consultant, who worked with many other high-priced consultants, inside Fortune 100 companies and out, let me assure you… the actual effectiveness of a consulting co. has nothing to do with how many contracts they score or what their profit is.
Then what do you propose is the measurement that can be applied to determine the actual effectiveness of a consulting company?
Of course, it's true that GP is not a good measure, if taken alone, of the delivered value just as revenue and signings do not necessarily make good indicators. However, if one assumes that customers are able to gauge the effectiveness of the consultancy they receive then measurements such as backlog seem reasonable indicators of success; if clients are not receiving value, they would be cancelling contracts and/or not resigning and hence backlog would start to decline year on year. In the case of IBM, their services backlog went up 1 percent year on year and sits around 140 billion USD.
Of course, it's true that GP is not a good measure, if taken alone, of the delivered value just as revenue and signings do not necessarily make good indicators. However, if one assumes that customers are able to gauge the effectiveness of the consultancy they receive then measurements such as backlog seem reasonable indicators of success; if clients are not receiving value, they would be cancelling contracts and/or not resigning and hence backlog would start to decline year on year. In the case of IBM, their services backlog went up 1 percent year on year and sits around 140 billion USD.
The only way to deal with very large companies is to think like Machievelli.
How to measure the success of a consulting company? Well, you have to ask "What are they REALLY hiring the consultants for for?"
Probably a third of the jobs I was hired for, inside large companies (and particularly corporate-y startups), were clearly (to me) about CYA. "Hey, we're doing something, look at all the money we're spending on consultants!" When you go in, as I did, trying to actually do a great job, this becomes incredibly disheartening. One more reason I came to loathe consulting. However, in that case, given the actual (unstated) goal, I was able to be very "effective" for the client, despite the fact that no matter what I did, they wasted endless hours of my & my partner's time at $500+/hr total. $2k on a meeting? Sure, why not? Changing "project managers" every week? Hey, why not? Putting a glorified secretary in charge of signing off on user interface designs? Sounds grrreat!
And yet… for their purpose… I was a tool they used effectively. Bummer.
Wasn't just me, either. Do you remember that "shocking" post a while back by an anonymous ex-McKinsey consultant? He detailed how McK hires kids out of college with no experience and gives them jobs pumping out Powerpoints to client specifications. That doesn't sound so bad, put that way, but he meant that he was told what outcome the client wanted to see, and that he should make the data (and the presentation) come to that conclusion. Given my experience consulting, I wasn't at all surprised (although it's a different type of consulting and I was never dishonest to a client).
We assume clients are rational actors, but they're not. They're people. And people often do things for all the wrong reasons. They will pay somebody to tell them what they want to hear; they'll pay somebody to look good; they'll pay somebody to listen to them, to have somebody have to obey them and their wishes on topics they know nothing about, because nobody listens to them usually.
As notable consultant Jerry Weinberg wrote, "No matter how it looks at first, it's always a people problem." And unfortunately it's not just "a people problem" but "problem people."
How to measure the success of a consulting company? Well, you have to ask "What are they REALLY hiring the consultants for for?"
Probably a third of the jobs I was hired for, inside large companies (and particularly corporate-y startups), were clearly (to me) about CYA. "Hey, we're doing something, look at all the money we're spending on consultants!" When you go in, as I did, trying to actually do a great job, this becomes incredibly disheartening. One more reason I came to loathe consulting. However, in that case, given the actual (unstated) goal, I was able to be very "effective" for the client, despite the fact that no matter what I did, they wasted endless hours of my & my partner's time at $500+/hr total. $2k on a meeting? Sure, why not? Changing "project managers" every week? Hey, why not? Putting a glorified secretary in charge of signing off on user interface designs? Sounds grrreat!
And yet… for their purpose… I was a tool they used effectively. Bummer.
Wasn't just me, either. Do you remember that "shocking" post a while back by an anonymous ex-McKinsey consultant? He detailed how McK hires kids out of college with no experience and gives them jobs pumping out Powerpoints to client specifications. That doesn't sound so bad, put that way, but he meant that he was told what outcome the client wanted to see, and that he should make the data (and the presentation) come to that conclusion. Given my experience consulting, I wasn't at all surprised (although it's a different type of consulting and I was never dishonest to a client).
We assume clients are rational actors, but they're not. They're people. And people often do things for all the wrong reasons. They will pay somebody to tell them what they want to hear; they'll pay somebody to look good; they'll pay somebody to listen to them, to have somebody have to obey them and their wishes on topics they know nothing about, because nobody listens to them usually.
As notable consultant Jerry Weinberg wrote, "No matter how it looks at first, it's always a people problem." And unfortunately it's not just "a people problem" but "problem people."
Cringely has an axe to grind, nothing really new there, but its a valid point that IBM seems to be changing the way they do business that seems a bit strange. To their credit though they are still a going concern, Sun is toast, and HP is in what appears to be a death spiral. So one could argue they are surviving better.
No idea about the consultancy part, but I've got an uncle who works for them and has mentioned the out sourcing, they like to keep layoffs below sec reporting thresholds food that stuff.
The lighted crossing indicator was invented in 1934, before the zebra crossing (1949) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisha_beacon
We have something similar several places in Norway too, which are triggered by what seems to be motion sensors. Since the actual crosswalk can easily be covered in snow/ice during the darkest parts of the year, usually the crosswalk signs placed at either end of the crosswalk light up and blink instead.
There's one of these in a neighboring town. It uses motion sensors to determine when to run. They're "dialed up" fairly high, so the walk will flash when someone is still some feet down the adjacent sidewalk.
Yep, all over Berkeley.
I've never assumed cars will stop for me if I step into a crosswalk, nor do I ever assume they see me.
I simply wait on the edge until the cars stop. If they are stopped, it prevents cars further back from going into the crosswalk.
It works better than anything else. After all, if I get hit, I get hurt, even if I'm legally in the right. People who blithely step into a crosswalk and assume cars will see and stop are fools.
I simply wait on the edge until the cars stop. If they are stopped, it prevents cars further back from going into the crosswalk.
It works better than anything else. After all, if I get hit, I get hurt, even if I'm legally in the right. People who blithely step into a crosswalk and assume cars will see and stop are fools.
I think her point was that even standing by the side, cars are not stopping. So by having a light-up crosswalk that turns on as soon as you're on the edge, maybe more cars will stop.
The real problem is the cars not stopping. All these idiots should get tickets, points, and their insurance should go up.
[deleted]
I am sorry but the idea is not new at all.
http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/air-zebra/ And the implementation is in the works - laws being passed to make those required.
http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/air-zebra/ And the implementation is in the works - laws being passed to make those required.
Interesting that IBM left it in that case! Nevertheless impressive for young-in :)
Cool idea, I like that they didn't choose a random product to try an market, but an actual real world application. As a driver more than a walking pedestrian, I think these light-ups would be awesome on the road. Even during the day. I consider myself to be a good driver, but this would definitely help out.
I have to add that generally a 10 year old is not going to give you the next big app idea. 10 year olds will have no more creative ideas than you or me. But just like the lottery, it could happen.
I have to add that generally a 10 year old is not going to give you the next big app idea. 10 year olds will have no more creative ideas than you or me. But just like the lottery, it could happen.
You may be right with regards to the next big app idea, but I'd disagree with the idea that 10 year-olds are no more creative than adults. Over time people tend to get less creative with regards to big ideas due to self-limiting based on operating within the confines of existing systems.
When you've operated inside the box long enough, your mental models assume the walls of the box even if they cease to exist simply because so many assumptions about reality are based on prior experience.
When you've operated inside the box long enough, your mental models assume the walls of the box even if they cease to exist simply because so many assumptions about reality are based on prior experience.
Over time people tend to get less creative with regards
to big ideas due to self-limiting based on operating
within the confines of existing systems.
Yes there is, and no, not everything needs to be explained with references and citations.
I have a different intuition and I'd like to know why I'm wrong, other than what she/he thinks.
Aww damn it! This was my idea :(
I guess I'm not the only one to think of this. My plan was piezoelectric crystals and some sort of electro-luminescent plastic or possibly solar charged. Also for the road lines since rain makes them hard to see, age dims the paint and snow cover them up pretty bad.
The only problem is I live in a winter environment and plows scrape the hell out of the roads it would have to be embedded in the road.
I guess I'm not the only one to think of this. My plan was piezoelectric crystals and some sort of electro-luminescent plastic or possibly solar charged. Also for the road lines since rain makes them hard to see, age dims the paint and snow cover them up pretty bad.
The only problem is I live in a winter environment and plows scrape the hell out of the roads it would have to be embedded in the road.
While looking cool, it seems to me like this catches a pedestrian's attention more than the one of the drivers. If pedestrians are distracted from traffic right before crossing, this would make crosswalks less safe.
It should be more useful (but more expensive) to lighten up the actual crosswalk signs on the road as soon as pedestrians are approaching.
It should be more useful (but more expensive) to lighten up the actual crosswalk signs on the road as soon as pedestrians are approaching.
>While looking cool, it seems to me like this catches a pedestrian's attention more than the one of the drivers.
Obviously that's only because they see it for the first time in the video. In actual use it will not catch their attention at all...
Obviously that's only because they see it for the first time in the video. In actual use it will not catch their attention at all...
I believe outside San francisco city hall we have a crosswalk which lights up. I believe it with with LEDs that flash. I like this on way better.
Does it turn off immediately when there is no one in the crosswalk?
Does it turn off immediately when there is no one in the crosswalk?
Couldn't some kind of luminescent paint be utilized instead?
That was my thought initially too, but I guess that if the crossing was shining all the time, drivers would simply start ignoring it after a while. The fact that the crossing lights up when pedestrians are allowed to cross acts as a visual cue for the drivers to stop.
In Switzerland we add small pearls to the paint when marking a zebra crossing. The pearls reflect the light from the cars.
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/panorama/vermischtes/SwarovskiPe...
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/panorama/vermischtes/SwarovskiPe...
What an incredibly "out of the box" idea we have here. Sorry, I don't want to sound mean, but its a sad state of affairs when 10 year olds grow up fully accustomed to a world where most public space is taken up by two ton combustion engines. It cuts out all the vital critical thinking.
The question shouldn't be "how can we make crosswalks safer for pedestrians" but "why are there cars and roads where pedestrians walk". Otherwise we end up with things like the "bicycle lane".
The question shouldn't be "how can we make crosswalks safer for pedestrians" but "why are there cars and roads where pedestrians walk". Otherwise we end up with things like the "bicycle lane".
Maybe the ten-year old wanted to propose an idea to solve an immediate problem she saw rather than trying to come up with a holistic strategy to re-do transportation and city planning.
I think this is a great. She came up with her own question and then an answer to it.
I think this is a great. She came up with her own question and then an answer to it.
There is a fascinating book, among other things about the history of the first footbridge over a road in the UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/Leadville-Biography-A40-Edward-Platt...
There is a picture of it here, with a summary from the book below:
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/justincormack/256217251/
In 1938 the inhabitants started to protest about the rising death toll on Western Avenue, the "Avenue of Speed and Death". They petitioned the Ministry of Transport to impose a speed limit of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour. The ministry said that would be an "ingenious provision" to save lives, but it would be against "the whole object of constructing a road free from congested traffic".
On 21 July 1938 the protestors filed across Western Avenue from the Approach, and then back, causing a huge tailback. The next day the Ministry arranged to build two bridges, one here and one by Gipsy Corner, much to the disgust of the protestors, who thought it would encourage cars to drive faster and to force pedestrians off more roads onto bridges and subways. A week later a thousand people demonstrated again for "their right to cross on the level".
In September the hastily erected bridge was complete, and five hundred people demonstrated against it again. The bridge became a tourist attraction and it was "quite usual to see people from other districts coming to look at it".
In October torchlight processions were held on the road every evening for a week, with a dog with a red light attached to it and four bearers carrying a coffin, and placards saying "We want crossings not coffins".
There is a picture of it here, with a summary from the book below:
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/justincormack/256217251/
In 1938 the inhabitants started to protest about the rising death toll on Western Avenue, the "Avenue of Speed and Death". They petitioned the Ministry of Transport to impose a speed limit of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour. The ministry said that would be an "ingenious provision" to save lives, but it would be against "the whole object of constructing a road free from congested traffic".
On 21 July 1938 the protestors filed across Western Avenue from the Approach, and then back, causing a huge tailback. The next day the Ministry arranged to build two bridges, one here and one by Gipsy Corner, much to the disgust of the protestors, who thought it would encourage cars to drive faster and to force pedestrians off more roads onto bridges and subways. A week later a thousand people demonstrated again for "their right to cross on the level".
In September the hastily erected bridge was complete, and five hundred people demonstrated against it again. The bridge became a tourist attraction and it was "quite usual to see people from other districts coming to look at it".
In October torchlight processions were held on the road every evening for a week, with a dog with a red light attached to it and four bearers carrying a coffin, and placards saying "We want crossings not coffins".
"In the case where a thing exists, let's make that thing better."
Sounds legit. In contrast, I have no idea what your complaint is even about.
Sounds legit. In contrast, I have no idea what your complaint is even about.
What an incredibly "out of the box" idea we have here.
You're applying sarcasm to the idea of a ten year old?
Sorry, I don't want to sound mean, but
But you do sound mean. Since you don't want to, why don't you edit the meanness out of your comment? It would be easy. Though you might want to do it twice to be sure.
As a bonus, your point would then come across better.
You're applying sarcasm to the idea of a ten year old?
Sorry, I don't want to sound mean, but
But you do sound mean. Since you don't want to, why don't you edit the meanness out of your comment? It would be easy. Though you might want to do it twice to be sure.
As a bonus, your point would then come across better.
You're applying sarcasm to the idea of a ten year old?
I don't see it as an an insult to the ten year old; it's an insult to all the people pretending it's a unique idea because of that.
I don't see it as an an insult to the ten year old; it's an insult to all the people pretending it's a unique idea because of that.
Why be insulting at all?
Because people want to make journeys faster and further than they could walk or cycle?
The other question that remained unanswered is "Why don't cars stop when someone is waiting for a crosswalk?".
Because in the example it's already completely clear that there is a crosswalk.
"Why don't cars stop when someone is waiting for a crosswalk?"
Because, that's pointless. You should only stop when someone is waiting to cross at a crosswalk. This is a distinction people forget. Standing at a crosswalk does not mean you want to cross. Furthermore, wanting to cross at a cross walk does not mean you have the right of way to do so.
Regardless of where you live and the laws, these are problems.
Because, that's pointless. You should only stop when someone is waiting to cross at a crosswalk. This is a distinction people forget. Standing at a crosswalk does not mean you want to cross. Furthermore, wanting to cross at a cross walk does not mean you have the right of way to do so.
Regardless of where you live and the laws, these are problems.
I've thought a lot about how we can seperate bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles on the road. I think it would be amazing to have all roads completely underground and replace the roads outside with parks, for example. I can just see kids running up and down the grass 'streets' playing soccer with skyscrapers all around.
With underground streets you could even collect the pollution the vehicles emit and store it instead of releasing it into the atomsphere.
But the huge downside which I have no idea how I could make this practical with is the construction costs. Maybe the first city to do this could get an increase in tourism thus offsetting the costs?
With underground streets you could even collect the pollution the vehicles emit and store it instead of releasing it into the atomsphere.
But the huge downside which I have no idea how I could make this practical with is the construction costs. Maybe the first city to do this could get an increase in tourism thus offsetting the costs?
Moving things underground tends to be prohibitively expensive.
When self-driving cars are common, there won't be a need for street-side parking, which will give more walking area in urban centers. And the lidar navigational system will be far safer for pedestrians, so it won't be a safety issue to mingle cars with people.
When self-driving cars are common, there won't be a need for street-side parking, which will give more walking area in urban centers. And the lidar navigational system will be far safer for pedestrians, so it won't be a safety issue to mingle cars with people.
What about:
1. a circular rotating peripheral parking in which you can get a car (or your car) in around 5 to 30 minutes.
2. incredible discounts using public transport.
3. huge taxes to ride the city by car, except for service transports (taxis, ambulances, distribution, ...).
1. a circular rotating peripheral parking in which you can get a car (or your car) in around 5 to 30 minutes.
2. incredible discounts using public transport.
3. huge taxes to ride the city by car, except for service transports (taxis, ambulances, distribution, ...).
Vehicle tunnels need to be huge and require enormous amounts of power for lighting and ventilation. It'd be more viable to put the pedestrians and cyclists underground...
Surely lighting is not that big of a problem; they're already lighting the roads all night long. You could even install skylights.
Sensors and bigger stripes would be nice.
(It's a great idea, and especially if she never saw one before, shows a great thought process.)