Several of us on Ukastle "knew" this was the case but a new study says
Less lighting has no impact on crime or collisions.In a similar vein, it could be argued that "more lighting has no impact on crime or collisions", however it is probably best not to!
That said, the above news is all the more interesting when you consider how up to quite recent times the doctrine was always "More light = less crime". In fairness, much of the country's lighting stock had been starved of investment for decades, therefore the move to generate a groundswell of interest in streetlighting improvement was seen as a just cause. It would also be a profitable enterprise for those selected to supply the new equipment.
It is not that different today, the only change nowadays is that it is LEDs that are seeing off SOX. Back in the 90s, it was high pressure sodium doing the dirty work!
Does anyone remember such publicity drives undertaken by the main manufacturers and the British Parliamentary lighting Group? One such example was Edmonton Green in North London. A small sample of the area's rundown streetlighting (ten lanterns) was selected for localised improvement. Deemed to be a big success, the results were subsequently duplicated across the country. Dull, unfriendly SOX and cold mercury lamps were seen as the root cause of the urban decay prevalent at the time. High pressure sodium with its clean, golden white light would cut through the darkness and bring us salvation, helped along with a revised BS5489 of course.
A particularly sobering thought is how the Edmonton relighting scheme which was previously lit by 35W SOX and 80W MBF, was improved by retrofitting SON onto the existing columns. In the days before carbon footprints and other "guilty pleasures", a closer look at the data indicates that the 35W SOX was replaced with Beta 79s burning 100W SON-Ts. The old MBF post tops were replaced with Gamma 6s, however these too utilised 100W SON-Ts. I would have expected 70W lamps to have been used at this height. Whilst the results would have certainly produced a huge (and welcome) increase in the light levels and colour rendition, I did wonder back then, if the use of such powerful lamps on relatively low mounting heights (5m) was chosen to provide maximum impact for the scheme's promoters or was it the beginning of a grand recipe to be repeated elsewhere.
Looking at how the streetscene has changed over the years (or beaten into a luminous pulp), it seems amazing how one small scheme in North London may have been the catalyst to the "binge" which only now seems to be the subject of a starvation diet.
Having become accustomed to the lights being on "full whack" for many years, we are now being increasingly told we can no longer afford to keep the lights burning (both financially and environmentally). In order to wean our highways off their expensive habit, dimmable LEDs are now providing an alternative Lux "fix" but this is at a high cost, both in terms of their initial outlay and the disposal of all the redundant assets which the LEDs displaced.