Light Polution e-petition

[NeilF]

Couldn't see this already posted.

This is an e-petition to improve the UK's street lighting to reduce light polution (& energy usage).

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27603

The night sky has inspired humanity for thousands of years. Our myths are built on it. We have learned to navigate the globe by it. Science has progressed because of it. Studying it had shown us our place in the universe and led to more stories, spiritual, philosophical, religious, social and emotional revolutions than any other part of our world. And yet every town and city in the country destroys it with light pollution.

This petition calls on government to give official support to the Campaign for Dark Skies, and grant the night sky the status of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and/or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and to support this status with a major energy efficiency strategy of re-configuring street lighting to protect the sky while meeting crime and safety objectives.

 

[NeilF]

no chance, the chavs where I am would have a field day with no public street lighting

Who said "no public street lighting"...

What's being proposed is at least better use of it.

 

[NeilF]

If you don't like lights then move away from the city?

Why is it you can guarantee at least one numpty response like this here on this forum?

 

[NeilF]

Problem is though even small villages disrupt star gazing, there are only a few places in the UK you can get a clear view of the stars.

I've noticed in recent years, the street light outside my house turns off about midnight... Shame half the rest of the lights around my town don't do the same.

 

[NeilF]

if better use of it = turning off between certain time then I still say no. Street lighting was invented for a reason, and that reason hasn't got any better over the last 20 years or so.

I value the safety of people in the streets at night far above your want or need to look at stars.

How about simply logical steps like:-
- Turning off lights not required (or when not required)?
- Using more efficient bulbs/lighting to produce less light pollution?

As suggested if you don't like city lights maybe move to the country or a small island somewhere off the shetlands.

As already suggested, stop being a numpty.

 

[NeilF]

Enlighten us then...

How about just enlightening yourself maybe, rather than just wading in with a silly response in the first place?

Because I don't agree with your stupid petition?

I think you've made my point.

 

[NeilF]

He is right though. You can just start making a load of fuss about something for which you have no solution other than to say it needs to be made better.

So you're suggesting the poposal for me moving into the middle of the wilderness is a serious comment, made someone out to amicably discuss the matter? Or is it more likely just a cheap internet armchair expert comment?


As for "no solution" - There are (obvious) suggestions:-
1) Ensure lights are pointing down and do not emit above horizontal.
2) Floodlights, where possible, are turned off at night, or on motion sensors.
3) Lights are used logically/sparingly/economically.

The strange thing is, we need to reduce our wasteful energy usage, and this helps achieve that too.


And before we get more unrelated responses. No one is suggesting blacking out streets or areas, just being more logical/economical with lighting in general. Is that bad? Less light polution and more econimical/better energy usage?

 

[NeilF]

Already turned off from 1am - 5am or so where I live.

I think that's akin to some of the lights in our quieter streets too!

 

[NeilF]

they're al lrequired though?

Let's take the light outside my house. In recent years, rather than being on all night, it now turns off in middle of the night. Furthermore, we've not had any 20 car pile ups for as long as I can remember, and no riots have occured either ie: It's had no negative effects at all. Of course that doesn't mean this can be done to all street lights, but it shows the comment, "they're all required though" is not the case.

I suspect a double figure percentage of lights in many towns could be turned off over night with no negative effects at all.

How are more efficent bulbs going to reduce light pollution?

more efficient bulbs means same light for less energy, not less light for... well no... just less light is what your proposing.

Firstly what is bad about that? If we are trying to reduce energy wastage, and considering light pollution along side this, then it's all part of the same puzzle. Energy is getting expensive, you only have to look at the electricity bill for your own home. So why not use it more efficiently?

Furthermore, more efficient methods may even include reducing brightness in some area at some periods, rather than just running at full illuminate over the whole night.


Again, the intention is not to throw us into darkness, but to just consider making better and more logical use of lighting to reduce both energy usage and therefore light polution.

 

[NeilF]

http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_10/03-PeaseLighting.pdf

that's a research paper discussing the merits of Public Street Lighting in Situational Crime Prevention.

Much of the evidence points to increasaed street lighting leading to decreased levels of crime and a better feeling of general safety to the public.

Messing around with lighting levels in this day and age will seriously be tempting fate and as posted by Castiel attempts have been made and failed.

That's a very valid statement. But would you agree it isn't black and white? If we follow your comment to it's logical conclusion, then putting a 100W light in every square metre of our towns would result in less crime. And reducing from this 100W for every square meter would then increase crime again?

I think we can agree this wouldn't be the case? So it isn't just a linear relationship. So we can see that we can reduce lighting at least in some cases with no detrimental effects.

I'd also mention the street lighting in my street, which turns off overnight. To my knowledge this has made no different to crime/accidents. (But I'm sure this would be the case in all streets!)


Furthermore, the suggestion isn't just a mandate to reduce lighting fullstop, but to use it more effectively/economically. As regards light polution, this is simply to ensure as much as the light ends up at the target (DOWN) and as little as possible is wasted elsewhere (eg: UP)

 

[NeilF]

Surely a logical use of lighting is to light up places no?

So by your statement let's put a 10,000W spot light every 10 yards down the road? And even down roads that are not used at night?

Or maybe we could use lights which more effeciently to light the area below them, at times when they are only required with the view to saving money, reducing light polution while not compromising safety/security etc.

I have a street lamp outside my house and one at the side (overlooking our garden almost) and yet when I look up I still see plenty of stars.

Well, that sounds like a pretty conclusive analysis. Let's call the whole thing off

Is a better use of street lights really limiting their usage? I don't think so. IMO.

As I've mentioned above. The street light outside my house for example turns off in the middle of the night. Is that causing more crime or accidents? I don't think so. So clearly some lights are unecessary at night. Of course not all of them, but some at least. And I suspect it's far more than we realise.

 

[NeilF]

How do you know there is no crime if you can't see anything?

Because I still have my TV set?

ps: I assume your comment is a joke?

 

[NeilF]

Only if I can assume the same of this thread.

So your comment was serious? I must admit to being confused at what your point is, and indeed even your purpose.

In attempt to make some sense of your (seemingly pointless/cynical) comment? How do I know crime hasn't increased in the last few years when the street light outside has been off rather than left on? To the best of my knowledge:-
- None of my neighbours houses have been broken into.
- None of my neighbours houses have been vandalised.
- None of our cars have been stolen.
- None of our cars have been vandalised.
- No traffic accidents have happened.

Does that help?

 

[NeilF]

Are we suggesting that some lights should be turned off during the night so that, when everyone is asleep, people can see the stars?

So is this only benefiting the people that happen to be looking at the stars at 1am?

At the very least it's actually of course benefitting everyone by reducing energy usage (waste).

If as a side effect people can sit in their back garden on a July/August summer night, and actually stand a chance of seeing the Perseids (meteor shower) then what's the problem?

Win win surely

 

[NeilF]

I bet your street is a hive for illegal gun trade after 1am. No lights so no reporting them to the police.

Are, so you were being a numpty all along then... I apologise for trying to assume you weren't.


Of course in your world, illegal gun traders would do their business in the dark in the middle a residential area, and not of course a deserted quiet area instead. Your logic is once again irrefutable and speaks acres of your agenda!

 

[NeilF]

You belittle and dismiss someone else's experience as not conclusive enough, and then proceed to post your own not conclusive experience...

Come on, be serious.

I can see some stars out of my bedroom window, so all is fine? The statement is obviously incredibly vaporous.

As opposed to my suggestion that since the street light outside my house has been turning off at night (to my knowledge) there hasn't been a single piece of criminal activity. I've even looked on the police website for crime reports, and there's nothing.

 

[NeilF]

Better use of it means installing street lamps that target their light where required, rather than against walls, up in the sky, etc.

It's what's being suggested, but alas some folks here don't want to hear any common sense being proposed... And like so many threads on this forum (for reason) a number of individuals try and grab the stearing wheel and drive off into troll territory.

 

[NeilF]

How much will that cost?

No idea... But worth considering surely?

And to what end, is it really necessariy to spend billions on swapping out street lighting just so a handful of people can look through their telescopes or should we simply use that money in our schools, hospitals etc.

While I see benefit in having a more natural environment, I can't support something as relatively trivial when other things are being underfunded or cut altogether.

You're unfairly belittling the matter a little? "Billions just so a handful of people can look through their telescopes?"

Another thread on this forum (you may be familiar with) is the solar power thread, where clearly some individuals are getting a huge rebate (guaranteed for 25yrs), but many argue this is necessary (worthwhile) to improve the technology necessary for helping our (long term) power usage.

As such, could it not be argued that some investigation and investment into possibly reducing our night time energy consumption, is worthwhile?

 

[NeilF]

So why isn't the petition about energy reduction, then?

Alas, I have no idea why the petition isn't called "Let's make our streetlighting more energy efficient and also in doing so reduce light polution so we can see more of the nightsky."

But I do know:-
a) I'd like to be able see more of the night sky. The number of times I've missed meteor showers and aura borealis simply due to too much light polution is very frustrating!
b) If is achieves (a) by a "major energy efficiency strategy," then surely we all win

We can either sit on our hands, or possibly save energy and reduce light polution while still having the same safetly and securty - What's the problem?

 

[NeilF]

I don't know whether Solar is worthwhile or not, it isn't why I paid £12k for them or why EON pay me the tariff they do, but I do know that the Taxpayer is not funding it, so the comparison doesn't fly.

Sorry, but who IS paying the individuals in question tens of thousands of pounds (in profit)? It's other people in the country. It may not be a tax, but for all intents and purposes it is one.

If you find a way to privately fund the changes you want then I'll support it, but until then it is a trivial issue to be spending significant taxpayer money on at a time when there are more important and more efficient ways of spending the money.

Can you tell me how much this investigation will cost to action? ie: How much it will cost to investigate any potential energy savings/pollution cutting?

Can you tell me how much money might be saved per annum from said saving?

You don't know? But you use terms such as "trivial" and "significant"? Hmmm...

There is already investment and programs within local authorities that are looking at and trialling some systems that cut the amount of energy and light usage, I see no reason therefore to sign a petition that asks for something that is already in action.

Why then? What's the harm? If it's a good thing why not support it?

Remember that large parts of the country are simply not greatly affected by light pollution...I only have to walk 1/2 a mile and my only light is moonlight/starlight or the torch I have to carry to see where I'm going.

Regarding light polution - Most people live in/near towns/villages/cities. I'd suggest most people cannot even easily drive to an area with low light polution, yet alone walk there. I'm high up in a reasonably small village and I know I suffer from light polution.
Energy saving - Ignoring all the the points, it doesn't matter where you walk, the same amount of energy is being squandered with ill conceived lighting systems. Why not improve them if it can be investigated and proved worth while/cost effective?