Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Should Haringey Switch off the Street Lights?
A recent study by the London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine and UCL which analysed the effect of local authorities reducing spending on street lighting on crime and traffic accidents found no association with road traffic collisions or crime.
The recently published study analysed 14 years of street lighting data from 62 local authorities across England and Wales who had implemented a range of reduced street light strategies, including switching lights off permanently, reducing the number of hours that lamps are switched on at night, dimming lights, and replacing traditional orange lamps with energy efficient white light LED lamps. The study focussed only on residential streets.
Looking at the effect on road saftey, the study concluded that there is no evidence of an association between reduced street lighting and night-time traffic collisions across England and Wales.
In respect of the effects on crime, study co-author Professor Shane Johnson of UCL Security and Crime Science, said: "The study findings suggest that energy saving street lighting adaptations have not increased area level crime in the neighbourhoods studied. This is very encouraging but it is important to note that it does not mean that this will be the case under all conditions, and so changes to lighting should be managed carefully."
The most recently published Freedom of Information response on Haringey's street lighting costs, suggests that the borough has more than 16,000 street lights with an annual electricity spend in the region of £1 million.
The borough is in currently implementing a street lighting cost savings plan. A Council spokeman told Harringay Online: "We’re midway through a programme of upgrading all our street lighting to energy efficient dimmable lamps. Those that have already been upgraded are dimmed by 25% between midnight and 5am or 6am." Apparently the dimming shouldn’t really be noticeable since the new lights are better quality.
In 2013 neighbouring borough Enfield claimed that their lighting efficiency programme would produce savings of £8 million over 20 years.
According to Dr Phil Edwards of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, some people they spoke to during the course of the study welcomed the reduction in street lighting, reporting darker bedrooms and less disturbed sleep. Others welcomed the benefit to environment.
However, not everyone feels so postive about the cost saving measures. Even though there appears to be little impact on crime or traffic accidents, the fear of crime remains a factor. Launching the Suzy Lamplugh Trust's 'Shine a Light Campaign' last autumn, Rachel Griffin, Suzy Lamplugh Trust director, said,
It is essential that local councils take into consideration the needs of residents who now feel more susceptible to danger when out at night. Economic cut-backs must not take priority over the confidence of individuals to live their lives fully and safely.
So what should Haringey do. Should the borough dial the dimmer down or brighten things up?
Link:
Full study attached below and also at Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health - jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/07/08/jech-2015-206012.full
Tags for Forum Posts: led lights, street lighting
- Attachments:
-
-
jech-2015-206012.full (1).pdf, 1.2 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
Press on with the energy-efficient lamp programme, since they use much less power than the sodium lamps anyway and they're dimmable. I'd hope that Haringey would then not need to go down the 'every other lamp off' route, never mind not lighting residential streets at all which some councils currently use.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
There are more than enough people, living in close proximity to one another and paying council tax in London to justify the expense of street lighting. We're not some little village in Essex. I find your headline for this article Tabloidish.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Anyone read the full report?
It sets out a wide range of research questions. Then ignores all but two of them. Crime and Accidents. It accepts that even for those two, its data are incomplete and possibly skewed. For example, recorded crime & reported accidents are not the complete picture. Their data from local authorities was also incomplete.
These limitations didn't prevent them drawing firm generalised conclusions. Nor prevent a media representation which simplifies these still further.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about this report is how it's been picked up by the media. Perhaps it's seen as a justification for saving money - cutting taxes? - by turning off/down street lighting.
-
-
All the proper journalists are away on holiday with their kids. They might be on Twitter but the news articles coming up, unless they're about the Labour Leadership contest, at the moment are mind numbingly dumb.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I haven't read the full article no, but it's worth underscoring the authors' stated focus as being two public health outcomes of casualties and crime. From my reading, far from setting out "a wide range of research questions", as you suggest, they're quite narrowly focussed. The authors' introduction concludes by saying:
In summary, street light adaptation strategies may have different effects on two public health outcomes, casualties and crime. In light of a lack of evidence, we used the reduction of street lighting by local authorities in England and Wales as a natural experiment to examine whether it was associated with any changes in road traffic collisions and crime.
They acknowledge a wider range of issues, but from my understanding don't seek to tackle them in this study.
It sounds like you have read the full study, Alan. That's really useful. Perhaps you could fill in the gaps that will help us have a more complete undertstanding of the issues beyond those in the primary area of the study's focus.
I came across this issue in an article on Science Daily and assumed it would be a fairly straight reporting of the issue. I think within the terms of the authors' primary areas of concern it doesn't do a bad job.
In my original post I also provided a link to the full article for people to read if they have the time or the interest.
-
Permalink Reply by SarahC on
-
The thing that's not measurable is how much inadequate lighting indirectly impacts on the local economy. Years ago I was looking to buy a flat and one of the nicest I saw was on a dimly lit street in Hackney. The poor lighting was one of the main reasons I didn't move there, and if I'd done so I'd probably have stayed in at night a lot more, not nipped out to the corner shop after dark etc - all actions that reduce local economic activity, which presumably the council doesn't want.
-
-
Which is one of the issues which the study identifies - but then ignores!
-
Permalink Reply by Maddy on
-
I agree Sarah - I can think of plenty of other things that could be cut (Haringey People anyone?) before something like streetlighting that is a basic service. By all means make it more energy efficient, but don't turn it off.
Been reading recently about the blackout during WW2 - five years of no lights anywhere outside after dark, must have been awful. I wondered about the impact on safety then, particularly for women, but can't find any specific information about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Malcolm on
-
I think the clue is in the words "World War". It wasn't a very safe time for anyone - I doubt the accident rate from the blackout registered over the effects of bombs being dropped.
-
-
I'm in favour of energy saving lights. However am strongly opposed to dimmer lights or switching off.
Men might feel differently but as a female I already feel unsafe and avoid walking around parts of Harringay at night or early in the morning in winter for work. Even in the daylight you can get catcalled, harassed and stared at on Green Lanes or the Passage which is really unpleasant so I wouldn't be encouraging darkness.
-
Permalink Reply by Martin (Woodside) on
-
It is a basic service that councils are obliged to provide.
if I look out of my window in the early hours I often see lone females making their way home from night jobs, I hate to think what it would be like for them in the pitch-black.
As for the carbon footprint, the likelihood is that most households wild rig up halogen lamps and various inefficient lighting on the house-fronts anyway, and if the government was really interested in the saving of millions of tons of wasted carbon they would keep the clocks on BST.
If the council don't want to light the streets maybe they can give the service to a private company to run (e.g. EDL) and we pay them instead, the ratepayers will break even on the reduced council tax bill (guffaw).
-
-
There was an item on this issue on You and Yours today, at 22 mins.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
