Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom

Britain To Axe Up To 1.5 Million Lampposts (thetimes.com) 55

An anonymous reader shares a report:Around 1.5 million of Britain's 7.2 million lampposts could be removed to save money and reduce carbon emissions and replaced with lighting that will make it safer for pedestrians.

Under existing rules, there is no requirement to light pavements for pedestrians. They are only lit because light spills over from lampposts, which were principally installed to make it safer for motorists. But today's cars have such effective headlights that lampposts, which are generally 10m tall on A-roads and 6m tall on residential roads, are not necessary in many parts of Britain. Lampposts will remain in place in many locations where they are necessary, such as in cities where CCTV cameras rely on good lighting.

Britain To Axe Up To 1.5 Million Lampposts

Comments Filter:
  • by SST-206 ( 699646 ) on Monday October 28, 2024 @05:18PM (#64901115) Homepage

    Axes won't work:
    a) Electrocution risk for the chopper
    b) Passers-by may get Brained By Falling Masonry

    Very bad idea.

  • What could possibly go wrong? Crime likes a dark area, being the obvious outcome.
    • Uniformity is more important than brightness. As long as they approach it logically it can improve things from a safety perspective. I would assume high pedestrian areas would be less likely to have role lights eliminated.

      In the 90's there was a big push to light up many places in the name of safety. In many places it was grossly excessive. Hopefully they are setting good standards for where and when supplemental lighting is recommended.

    • What could possibly go wrong? Crime likes a dark area, being the obvious outcome.

      Even if the assumed premise were true this would not affect it as they are removing lamposts that illuminate the roadway. Generally the crime you are imagining being prevented would be on the side walks.

      But the premise, is just one of those "obvious" bits of "common sense" that is actually not well supported by evidence [darksky.org]. In particular bad lighting,(which is very, very common - and the lamp posts in question are a good example of bad lighting - reduces you ability to observe your surroundings by obscuring it

    • Oh I hope so. If criminals decide to stand in the middle of the roadway where these lampposts are being removed we'll have less criminals!

    • Local councils have been turning off lighting from lamp posts in residential areas for over a decade now - I used to live on a street in 2014 which was directly opposite a rather notorious park, one which you did not ever walk through at night because of its poor lighting and opportunistic thugs wanting their drug money...

      Rather than fixing the mugging issue, council decided to just turn off all lights after 10pm in winter in the surrounding residential estates - so now you couldnt walk anywhere and even wa

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Bright lights are perfect for muggers. They can hide in a deep shadow where a pedestrian can't see because the lights spoiled their night vision.

    • In many areas, they already turn off the street lights after a certain time to save electricity, presumably when there's very little traffic.

      The vast majority of violent crime in the UK is domestic, where changes in street lighting patterns are unlikely to have much of an effect.

      According to the UK's Office of National Statistics:
      - "4.8% had experienced domestic abuse in the last year (approximately 2.3 million people)
      - 3.2% (approximately 1.5 million people) had experienced stalking in the last
  • by lsllll ( 830002 )

    Lampposts will remain in place in many locations where they are necessary, such as in cities where CCTV cameras rely on good lighting.

    Looks like someone's got their priorities straight. Fuck dark streets and let's go back to the dark ages. I can understand possible on roads. Where I live, most roads don't have lights, except at intersections, but for residential? Don't pedestrians also walk the sidewalks?

    • by Jerrry ( 43027 )

      Don't pedestrians also walk the sidewalks?

      Haven't these pedestrians heard of flashlights/torches?

      • by lsllll ( 830002 )

        I'm a big fan of flashlights and own probably over 50 of about 40 different models, including head-mounted ones. While I do have a tiny one in my pocket and also one on my phone, I really don't expect that I should have to walk around with them when walking around in residential neighborhoods. You can't expect people to walk to their grocery store and then have to juggle their grocery bags as well as a flashlight in order to make it back home.

        • > juggle their grocery bags as well as a flashlight

          Headlamps are great.

          Especially the newish LED band ones. Excellent for working in crawlspaces too.

    • Don't pedestrians also walk the sidewalks?

      They walk on footpaths, which is not where the lamps are being removed from.

  • Herman's Hermits "Leaning on a Lamp Post"

    Originally written by George Formby

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FzGy2RJs6Q

  • For all these years, they've had only ONE lamp post.

  • by willy_me ( 212994 ) on Monday October 28, 2024 @06:48PM (#64901399)

    Light posts are still a good idea, but I suggest that they are turned off most of the time. They can remain off unless pedestrians are detected nearby and it is determined they should turn on. The big difference here is lights should be for pedestrians and not for drivers.

    I find nighttime driving with street lights to be far more difficult then without. Especially if there is a light layer of water on the road - the resulting glare from street lights makes everything more difficult to see. Most notably, pedestrians or cyclists with inadequate lighting. Other motorists are not a problem as they are always well illuminated.

    Having street lights illuminate only when pedestrians / cyclists are close by would give drivers advanced warning that such hazards are present. So turning the lights off will not only save power but also increase safety by emphasizing the presence of pedestrians and cyclists.

    Such behaviour would require that we identify when lights are not able to correctly detect cyclists / pedestrians. Lights that do not behave correctly actually become a liability. But if all the lights are connected via a wireless sensor network and detected events are communicated to a central source, it should be reasonable to identify those lights that never detect events despite being adjacent to lights which always detect multiple events. Keeping the system accurate and reliable should not be a problem. I say this but they still haven't solved the problem of automatically identifying intersections which do not correctly identify vehicles.

    • Re:Mostly agree... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Monday October 28, 2024 @07:17PM (#64901475) Homepage

      I find nighttime driving with street lights to be far more difficult then without.

      At least here in the USA, I prefer the streetlights because:

      Low beams don't illuminate shit. I'm thoroughly convinced their only purpose is to make your vehicle more visible at night to other motorists.

      High beams annoy motorists on the oncoming side, and at least in every car I've ever owned they don't actually represent an increase in brightness, just a change in beam pattern where the light is aimed further down the road.

      I do remember reading at some point that cars over in Europe have better headlights than our regulations allow here in America, so perhaps that's part of the difference. Those of us who do have to frequently drive in areas without streetlights usually just install some non-street-legal aftermarket lighting on our vehicles, which the police usually ignores if you only turn them on in rural areas and don't annoy other drivers with them.

    • That's because councils have been replacing lamps with LEDs and turning the brightness down. Modern lamp posts put out such a pitiful amount of light you may as well do without. Car headlights alone though are entirely inadequate for seeing pedestrians, especially people in dark clothes. We need more street lighting, not less, but good luck convincing various councils of that.
    • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

      I really don't want a light that turns on and off in front of my house.

      I do like the new pedestrian lights the city put in though, they're warmer light, not as oppressively bright, and closer to the ground.

  • What next, stop paving the sidewalks? Chronic underinvestment and ever increasing demand on existing infrastructure has turned the UK into a basket case.
  • by dschnur ( 61074 ) on Monday October 28, 2024 @07:51PM (#64901549)
    I live in a "Dark Sky" neighborhood in Mesa, Arizona. Mesa is part of the sprawling Phoenix metro area, a massive city in the western U.S. To our east lies a national forest, while to the west is the city. Due to the brightness of Phoenix, we can only see the brightest stars to the west. However, our eastern view offers a good look at the night sky, considering how close we are to the rest of the city.

    In keeping with Dark Sky principles, our area has fewer streetlights, and they're designed with shields to minimize skyward glare. Homeowners are also restricted to using exterior lights of 800 lumens or less (equivalent to 60-watt incandescent bulbs) in warm white only.

    What Does This Setup Get Us?

      - Increased use of home outdoor lighting: People tend to leave their outdoor lights on longer to compensate for the dark streets.
      - Darker streets: Reduced street lighting makes it challenging to see pedestrians and critters at night, even with modern headlights.
      - Other hazards: The lack of sufficient lighting is a challenge for bikers and pedestrians.

    Does It Save Money?

    Let's break it down:

    A typical LED streetlight uses about 120 watts, lighting the area in front of around 8 homes. If each of these 8 houses uses three 8-watt LEDs (60-watt incandescent equivalent), that's 24 watts per house or 192 watt-hours each for an extra 4 hours of use each night. Multiplied by 8 houses, this is 1,536 watt-hours, compared to 960 watt-hours for a single streetlight over 8 hours, and with the street light you get coverage all night.

    Cost Comparison of Streetlight vs. Household Lighting

    Streetlight Costs:
    Total installation: $2,000 - $5,000, including the pole.
    Lamp replacement: The lamp itself costs around $200 and lasts 20-25 years, while the pole (the most expensive part) lasts significantly longer.

    Household Lighting Costs:
    Bulbs: An 8-watt LED costs around $2.50, lasting about 5 years outdoors. Each house here uses 3 bulbs, which for 8 houses, costs around $60 every 5 years, or $120 over 10 years.

    So, we’re looking at $100 for streetlight hardware over 10 years versus $120 for residential bulbs.

    So, all else being equal and in short, it seems that streetlights are more cost effective over time due to their efficiency and durability, not to mention the broader, safer coverage they provide.

    Go figure.
  • traditional function of hanging politicans from them.

Take everything in stride. Trample anyone who gets in your way.

Working...