The great street light switch off
Discussion
ts running riot after darkOur entire side of the village doesn't have street lights because about 20 years ago one of the residents who was a local councillor was an amateur stargazer.
It's a little annoying every year when I get a break down of how my council tax is spent and a percentage is on street lighting.
It's a little annoying every year when I get a break down of how my council tax is spent and a percentage is on street lighting.
Our street has had the lights off after about midnight for a while now, all except 2 lights, 1 at each end of the street. TBH in barely notice as one of the ones still on is at my end of the street.
The council have recently replaced most of the lights with horrible LEDs that not only are almost blinding if you catch the light in the wrong way now mean it looks like a car coming round a bend at the other end of my road. The clever thing the LED ones replaced all of lamps that still turn off at midnight, they've left the only 2 that stay on as the original orange sodium lights. What genius thought of that.
The council have recently replaced most of the lights with horrible LEDs that not only are almost blinding if you catch the light in the wrong way now mean it looks like a car coming round a bend at the other end of my road. The clever thing the LED ones replaced all of lamps that still turn off at midnight, they've left the only 2 that stay on as the original orange sodium lights. What genius thought of that.
I had an argument with our local council about turning off street lights. There's a particular stretch of my walk to the pub and back which has (had) five streetlights. The pavement is uneven, there are various bits where new driveways have been added (barn conversions) by dumping some uneven tarmac, there are dropped then raised kerbs, and then there's a stretch of new pavement which is so badly laid that even though it's on a slight incline it still gathers water into massive puddles that I now cannot see. Only 200m away there's a stretch of road which has no pedestrian access (the footpath is diverted to a new route, along with a cycle way) with 25 streetlights all burning away. The only things on that stretch are vehicles with lights so no lighting is necessary, while I try to pick my way across the wasteground that is the pavement in pitch darkness. Coupled to that, it's slightly lower than the adjacent road, so dipped beams from oncoming traffic shine right in my eyes, though to be fair most put on mains for the 200m of dark road.
So my issue is not that they're turning out streetlights to save CO2, or money, or crested newts, or whatever reason there is for turning them out, just that they're choosing unwisely. When I pointed out the dangers of this area being in darkness the bloke at the council said they'd review it if accident statistics showed an increase, not understanding at all that I'm unlikely to call an ambulance if I trip over a kerb or stand in a deep puddle. It came across that once the decision had been made, it's final, there's no way they could have made a wrong decision. There was also the hint that they might just knock out all the lights if they were pushed on the matter.
So my issue is not that they're turning out streetlights to save CO2, or money, or crested newts, or whatever reason there is for turning them out, just that they're choosing unwisely. When I pointed out the dangers of this area being in darkness the bloke at the council said they'd review it if accident statistics showed an increase, not understanding at all that I'm unlikely to call an ambulance if I trip over a kerb or stand in a deep puddle. It came across that once the decision had been made, it's final, there's no way they could have made a wrong decision. There was also the hint that they might just knock out all the lights if they were pushed on the matter.
droopsnoot said:
I had an argument with our local council about turning off street lights. There's a particular stretch of my walk to the pub and back which has (had) five streetlights. The pavement is uneven, there are various bits where new driveways have been added (barn conversions) by dumping some uneven tarmac, there are dropped then raised kerbs, and then there's a stretch of new pavement which is so badly laid that even though it's on a slight incline it still gathers water into massive puddles that I now cannot see. Only 200m away there's a stretch of road which has no pedestrian access (the footpath is diverted to a new route, along with a cycle way) with 25 streetlights all burning away. The only things on that stretch are vehicles with lights so no lighting is necessary, while I try to pick my way across the wasteground that is the pavement in pitch darkness. Coupled to that, it's slightly lower than the adjacent road, so dipped beams from oncoming traffic shine right in my eyes, though to be fair most put on mains for the 200m of dark road.
So my issue is not that they're turning out streetlights to save CO2, or money, or crested newts, or whatever reason there is for turning them out, just that they're choosing unwisely. When I pointed out the dangers of this area being in darkness the bloke at the council said they'd review it if accident statistics showed an increase, not understanding at all that I'm unlikely to call an ambulance if I trip over a kerb or stand in a deep puddle. It came across that once the decision had been made, it's final, there's no way they could have made a wrong decision. There was also the hint that they might just knock out all the lights if they were pushed on the matter.
Do you have a torch?So my issue is not that they're turning out streetlights to save CO2, or money, or crested newts, or whatever reason there is for turning them out, just that they're choosing unwisely. When I pointed out the dangers of this area being in darkness the bloke at the council said they'd review it if accident statistics showed an increase, not understanding at all that I'm unlikely to call an ambulance if I trip over a kerb or stand in a deep puddle. It came across that once the decision had been made, it's final, there's no way they could have made a wrong decision. There was also the hint that they might just knock out all the lights if they were pushed on the matter.
madbadger said:
Do you have a torch?
I was expecting something like that. Yes, I have a torch, but I'm going to the pub, not trekking the Amazon. I don't want to have to carry stuff like that. I still don't see how turning out lights on an area with pedestrian access in preference to those with no pedestrian access is the correct decision. I even suggested they turn out every second light on the adjacent road, on that stretch alone it would have saved more of whatever they're trying to save (unless it's opportunities to wind me up) and both would be lit.droopsnoot said:
madbadger said:
Do you have a torch?
I was expecting something like that. Yes, I have a torch, but I'm going to the pub, not trekking the Amazon. I don't want to have to carry stuff like that. I still don't see how turning out lights on an area with pedestrian access in preference to those with no pedestrian access is the correct decision. I even suggested they turn out every second light on the adjacent road, on that stretch alone it would have saved more of whatever they're trying to save (unless it's opportunities to wind me up) and both would be lit.
Personally I can manage where there isn't street lighting, and I am happy that the council save a few quid. Especially as there really aren't that many people affected if it is limited to 12:00 to 05:00 switch off.
grumbledoak said:
I wasn't too hot at History, and this was a little before my time, but I was under the impression that humans had survived without street lighting for weeks at a time in the past.
We did pretty well prior to local politics, too.
I'm sure we survived without cars,central heating,computers etc in the past....We did pretty well prior to local politics, too.
Why have we got this obsession with trying to uninvent everything?
madbadger said:
droopsnoot said:
madbadger said:
Do you have a torch?
I was expecting something like that. Yes, I have a torch, but I'm going to the pub, not trekking the Amazon. I don't want to have to carry stuff like that. I still don't see how turning out lights on an area with pedestrian access in preference to those with no pedestrian access is the correct decision. I even suggested they turn out every second light on the adjacent road, on that stretch alone it would have saved more of whatever they're trying to save (unless it's opportunities to wind me up) and both would be lit.Personally I can manage where there isn't street lighting, and I am happy that the council save a few quid. Especially as there really aren't that many people affected if it is limited to 12:00 to 05:00 switch off.
Has anyone actually looked at the sums though?
My local council turns the lights off at midnight, not sure what time they come on - before 7am though.
However, I've heard that it cost over a million quid to fit the equipment required to turn the lights off on a timer and the annual saving in electricity bills is 1/10th of that!
Some background reading:
http://www.newscenter.philips.com/gb_en/standard/n...
My local council turns the lights off at midnight, not sure what time they come on - before 7am though.
However, I've heard that it cost over a million quid to fit the equipment required to turn the lights off on a timer and the annual saving in electricity bills is 1/10th of that!
Some background reading:
http://www.newscenter.philips.com/gb_en/standard/n...
Edited by youngsyr on Monday 22 December 11:55
madbadger said:
Personally I can manage where there isn't street lighting, and I am happy that the council save a few quid.
I've got used to it, it's just a poor decision IMO. Other stretches of the journey are in darkness too, but are just straight bits of pavement without the hazards of this one. I don't carry a phone, though mine is so ancient I doubt the light from it would be much use. Keep in mind, I only take a coat with me if it looks like it's going to rain, I don't like to be weighed down with "stuff".youngsyr said:
Has anyone actually looked at the sums though?
My local council turns the lights off at midnight, not sure what time they come on - before 7am though.
However, I've heard that it cost over a million quid to fit the equipment required to turn the lights off on a timer and the annual saving in electricity bills is 1/10th of that!
During my discussion with the council one thing they mentioned was that they're obliged to reduce CO2 emissions by a certain amount each year. So they'd picked on street lighting as a way to achieve that, and would cut out (or replace by LED) enough lighting to achieve that target, then do it all again next year. Saving money didn't seem to be the aim, though I assume they have to balance the books somewhere. The EU were mentioned as instigators of the CO2 reduction, though I don't know if that's true or they're just a popular scapegoat. Also I'm not sure what happens when street lights are reduced to their absolute minimum (or none) - how would they achieve the next years reduction?My local council turns the lights off at midnight, not sure what time they come on - before 7am though.
However, I've heard that it cost over a million quid to fit the equipment required to turn the lights off on a timer and the annual saving in electricity bills is 1/10th of that!
I wondered about the ROI though - I've noticed a lot of our traffic lights have been changed to LED versions instead of the older style. And they've started changing some on controlled pedestrian crossings to have an additional light to indicate cyclists can cross if there is a cycle lane at the crossing, which again seems to be a waste of money. If anything was required, surely a fixed sign saying "When green pedestrian sign lights, cyclists may also cross".
Truckosaurus][Citation Needed said:
but I heard a Police officer on the television making the claim that turning off street lights overnight actually reduced crime as burglars (esp. impulse ones) couldn't see either, so would need to use a torch making them easier to spot by passers-by.
I too have read an article claiming the same. Street lights may actually increase crime despite lowering the fear of it.I personally welcome dimming or turning off streetlights - especially late at night or past midnight. Luckily our village has never had them.
It's another idea pushed forward to help reduce power consumption and cost cutting, fine on paper but stupid in any practical sense.
Street lights help reduce crime, personal injury, and road accidents. These idiots think switching them off or dimming them at night ( the only time when they have a use) is smart.
Why not switch off their office lights at night (i worked in a 6 storey building and 4 floors always lit by the council) or cut the constant waste of resources with their overly complicated admin process.
Street lights help reduce crime, personal injury, and road accidents. These idiots think switching them off or dimming them at night ( the only time when they have a use) is smart.
Why not switch off their office lights at night (i worked in a 6 storey building and 4 floors always lit by the council) or cut the constant waste of resources with their overly complicated admin process.
except for the one outside my house. Off please (yes, I'm too tight to go for better curtains).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff