Light Polution e-petition

[GAC]

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

i live 6 miles out of a large town and i can still see the nice orange glow from the street lights even when we have had power cuts you still dont see anymore as its the main towns and cities that pump out the main chunk of it.

but using less power has to be a good thing though doesnt it, especially with councils struggling to save much as it is.

 

[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!

 

[Tefal]

How about simply logical steps like:-
- Turning off lights not required (or when not required)?

they're al lrequired though?

- Using more efficient bulbs/lighting to produce less light pollution?

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.

 

[One]

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?

I don't think you will win your argument by bringing the economics and greeness into it as they are heavily contested.

Does turning off street lights actually save money? Have you check with statistics on previous studies to make sure police spenditure and emergency services costs don't rise when street lights are turned off? If having a few street lamps off means we need one extra police car the cost on fuel and the co2 from driving the care will surely outweight the financial and eco benefit. But heh, as long as you can look at your stars.

I don't think he is telling you 'live in the sticks' not that there would be anything bad about that. I live on the edge of Canterbury and if you look in the opposite direction to Canterbury you get a perfect black sky, a little town further in that direction and things would surely only improve.

 

[wildman]

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?

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.

 

[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.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Sounds expensive. I'm not sure this should really be a priority for capital investment at the moment.

 

[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)

 

[metbandit1]

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

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.

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

 

[One]

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!)

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

 

[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?

 

[Threepwood]

Where I live they also turn off most of the street light from 12am-5am.

Crime has not risen either! Whoop!

 

[One]

ps: I assume your comment is a joke?

Only if I can assume the same of this thread.

 

[Basher]

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?

 

[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?

 

[One]

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?

No no, we're also doing to so criminals get a slightly easier time.

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?

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

 

[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!