4 ms·

> Even better: turn the darned things off when they are not needed - why illuminate empty streets? That is a way better idea than the one in the article, for s

> Even better: turn the darned things off when they are not needed - why illuminate empty streets? That is a way better idea than the one in the article, for sure. So many benefits. Would need the motion sensing technology to be top notch tho. Need to illuminate for pedestrians as well. Or perhaps illuminated sidewalks, or smaller lights for pedestrians.

Marsymars 3y ago
Some of the newer street lamps in my area have smaller light for pedestrians! They're mounted at human height and shine down on the sidewalk. Motion sensing, I find, similar to LED technology, is often used more for increasing lighting levels rather than decreasing. My pet peeve are people who have motion sensors that activate their 20k lumen floodlights based on motion on the public sidewalk. Cities should not allow those.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > Motion sensing is often used more for increasing lighting levels rather than decreasing Isn't that just a matter of perspective [whether the presence of motion is used to increase lighting or the absence of it is used to decrease]?
ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
I it find harder to see objects under street lights than a person with a head lamp or a car, everything just blends into one color
Anotheroneagain 3y ago
No it's a horrible idea, imagine the lights turning on and off as people pass. No!
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  Indeed that would be terrible, especially in dodgier areas. Not only you're advertising your position to potential attackers, but you're also less likely to see them until they're very close. I believe relatively dim, warm coloured lights are a much better idea.
  - canoebuilder 3y ago
    Last sentence is a fine idea, it is also possible to move toward developing a society where “potential attackers” is a thought much more distant in people’s minds.
    - cassianoleal 3y ago
      > it is also possible to move toward developing a society where “potential attackers” is a thought much more distant in people’s minds Amen, but alas we're not there. In any case, threats don't always come from purposeful attackers. It's useful to see animals, vehicles and bikes with no light, etc.
      - canoebuilder 3y ago
        >Amen, but alas we’re not there What is troublesome is that many places, that many of us probably hail from, “were there” not so long ago, and it was destroyed by duplicitous, malicious political and cultural actors. Having “safe streets” is not a pipe dream. Indeed not having them is a symptom of people trying to destroy our societies.
  - Anotheroneagain 3y ago
    You could see the attackers just as well as they see you. I meant because of the annoyance that it would create. The problem with warm lights is that they are much harder to see in the dark. Maybe dim lights around 505nm would be a better idea.
    - cassianoleal 3y ago
      > You could see the attackers just as well as they see you. That's only if they're moving within the sensors that switch on the light. > The problem with warm lights is that they are much harder to see in the dark. Not sure what "in the dark" means here. Light by definition is easier to see in the dark than it is in light as it has less light to compete with. In any case, I find warm lights much easier. Cold lights are too much sensorial information for me. In any case, street light at night shouldn't be meant to allow you to see everything like it's a sunny day. It's supposed to give you enough light that you can see your surroundings and potential threats around you. For that, warm lights should be more than enough. If you need more light clarity, light your own phone torch or something.
tejtm 3y ago
Even worse is Why pay to occasionally faintly illuminate the bottoms of airplains ever?

Marsymars 3y ago

Some of the newer street lamps in my area have smaller light for pedestrians! They're mounted at human height and shine down on the sidewalk. Motion sensing, I find, similar to LED technology, is often used more for increasing lighting levels rather than decreasing. My pet peeve are people who have motion sensors that activate their 20k lumen floodlights based on motion on the public sidewalk. Cities should not allow those.

sokoloff 3y ago
> Motion sensing is often used more for increasing lighting levels rather than decreasing Isn't that just a matter of perspective [whether the presence of motion is used to increase lighting or the absence of it is used to decrease]?

ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago

I it find harder to see objects under street lights than a person with a head lamp or a car, everything just blends into one color

Anotheroneagain 3y ago

No it's a horrible idea, imagine the lights turning on and off as people pass. No!

cassianoleal 3y ago
Indeed that would be terrible, especially in dodgier areas. Not only you're advertising your position to potential attackers, but you're also less likely to see them until they're very close. I believe relatively dim, warm coloured lights are a much better idea.
- canoebuilder 3y ago
  Last sentence is a fine idea, it is also possible to move toward developing a society where “potential attackers” is a thought much more distant in people’s minds.
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    > it is also possible to move toward developing a society where “potential attackers” is a thought much more distant in people’s minds Amen, but alas we're not there. In any case, threats don't always come from purposeful attackers. It's useful to see animals, vehicles and bikes with no light, etc.
    - canoebuilder 3y ago
      >Amen, but alas we’re not there What is troublesome is that many places, that many of us probably hail from, “were there” not so long ago, and it was destroyed by duplicitous, malicious political and cultural actors. Having “safe streets” is not a pipe dream. Indeed not having them is a symptom of people trying to destroy our societies.
- Anotheroneagain 3y ago
  You could see the attackers just as well as they see you. I meant because of the annoyance that it would create. The problem with warm lights is that they are much harder to see in the dark. Maybe dim lights around 505nm would be a better idea.
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    > You could see the attackers just as well as they see you. That's only if they're moving within the sensors that switch on the light. > The problem with warm lights is that they are much harder to see in the dark. Not sure what "in the dark" means here. Light by definition is easier to see in the dark than it is in light as it has less light to compete with. In any case, I find warm lights much easier. Cold lights are too much sensorial information for me. In any case, street light at night shouldn't be meant to allow you to see everything like it's a sunny day. It's supposed to give you enough light that you can see your surroundings and potential threats around you. For that, warm lights should be more than enough. If you need more light clarity, light your own phone torch or something.

tejtm 3y ago

Even worse is Why pay to occasionally faintly illuminate the bottoms of airplains ever?