6 ms·

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just expect people who want to walk places in the dead of night to wear a headlamp? They're cheap, easy to recharge, and can b

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just expect people who want to walk places in the dead of night to wear a headlamp? They're cheap, easy to recharge, and can be adjusted for various brightness levels.

wongarsu 3mo ago
People associate a lack of lighting with crime I vaguely remember that studies showed that lack of streetlights does not create crime, but the crime that happens anyways prefers badly lit areas. But from a pedestrian's perspective that's not much relief, you'd still avoid those areas. Which is not what a city planner has in mind for a park
- stouset 3mo ago
  Also part of the issue is that lighting at night creates enormous contrast between dark areas. Even darkness is something our eyes are well-adapted to, and we can see surprisingly well with even a little moonlight. We struggle with alternating bright/dark areas.
fhdkweig 3mo ago
I would consider that ideal, but there would always be the fear of a potential negligence lawsuit if someone got hurt or crimed, so the government considers them necessary.
amiga386 3mo ago
The problem is not just with people who want to walk places, but people who want to mug/murder/rape those that do. As an example, in the UK, councils are expected to light commonly-traveled paths, both so path users can see where they're going, and to reduce crime. Unlit paths in city parks are still traversed, and are often a haven for crime. "Dead of night" isn't the right image. 5PM in winter with clouds (as is typical in the UK) has roughly the same level of natural light as 2AM. People are still coming home from work in conditions where natural light is low enough to lead to accidents and crime.
- adrianN 3mo ago
  TFA claims that lights don’t reduce crime, but I‘d like to see the exact meaning of that statistic (eg dark places are less frequented hence less crime?).
  - PaulHoule 3mo ago
    Lights help criminals see what they are doing.
  - amiga386 3mo ago
    TFA doesn't even claim that. TFA links to an advocacy website trying to convince authorities to put out less light pollution. It claims improved lighting (presumably brighter) doesn't reduce crime, and it claims a reduction (but not elimination) of lighting doesn't increase crime. I would say that going from no lighting at all, to some lighting, on urban paths, improves safety (not tripping over unexpected obstacles) and reduces crime (presuming there was any crime while it was unlit). The article doesn't refute that. I would suggest that if a major city decided to eliminate all street lighting, it would be absolute chaos.
    - teamonkey 3mo ago
      Nobody is trying to remove all street lighting. There are plenty of practical suggestions on here and in that document about how things can be improved without reducing safety.
      - arijun 3mo ago
        From the comment that started this deviation: > Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just expect people who want to walk places in the dead of night to wear a headlamp?
- naravara 3mo ago
  > The problem is not just with people who want to walk places, but people who want to mug/murder/rape those that do. This is a completely irrational (though commonplace) fear. Criminals aren’t hiding out in bushes in desolate parks to mug or rape random people. Muggings most commonly happen in side paths off of busy high streets because criminals, being people, like to hang out in stimulating places where they won’t get bored. They’re not going to be donning ghillie suits and lying patiently in wait for however long in uncomfortable brush for a hapless victim to cross their path. The muggings are crimes of opportunity. Rapists are most commonly somewhat trusted friends or acquaintances who have access to people when they’re in vulnerable states in private, protected spots. Thinking parks and parking lots need to be lit up like Christmas to deter crime is just a veneer of rationalization to cope with the standard childhood fear of the dark. It is not backed by data or evidence. The actual main public safety concerns when it’s dark out are trip-and-fall hazards or collisions with or vehicles who can’t react fast enough when things pop out at them, not muggers and rapists. Having the nighttime environment overly lit actually makes shadows starker and blows out people’s night-vision so they can’t find things. If anything, it makes the edge case where Sam Fischer is hiding in the bushes more dangerous rather than less.
ninalanyon 3mo ago
No. Unless you expect everyone to always have those things you will need the street lights anyway so why not make them smart and efficient. This especially applies in northern latitudes where it is dark in the evening even before people leave work.

wongarsu 3mo ago

People associate a lack of lighting with crime I vaguely remember that studies showed that lack of streetlights does not create crime, but the crime that happens anyways prefers badly lit areas. But from a pedestrian's perspective that's not much relief, you'd still avoid those areas. Which is not what a city planner has in mind for a park

stouset 3mo ago
Also part of the issue is that lighting at night creates enormous contrast between dark areas. Even darkness is something our eyes are well-adapted to, and we can see surprisingly well with even a little moonlight. We struggle with alternating bright/dark areas.

fhdkweig 3mo ago

I would consider that ideal, but there would always be the fear of a potential negligence lawsuit if someone got hurt or crimed, so the government considers them necessary.

amiga386 3mo ago

The problem is not just with people who want to walk places, but people who want to mug/murder/rape those that do. As an example, in the UK, councils are expected to light commonly-traveled paths, both so path users can see where they're going, and to reduce crime. Unlit paths in city parks are still traversed, and are often a haven for crime. "Dead of night" isn't the right image. 5PM in winter with clouds (as is typical in the UK) has roughly the same level of natural light as 2AM. People are still coming home from work in conditions where natural light is low enough to lead to accidents and crime.

adrianN 3mo ago
TFA claims that lights don’t reduce crime, but I‘d like to see the exact meaning of that statistic (eg dark places are less frequented hence less crime?).
- PaulHoule 3mo ago
  Lights help criminals see what they are doing.
- amiga386 3mo ago
  TFA doesn't even claim that. TFA links to an advocacy website trying to convince authorities to put out less light pollution. It claims improved lighting (presumably brighter) doesn't reduce crime, and it claims a reduction (but not elimination) of lighting doesn't increase crime. I would say that going from no lighting at all, to some lighting, on urban paths, improves safety (not tripping over unexpected obstacles) and reduces crime (presuming there was any crime while it was unlit). The article doesn't refute that. I would suggest that if a major city decided to eliminate all street lighting, it would be absolute chaos.
  - teamonkey 3mo ago
    Nobody is trying to remove all street lighting. There are plenty of practical suggestions on here and in that document about how things can be improved without reducing safety.
    - arijun 3mo ago
      From the comment that started this deviation: > Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just expect people who want to walk places in the dead of night to wear a headlamp?
naravara 3mo ago
> The problem is not just with people who want to walk places, but people who want to mug/murder/rape those that do. This is a completely irrational (though commonplace) fear. Criminals aren’t hiding out in bushes in desolate parks to mug or rape random people. Muggings most commonly happen in side paths off of busy high streets because criminals, being people, like to hang out in stimulating places where they won’t get bored. They’re not going to be donning ghillie suits and lying patiently in wait for however long in uncomfortable brush for a hapless victim to cross their path. The muggings are crimes of opportunity. Rapists are most commonly somewhat trusted friends or acquaintances who have access to people when they’re in vulnerable states in private, protected spots. Thinking parks and parking lots need to be lit up like Christmas to deter crime is just a veneer of rationalization to cope with the standard childhood fear of the dark. It is not backed by data or evidence. The actual main public safety concerns when it’s dark out are trip-and-fall hazards or collisions with or vehicles who can’t react fast enough when things pop out at them, not muggers and rapists. Having the nighttime environment overly lit actually makes shadows starker and blows out people’s night-vision so they can’t find things. If anything, it makes the edge case where Sam Fischer is hiding in the bushes more dangerous rather than less.

ninalanyon 3mo ago

No. Unless you expect everyone to always have those things you will need the street lights anyway so why not make them smart and efficient. This especially applies in northern latitudes where it is dark in the evening even before people leave work.