>  Examining the pattern of night illumination here it feels like the
> principle by which they put the lights is only "is there enough 
> illumination
> here? No? Let's put a couple of lights more", without the slightest regard
> about useless lighting which only consumes electricity (which the city has
> to pay!) and causes light pollution.
>  Just in the close vicinity of where I live I can see that they could
> remove at least half of all the lights without affecting considerably
> the illumination. I don't know how much the city has to pay for light
> illumination, but I assume that if it was cut in half for the entire
> city it wouldn't be a small saving annually.

Less lights = more crime.  Increased crime can cost a city more money
than they'd save on the light bill.  There's arguments about that of course,
but the bottom line is that the incarceration costs are so high that even
a very small drop in the crime rate pays the light bill.

IMO crime is probably more likely in poorly lit areas with unlit areas
nearby.  Brightly lit areas are likely more safe, and completly dark
areas are probably more safe.

Cutting back the dense underbrush in city parks also reduces crime,
probably for the same lighting/visibility reasons.

Post a reply to this message