UK: Street lights to be switched off at midnight

So you think I’m being silly? A single bright light left on all night every night can kill thousands of insects. I have seen it happen so I know what I am talking about. Large cities have thousands, if not millions of lights of all kinds, consequently they will inevitably have an effect on surrounding areas. Large cities will have a greater effect than smaller ones, and the effect is greater if they are bunched together into conurbations. Lighting mainly affects those insects that are active at night. Those that are active in daytime are less likely to be affected, so obviously you will still see them, but if the lighting is really intense, they can be affected as well. Again I have seen this happen. We must never forget insects, as they play an invaluable role in the ecosystem. Not only do they function as pollinators for our crops, but they serve as decomposers and food for higher order consumers such as birds and small mammals. Regretfully, many of these are now in decline because they can’t obtain enough food, either for themselves or their offspring.

The tone of your post is hostile and out of order. I am certainly not brainwashed as my conclusions have been reached as a result of years of observation and research. The evidence is out there in the public domain. As for global warming, that is an undeniable fact. If you refuse to accept it then that’s your problem. There’s none so blind as those who cannot see.

Regarding the New York Blackout and looting, then yes I concede looting was a problem, but it appears to be the exception rather than the rule. In most areas where power failures have occurred, criminality dropped to zero, so we should look to other reasons than the lack of lighting to explain it. I have lived in Dhaka in Bangladesh, that has regular power cuts - at least two a night - yet the level of criminality is low. The New York case may reflect the level of criminality already present in the community concerned, which in the case of New York, is high. Many American cities have homicide levels comparable to whole nations elsewhere. Furthermore, the disorder you mention probably reflected the level of frustration felt by the local residents in deprived communities of being denied basic amenities for an extended period.

Yes, I do think it’s a silly proposition.

Open up Google Earth and look at all the undeveloped countryside. It’s ridiculous to think that the relative area of a city and its necessary lighting has any real effect on the worldwide ecosystem.

Insects are possibly the most successful division of animal in terms of reproduction and adaptability. When I install a light outdoors, I can come back the next day and indeed, there are lots of dead moths on the lens and on the ground near the fixture. I can clean them up and come back the next day, and there they are again. It never stops.

In the southern US, we actually install misting systems that create a perimeter around an area. These systems emit a pyrethrin fog periodically, in order to suppress the insect population- otherwise being outdoors would be unbearable. I wish lights were as effective as pyrethrin at killing mosquitoes, because business would be even better.

Your debate tactic is a losing one here. If you want to criticise lighting, do it from an energy use standpoint, or from a bad design standpoint. The insect angle is absurd.

As for global warming, that is an undeniable fact.

No it's not. A large number of actual climatologists will argue that very point. The actual data is anything but clear.

"Illuminating Crime The Impact of Street Lighting on Calls for Police Service Kenna Davis Quinet Indiana University Samuel Nunn Indiana University This study reports on an evaluation of the effects of street lights on crime in several Indianapolis neighborhoods. Crime was measured in terms of calls for police service (CFS). Using a quasi- experimental design, we performed analyses on four multiblock areas, three intersections, and two aggregated address groups. Two control areas were matched to two multiblock areas that received enhanced lighting. Of the nine target areas, six showed evidence of lower CFS volumes after more lighting. We analyzed the mean weekly CFS in the pre- and postinstallation periods. Two lighted areas had a lower mean weekly CFS after installation. The more illuminated target area experienced a greater reduction in average CFS for property and miscellaneous crimes than did the control area."

Home Office Research Study 251 Effects of improved street lighting on crime: a systematic review David P. Farrington and Brandon C. Welsh

The Eight American evaluation studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Key features of these studies and their results were summarised in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Their results were mixed. Four studies found that improved street lighting was effective in reducing crime, while the other four found that it was not effective. A meta-analysis found that the eight studies, taken together, showed that improved street lighting reduced crime by 7 per cent. Why the studies produced different results was not obvious, although there was a tendency for “effective“ studies to measure both day-time and night-time crimes and for “ineffective“ studies to measure only night-time crimes. However, all except one of these American evaluations date from the 1970s. Five more recent British evaluation studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Key features of these studies and their results were summarised in Tables 3.4 and 3.5. Their results showed that improved lighting led to decreases in crime. A meta-analysis found that these five studies showed that improved lighting reduced crime by 30 per cent. The weighted effect size in all thirteen studies was substantial: a 20 per cent decrease in experimental areas compared with control areas. Furthermore, in two studies, the financial savings from reduced crimes greatly exceeded the financial costs of the improved lighting. Since these studies did not find that night-time crimes decreased more than day-time crimes, a theory of street lighting focussing on its role in increasing community pride and informal social control may be more plausible than a theory focussing on increased surveillance and increased deterrence. The results did not contradict the theory that improved lighting was most effective in reducing crime in stable homogeneous communities

Actually London and most large cities in the UK have a much higher crime rate then New York, although that may not have been true in the 70's. And the rioting started IMMEDIATELY after the blackout began, making your "frustrated by lack of services" argument ludicrous.

Google Earth does not show you the extent of light pollution, and as such is totally inappropriate for assessing its environmental impact. To evaluate its true impact I suggest you look at satellites images of the Earth at night. Then you will see that most of eastern North America, Europe, the Middle East, India, and the Far East are lit up. The effect of an illuminated city extends well beyond its borders. For example, the glow of Dublin can be detected from North Wales.

I’m not denying some lighting in cities is necessary, but the technology is available to mitigate its adverse effects. This technology has been around for at least twenty years, so there is no excuse not to have implemented it.

“When I install a light outdoors, I can come back the next day and indeed, there are lots of dead moths on the lens and on the ground near the fixture. I can clean them up and come back the next day, and there they are again. It never stops.”

Well, you’ve just proved my point, haven’t you? So your light is sucking up the insects in your neighbourhood, along with those of everyone else who has a light and leaves it on all night. This and along with all the other lighting in a city will have a significant effect over decades of time. And this is exactly what has been seen. Many species have shown significant declines with concomitant effects on higher order consumers that can’t be denied. And you cannot blame it all on habit destruction or pesticides.

If you are leaving your light on all night, then you’re part of the problem. Get it motion operated. Then your light comes on only when needed, and it won’t do any harm, and you won’t be wasting energy either. The energy wastage I have seen caused by people leaving outside lights on all night (and during the day for that matter), is appalling, especially as motion operated lighting is, and has been readily available for years. Failure to apply it just demonstrates ignorance on the part of some householders and the retailers who provide lighting. For my part I don’t have any outside lights, nor do I see the need.

Why the need for pyrethrins? You won’t just be killing mosquitoes. A simple mosquito repellent would be better. If they are a problem inside the house, sleep under a net. I do.

“Your debate tactic is a losing one here. If you want to criticise lighting, do it from an energy use standpoint, or from a bad design standpoint. The insect angle is absurd.”

No it’s not. And I have been criticising badly designed and unnecessary lighting. I will give no quarter there. Outdoor lighting should only be used sparingly, on a needs must basis, when needed, where needed, and in the correct amounts.

Colin, I am a professional lighting designer. I fully understand the availability of full cutoff fixtures and the desirability of dark sky mandates- by which I abide. I also have that sat photo on my computer- I’ve used it as wallpaper in the past. If anything, the Korean peninsula is the most telling part of the pic. The absence of light in NK says more about politics than lighting design- but I digress.

As for bugs, have you ever been to FL? It’s basically a glorified swamp. Come over sometime and walk around our lake at night. Good luck, you’ll need it. You’ll be begging for pyrethrin.

As for people leaving their lights on, if they have the money to pay the bill, who are you or I to tell them to stop? I design for the customer- they are my employer, and I’ll do what they pay me to do. I use the most efficient and effective source I can, but ultimately, they will do what they want with the system they’ve paid for. Freedom is more important than bugs. Sorry, it just is. People die for freedom, they dont die for insects. And if they want to exercise their freedom in what you consider to be an irresponsible way, that’s your problem. Don’t make it theirs.

This is the genius of the environmental movement- it allows people to shepherd others around out of some phantom crisis that will kill us all- allegedly. A perfect excuse to be a control freak.

I’ve never been to Florida, but I’ve been to another glorified swamp called Bangladesh. A multitude of insects around a swamp is quite normal, and desirable. One should realise that in such a natural setting, we are the intruder, not they.
I commend you on abiding by dark sky mandates, but providing people with inappropriate lighting just because they can pay for it and then abuse it is totally wrong. The prevailing culture needs to change. I have realised that, and so should everyone else. I would never advocate depriving people of freedom, for which my nation as well as yours has paid, and is still paying dearly. Those concerned about inappropriate lighting are certainly not control freaks. If the customer is ignorant of the consequences of his actions, then the service provider should advise him accordingly. That is ethical conduct and sound business practice, and it should apply to the lighting industry as much as any other. As a lighting designer you should be providing lighting that is not damaging to the environment (i.e. motion operated) and does not trespass onto neighbouring properties. Such lighting will still provide for the needs of your customers, and as a result everyone wins – yourself, your customers, insects, and the environment.

Well, I’m not sure how glorified Bangladesh is, but I would imagine that it’s pretty buggy!

As for lighting design, how am I going to provide lighting that won’t attract bugs? They’re literally everywhere. They are going to be drawn to lights, that’s just how they function. And motion sensors are fine for some applications, but not for others. You can’t wire the whole lighting scheme to motion sensors, that’s a ridiculous assumption based on ignorance of people’s needs and wants.

As for your contention that we are the intruders into nature, I totally reject that notion. Why are we not considered a part of nature? We are natural beings, we are not artificial or alien to Earth. It’s natural for man to alter his surroundings, just as it is for any other species that does so.

As for being responsible, do you think people are generally stupid? I’m not trying to be rude, but really- do you feel it’s your duty to inform everyone else of what they may or may not do with their own money on their own property? It’s obvious common sense to avoid shining lights into your neighbor’s window, but if someone wants to do that, that’s their personal neighborhood drama to deal with, not mine.

Now you’re also making assumptions about my business practices and the intentions of my clients that are completely unrelated to reality. I’m not going to give someone a bad design, or recommend something that’s harmful or illegal. I would shut down my income stream very quickly, no thanks.

The free market, as always, is the determining factor as it should be- not some control freak legislation.

Anyway, if you feel so strongly about this, I invite you to start your own lighting business and compete against me.

“As for your contention that we are the intruders into nature, I totally reject that notion.”

If you are in a natural setting, such as the Everglades, then, yes, we are the intruders, definitely. If you visit an African game reserve, fail to follow the guidelines issued by park officials, and then get eaten by a lion, do you blame the lion? As far as she’s concerned you’re just another morsel for her cubs. The same would apply in the Everglades if you get covered by swarms of insects. It’s not their fault. Moreover, the decision to go there was yours. If you don’t like insects, don’t go to such places and stay at home. As for the insects, in such places, they come with the territory. For my part I’ve lived in places frequented by snakes, scorpions, centipedes, the lot, and didn’t find them a problem.

“As for lighting design, how am I going to provide lighting that won’t attract bugs? They’re literally everywhere. They are going to be drawn to lights, that’s just how they function. And motion sensors are fine for some applications, but not for others. You can’t wire the whole lighting scheme to motion sensors, that’s a ridiculous assumption based on ignorance of people’s needs and wants.”

You’re right, you can’t. But you can design lights that minimise the problem by aiming light downwards so that it doesn’t leak out to where it is not wanted. Most lighting now available does nothing of the sort. That’s why we have light pollution.

Motion sensors are for domestic security lights, which is what most householders want. If all security lights were motion operated we would have less of a problem and I wouldn’t be complaining. Granted there will be the need for non-motion operated lighting in work-stations, etc where people are going to be working all night. Motion operated lighting in these situations would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, the lighting can be designed in such a way that it only goes where it is needed, and no-where else. That should be part of your job-description as a lighting designer.

“As for being responsible, do you think people are generally stupid? I’m not trying to be rude, but really- do you feel it’s your duty to inform everyone else of what they may or may not do with their own money on their own property?”

There was a time when I respected elected officials in local government, and that they commanded a certain degree of authority. Unfortunately, due to my encounters with such people I found the level of ignorance and arrogance absolutely appalling. We get situations where a street lighting department can hang a street light outside your home without some much as a by-your-leave, and all under the pretext of safety and security. I resent that. They adopt the attitude that we all need street lights. Sorry. We don’t. Street lighting however can be construed as useful in urban, and some suburban situations, but what are worse are the crass public art projects that deliberately inject light into the night sky. I’ve been personally involved in killing off a number of these civic vanity projects, with considerable public support, and all of these were sanctioned by ignorant, arrogant morons in local government intent on an ego trip. In each case the savings to the public exchequer amounted to hundreds of thousands.

I think I credit householders with a certain amount of intelligence, and if all lighting intended for exterior use was motion operated then you reduce the risks of neighbour disputes, which from personal experience, can be quite ugly. If you really have any concern for your fellow man, you wouldn’t want to peddle merchandise that can precipitate these problems. For most domestic purposes, motion operated lighting is all that is needed, and where it isn’t, sky-friendly screened lighting is available. You should be promoting that, and phasing out lighting that is inappropriate. Once all lighting is sky-friendly, the customer is still free to choose what suits his needs. And he/she will do so knowing its environmental impact will be minimal.

I’m honoured by your invitation to compete against you, but no thanks. I’m an academic, without any business acumen, and the business world is not for me. So long as I make enough money to support my family I’m happy.

I resent that. ... So long as I make enough money to support my family I’m happy.

Your heavy use of the I pronoun is consistent with a high level of vanity. Vanity always occurs with envy. They are related mental processes. Leftism is the politics of resentment and you have the disease. If you are truly happy you shouldn't concern yourself with dictating how your neighbors behave. You are likely not a happy person and feel you can never be fully happy until destroy all the objects that challenge your self-concept of unrecognized greatness. The head shrink profession makes their living reattaching oversized egos to reality and you would benefit from their feedback, and would probably greatly enjoy the all the attention they will give you.

That said I will agree with you that motion sensor lighting should be used more often. But it should not be mandated. The laws of supply and demand will do their work. If many people want to light up their nice big house, green lawn, SUV, fireplace, and all the things you resent, they should enjoy the freedom to do so and not have you dictating their lifestyle to assuage your feelings of resentment.

As I stated, it’s perfectly natural for humans to alter their environment.

Now, I 100% agree with you about the inherent stupidity of any given beauracracy. Some are better than others, but they all seem to suffer from some sort of institutional vortex of power hunger and arrogance.

My clients are private property owners however, not government. I don’t need that headache in my life dealing with such close-minded people.

That said, there are some lighting applications that have no useful purpose other than ambience and beauty. Architectural highlights, landscape elements, sculpture, etc. are all legitimate subjects for a good lighting designer.

I know this is probably sending you into a panic, living with the knowledge that people are spending their own hard earned money on nothing more than pretty lights around their own homes, but there you have it. It happens.

As I said earlier, I try to use the most efficient sources and technologies that I can, (even been looking into some of the newer generation solar panels lately), but there are times when a client has the money to do whatever the hell he wants, efficiency notwithstanding. Guess what. It’s his money, his property, his life. I won’t infringe on his inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness or property use. Obviously, I’m going to do my best to be tasteful and offer my professional advice (since his neighbors also may be my future clients), but ultimately it’s his decision.

And if he wants to leave them on all night, he will. (Yes, we sell timers, photocells and motion sensors too, don’t get too worried.)

As for your line of work as an academic, let me suggest that you’re laboring under a very skewed sense of reality. Sitting in a classroom is all fine and well for book knowledge, but real education and application takes place after the dismissal bell rings.

One should realise that in such a natural setting, we are the intruder, not they.

The heart of your belief - that humans are unnatural, and insects are not.

Insects can die by the millions in a city and not affect the area nearby. Yes, Florida is a good test case - rural Florida has no shortage of insects in spite of large cities with lots of lights.

If you want to run around naked in a swamp at night so as to be a part of the ecosystem, have a nut. I think you will find the insects call you 'dinner'!

I would love to see you data showing most crime occurs during the day. Pickpockets? Yes. Armed assault or house robberies? Show me the data.

People put lights up along city streets to make it safer to drive. Your headlights illuminate your immediate path, but you cannot see stuff that might be moving in to it without extra light.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.