I’m a professional lighting designer, and you’re wrong.
You’re referring to information that’s been put forth with an obvious agenda other than crime prevention. Over and over, police departments across the nation (The US, mind you) consistently recommend two things for improved home security and residential crime prevention: a good lighting plan and a good watchdog.
Here are some references:
http://www.iesna.org/
http://www.cpted-watch.com/
http://www.leepac.org/
http://www.thecptedpage.wsu.edu/Resources.html
http://www.defensiblespace.com/book.htm
http://www.cptedsecurity.com/
Someone had to hunt three months back to find a thread that suited his agenda?
yitbos
The police are not experts on the subject of lighting, and only advise on the back of the general fear of crime which is understandable. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that blanket illumination does not deter crime and may actually encourage it. The most intensively illuminated neighbourhoods are often the most dangerous. Crime has been seen to increase in neighbourhoods that did not have lighting after lighting was introduced. People will therefore be safer under a blanket of darkness. Furthermore, most crime occurs in daylight, ergo criminals need light. If you don’t give it to them, they are forced to bring their own, making them easier to detect. Motion operated security lighting may be a deterrent if applied judiciously. As a lighting designer you should incorporate these environmental concerns into your products, and not produce or apply lighting that is counter productive.
Somebody has found a link between blind women and breast cancer?