[RFC_Gal]

It would really be nice if you read the article. See, had you read it, you would know they don't want to ban lights at night - they just want lighting installed that doesn't light the sky up so much.

[theymakemesick]

Hmm, I thought I did read it. I wonder where I got this from:

Switch off lights if there are times during hours of darkness that they are not needed, Prevent 'overlighting', i.e. use only the correct amount of lighting for the task in hand, In particularly sensitive (rural) areas ensure that lighting is used only when there is no better alternative, Make external lighting subject to planning control, Encourage industry to use efficient lighting and to minimise the amount of energy waste associated with light pollution, Make light pollution a statutory nuisance and make lighting a planning issue.

[sully777]

It would really be nice if you read the article. See, had you read it, you would know they don't want to ban lights at night - they just want lighting installed that doesn't light the sky up so much.

---

See, had you read the entire article you would know they wish to legislate banning most forms of commercial, residential lighting after 11PM and sources of light that are "essential to government only" would use low lighting.

But instead, the CfDS crowd is portraying (spinning) light as pollution (which it is not), light is harmful (which it is not) and strict regulation as a mild lifestyle adjustment (which it won't become merely mild).