Has your local council turned the lights out?

Where we live in Norfolk the County Council has been progressively adapting the street lights to switch off between midnight and 1 am for about five hours. In this mainly rural are there are no lights on most roads anyway. Small settlements usually only have one or two lights [if any] and these generally have not been affected. In the larger villages and market towns a sensible approach seems to heve been followed where the switch-off has concentrated on side roads but with lights left on at junctions, corners and the ends of cul-de-sacs. There has been extensive consultation and although there have been objections [which have sometimes been accommodated], and there are concerns about potential for misbehaviour and vandalism, there has been no major opposition to the change. Many people welcome the de-suburbanisation of the built-up areas and the return to the peaceful days when the streets were empty after dusk. In this public-spirited and socially-responsible corner of the country, a lot of people also have lanterns or floodlights outside their properties We already enjoy some of the clearest skies in England and seeing in the dark is not such a problem once you get used to it – in fact, even on a cloudy night like tonight, the full moon illuminates everything quite adequately. It’s a good idea to carry a torch but, as with car headlights, one should show respect to other people by reducing the beam if possible or dipping it more to the ground. Wearing something fluorescent is also recommended [plenty of horrific stuff in the shops right now ready for Hallowe’en!]. I have sympathy with the really early milkmen who are finding that many private drives and pathways into properties are very hazardous because of uneven paving, unmarked steps and poor maintenance – I predict a rash of accident insurance and compensation claims against homeowners. The lights should be back on by the time the paper-boys are about and the Royal Mail staff should be pretty safe with their 1.30 pm deliveries. Driving on unlit single-carriageway A and B roads is fairly tiring after dark if there is much other traffic; people will have to allow more time for their journeys, not drive for too long at a time, reduce their speed, and exercise much more caution. The worry is that some reckless people or show-offs will not.

I’m glad they’re cutting down on universal lighting.

In general, I don’t think there is any need for lighting motorways and I have always thought it daft to have a brightly lit section followed by a length with no lighting.

What does concern me is the increasing number of vehicles that have high power headlights. At one time, almost all cars had standard 55 watt dipped headlights but an increasing number have brighter versions or gas discharge lamps. These are bad enough when correctly aligned but downright dangerous when incorrectly set.

It has always been the policy not to light rural motorways except where hazards exist – such as likelihood of fog, or heavily trafficked junctions for example. The very heavy traffic on urban motorways has been regarded as requiring lighting generally.

Regarding headlights, I find their increasing use during all daylight hours can be very distracting. An EU requirement on new cars, and it is fine in principle to detect a moving vehicle, but it can be a glare source that is both distracting, and can impede vision of other hazards. In most circumstances ambient lighting is quite sufficient to see vehices; only in poorer light or poorer visibility are they really necessary.

John, you are quite right – there would be an increase in accidents (and crime) if urban and town areas were unlit, as in the war. However sensible local authorities will not do this – they will switch off in areas where the traffic is principally vehicles – roads on town outskirts and beyond for example. A sensible authority will install other measures at hazards in these areas – LED studs, reflective road markings, lit signage, or even lights at junctions for example.

We should have never moved from high pressure sodium street lighting. The orange colour is not very nice but the lamps are incredibly efficient and long lasting.

rarrar – you are quite right – the savings are not that great compared to the cost of replacing the light with one that is a bit more efficient. This is a dilema for local authorities, more easily solved when old street lights are life expired and need changing anyway. Sometimes it is political (in the “seen to be saving energy” sense) and is a feature of PFI Street Lighting contracts where the LA rents the whole installation from a commercial organisation. This always seems to me to be like all other PFIs – avoiding having to find capital expenditure but paying through the nose to rent your asset. Why on earth they don’t (or can’t) simply borrow the money at the low interest rates public bodies can get, and do the job themselves, I fail to comprehend.

I estimate our tumble drier could account for 8% of our electricity bill – our rotary clothes line in the garden is therefore far from obsolescent – in full use when the weather allows.
The issue I raised was that there are a number of solutions to enhancing safety at hazardous areas on primarily unlit roads. These include reflective road markings, LED road studs, lit signage, as well as local lighting. A good deal of work goes into identifying the appropriate solution. Bear in mind that many locations have no electricity locally, and solar cells may not always be adequate, or economical, in the worst short winter days to feed conventional street lights.
Regarding low pressure sodium vs others – what matters is the visual effectiveness of the light produced. Traditionally lamps were assessed for the normal eye response (at normal light levels, as in your workplace – photopic). The amount of light used for road lighting is very low, and the normal eye response to different wavelengths does not apply. Here the eye is much more sensitive to bluer light. At extremely low levels, orange low pressure sodium can be shown to be only 20% as effective (in some investigations) as the white metal halide, whereas at normal levels it might be twice as effective. At the in-between state of the eye for road lighting, it is not so extreme a difference, but still very substantially in white lights favour. Hence my comment that low pressure sodium is becoming obsolescent – apart from the disadvantages of its large size and absence of colour rendering!

I find it curious that while the main article mostly stressed pedestrian safety (I infer from “bad guys” and perhaps bad paving, rather than from cars), the comments are almost entirely about driving safety. Clearly the second can affect the first, but the lighting requirements are very different: to make a pedestrian-friendly environment what’s needed are closely spaced lights focused on the footpath. They needn’t be too bright, must not shine into one’s eyes, and with good design they can be on low and much cheaper poles – about ten feet is enough to deter easy vandalism. And of course the energy expenditure can be very low with modern LED lamps.

To light the entire roadway (and the footpath by spillover as an afterthought) requires much higher poles, and they are therefore spaced further apart, and each light is very much brighter, and the beam spreads further out. But it’s very rare to find footpath lighting without roadway lighting, other than in entirely non-car urban areas, which are typically very bright from all sorts of mostly commercial sources in any case.

I am unconvinced about the need for roadway lighting at all on simple stretches of road away from junctions and such. Why should the accident rate be higher without lighting? Certainly other vehicles are very visible (other than some drunken idiot driving with no lights on at all, who is going to be off the road on his own before hitting anyone else), and cats eyes and so on make keeping in the lane quite easy.

The principles of lighting residential roads that you refer to are different from lighting traffic routes The focus is on pedestrians and property – lighting pavements to show hazards and enhance personal security, light adjacent property for security, with controlled light on the road to ensure drivers see hazards, including pedestrians, cyclists, children who might cross etc.

The light levels needed, and the way the light is distributed, have been carefully researched to minimise them, and typially will require a lamp power of 70W – less than your incandescent reading lamp. To achieve the coverage without glare we find lamp posts of 5-6m height are the most economical, spaced typically 30-40m apart. 3m poles would require at least twice the number, and would not cover the area properly. There would be twice the maintenance and capital cost. As street lights are fed of the public main electricity cable which is continually energised, the electrical connection when installing a light has to be done on a live and high-capacity cable – which costs typically £5-600.

On most rural traffic roads I agree that we do not need roadway lighting. Where it is useful is to show hazards, but other methods may be more appropriate and I have given examples earlier.

I am interested in how councils pay for the energy used, the lamps are unmetered so they must pay a fixed rate regardless ? Or is that a stupid question 😉