LED and motion detector street lighting in Germany, Denmark,

Fri 6 Nov 2009, 18:10

Jon, the point about women being enouraged to fear the dark is a longstanding one, & is not simply a product of the tabloid press. After all, women have long been blamed in court for being out at night if they are attacked. That's why there were (in fact, now…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 6 Nov 2009, 15:14

I think people wanted information from 'nearby towns and villages' that have NEVER had street lights. Stonesfield and Finstock were mentioned in that context. There must be figures showing whether there is more night crime in those places -- or not. It's just no one could produce them. I hope…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 6 Nov 2009, 13:18

Reductions on rates were also not on offer. There were several questions about crime statistics in nearby towns & villages that have opted to become dark. But not only was there nobody who knew the answers, it would also be too soon to tell anything of significance.

If you look at the surveys of whether or not increased street lighting decreases crime, you will see that the case is not proved either way. What is absolutely clear, however, is that more women than men fear going out after dark, and that the elderly register noticeably high concern. For instance, 31% of women aged 60 or over say they feel very unsafe out alone after dark. All the statistics are in the British Crime Survey on the Home Office website.

I thought the meeting was well chaired. But how representative it was, I don't know. Some of the people most afraid of the dark would not have been there. A number of letters were also read out, including one from the Evergreens.

Actually Jon's report of the meeting wasn't very acuurate. Not everybody who spoke was known to the Chair (I wasn't), and also Jon's summary of what the majority voted for isn't very exact.

Personally, I thought the amount of financial saving (tiny, & perhaps none at all, given the likely increased use of cars & security lighting) would outweigh any likely benefits, especially since a large amount of distress is likely to be caused quite a large number of residents of Charlbury. But no doubt the debate will go on.

Fri 6 Nov 2009, 09:33

I would have thought this 'debate' could be usefully informed (re. safety etc.) by some understanding of the experience of the people of Stonesfield, who elected some time ago not to have street lighting. Can anyone enlighten us? Do they get any reduction in rates for not having street lighting?

Thu 5 Nov 2009, 09:43

You didn't answer my question about why your wife didn't ask a question when given the opportunity to do so.

I suspect we're not going to agree on this. I echo Valou's comments earlier in this thread - I thought the meeting was well chaired, and that everybody who wished to speak was given the opportunity to do so.

Wed 4 Nov 2009, 22:14

I think that a quick reading of "Promoting and Facilitating Public Participation in Public Forums 101" as developed over the last 40 years in practical application in social development environments whilst living in slums you probably can't believe would be in order here (and yes we have done that and been there). The rules of the psychology of participation are very simple.

Wed 4 Nov 2009, 17:46

When the Chairman asked 'Has anybody who wishes to speak not had chance to do so yet?', why didn't she speak?

This was long before the end of the meeting - we still had a whole round of second (and third, fourth, etc.) questions to go through yet.

Wed 4 Nov 2009, 17:12

You are flat wrong. She had her hand up and down for ages. By the end she had simply given up. Clearly not a person known to the chair.

Wed 4 Nov 2009, 16:57

Malcolm, I distinctly remember the Chairman refusing to accept second questions from those who had already spoken until everyone who wished to speak had had a chance to do so. Only after his request for 'Anybody who has not yet had chance to ask a question' was met with silence did he move on to second questions, so I do not believe that anybody can claim not to have had the opportunity to speak at that meeting.

Wed 4 Nov 2009, 10:10

Malcolm, I am sorry to hear that your wife felt ignored during the meeting. As one of the people present, I thought that it was a well chaired meeting, and that all the people who wanted to speak could do so. I can also tell you that your wife was not the only parent of under 18s present.
On the subjects of the underlit Enstone crossroads and the traffic island on the Slade, which would have been outside the remit of the meeting, I would like to encourage your wife to raise her concerns to the Town Council by sending a letter to the Town Clerk (by post or email).

Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:14

And a short payback that stinks of public squalor and private privilege. I don't see any reason to shut off streetlights apart from obvious rationalisations as Jon pointed out and yes I was down that way with the kids the other night after dark by the 3 pubs! The marginal difference darkening us should make when some polyurethane foam, render, and pretty coloured paints, would save magnitudes of space heating used energy more than any lighting scheme. It feels to me like useless tokenism on the scale of the problem. And while we are at it why was my wife systematically ignored with her hand up the entire meeting while everyone "known" to the chair was called when she had an important couple of points to make about children crossing underlit Enstone crossroads and the traffic island at 4 and 5pm outside the school on the Slade racetrack? She was probably the only mother of under 18 children in the meeting from the serried ranks of gray hairs evident. Won't be long before our eldest is weaving her way back from one of those teenage parties one doesn't want to think too much about post 12.30 at night and I don't like the idea of her and the girl next door doing so in the darkest of darkling nights.

Thu 29 Oct 2009, 13:51

Not sure from the postings who was at the OCC presentation last Friday, but the motivation for saving energy is driven by the Carbon Reduction Commitment legislation, which from 2011, places a traded value on carbon. Councils that do better than the average will therefore save or make money in addition to the savings made by not buying so much power. This could be taken into account when making a business case for the higher cost LEDs or motion sensors, but it was reported that as OCC are strapped for cash their investment criteria really only covers work (£36/lamp) with a short payback.

Thu 29 Oct 2009, 09:05

And my point was coverting all this lighting costs money, and unfortunately, it doesn't grow on trees (although Gordon Brown seems to think it does if you look at the deficit he's running!)

So if you want OCC to convert your street lighting, someone has to pay extra for it to happen, or lose a service elsewhere to pay for it.

Wed 28 Oct 2009, 12:58

No I would not! I pay quite enough in Council Tax as it is and get very little in return in my opinion. Orange streetlighting is a basic human right, not a privilege of the few!

Joking aside, the point I was trying to make is that if politicians in this country were serious about climate change they would be introducing low-energy streetlighting (and switching off the lights that blaze all night-long in government buildings!) instead of criminalizing ordinary people who throw a Tetra Pak in the bin or wish to purchase a tungsten-filament lightbulb. The example has to come from the top.

Wed 28 Oct 2009, 09:06

would you accept a rise in your council tax to pay for that, Derek?

Tue 27 Oct 2009, 09:40

If householders are being forced (against their will in many cases) to replace conventional lightbulbs with low-energy alternatives over the next few years, shouldn't councils take a lead on this issue and replace inefficient streetlights with low-energy alternatives? I can't believe that Charlbury's streetlights (which look as if they've come from the 1950s!) couldn't be upgraded to something more planet-friendly.

Mon 26 Oct 2009, 22:58

Lights down as heat sensitive lampposts come to the streets of Toulouse

• Streetlights go dim in the absence of pedestrians
• Energy-saving trial just the start, says deputy mayor
Just imagine if we had energy generating borrow-bikes that would dump their battery energy to the grid once they'd been…

Long post - click to read full text

Mon 26 Oct 2009, 20:35

The French can do it. See www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/toulouse-heat-sensitive-lampposts

Mon 26 Oct 2009, 18:51

Yes, all ionised metals I should think but like you university chemistry was a looong time ago. I think the whiter lights are mercury vapour (mercury is also used in domestic and other fluorescents for the fluroescent dyes coating the outer glass skin on the inside surface to turn into whit(ish)light. I suspect there are some other things mixed in to give the whiter light of the more modern light sets but I don't have a clue what. Wikipedia may be our friend here, I *bet* someone has put up a page on street lighting technology! But whatever the low energy consumption to lumen output of these ionised metal lights they take a long time for the metals to ionise and therefore aren't suitable for on-off operation. Hence the development of LEDs in other countries, using the same technology as LED car headlamps. LEDs take a lot of on and offs which fluorescents of high power do not like. And Philips have just put out a 3 watt LED which they have put up for the something or other prize for lighting with low energy - anyone know what that prize is and what its parameters are?

Mon 26 Oct 2009, 17:21

What sort of streetlights do we have in Charlbury at the moment? I know that the ubiquitous orange ones are sodium but what are ours: caesium? tungsten? Sorry, but "O" Level chemistry was a long time ago and I've forgetten which metal's atomic emission spectrum coincides with the wavelength of white light!

Mon 26 Oct 2009, 00:09

Thanks for letting me know Jon.

Sun 25 Oct 2009, 09:12

Unfortunately variable timing was not on offer. The sensors that the Council would fit switch each individual light off at 12.30 and on at 5.30 (I may mis-remember the latter time, it is 5 or 5.30). It's that or nothing: no changing the times. And the County has no money for imaginative solutions like LED lights and motion sensors: that would be a political decision and expensive to implement (in the short term).

Nearly 50 of Charlbury's 3000 residents turned up (a fairly predictable crowd we were too, and every speaker known by name to Nick Potter), so presumably the vast majority don't care much one way or the other. Of those 50, the overwhelming majority voted for switching all lights off at 12.30 EXCEPT those at strategic points (like bus stops), and those that light pedestrian routes across town.

Ultimately it will be for the Town Council to decide whether to opt for this, and to decide which lights are essential according to those criteria.

Looking out of my window, I see THREE lights within a few yards of each other at the crossroads at the top of Church Street. I suggest two of those could go for starters.

Fri 23 Oct 2009, 08:45

Malcolm, I hope you will be attending the Public Meeting tonight on Street Lighting so that you can make this suggestion. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend but have given my thoughts to Roger Clarke. I agree with the turning off of the Street Lights, however I think the times should be co-ordinated to when the last bus comes in from Oxford say plus about 15 minutes. The last bus arrives into Charlbury about 12.30am so my suggestion would be 12.45am.

Fri 23 Oct 2009, 00:10

I'm aware that a number of small towns in Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands have installed LED lighting and motion detectors to reduce electricity bills and provide lighting simply where and when it is needed. I now sit back and await the input of all the nay sayers and why this couldn't possibly work in this country and LED lighting, while suitable for car headlamps can't ever be bright enough to light an area of a street (as if Johnny Foreigner didn't know this already) and so forth of the English can't do attitude.