>> Sounds lovely, but the winter equivalent doesn't sound so great...
> 
>  I wouldn't change this for anything:
> 
> http://warp.povusers.org/photos/patikka5/

OMG there is a sun in winter there!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_owen?printable=true

Thanks for this - it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, 
actually.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch <-> wrote:
> Thanks for this - it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, 
> actually.

  After reading the article I have been noticing the amount of useless
night illumination here where I live. And I assume that here the amount
is relatively moderate. I can only imagine how much wasted night illumination
there must be in really big cities.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  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

Tim Attwood wrote:
>>  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.

I think that saying that less lights = more crime is too much of a 
simplification.  As the article mentions:

"The lighting near the mailboxes was of a type that Crawford calls 

walkway behind the boxes into an impenetrable void."

And

"Much so-called security lighting is designed with little thought for how 

Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, has concluded that lighting is 
effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice 



both counts, as do all-night lights installed on isolated structures or on 

doors). A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement 
triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much 
more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the 


Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message