A citizen of Danville, Lee Vogler, is attempting to convince his city council, that turning off unnecessary streetlights would save on the electric bill. A benefit would be reduced light pollution. I hope this idea is heeded, and passes on to other localities.
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2010/nov/10/turn-street-lights-danville-ar-642750/
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Monday, November 15, 2010
Do dark skies increase crime? I think not. After all, criminals need to see, to "safely" commit a crime. And if they have their backs to a glaring, unshielded light, and the victim is walking toward it, with impaired vision as a result, the criminal has the advantage.
I have recently seen articles that show law enforcement's reaction to a crime is to warn people against darkness. At the local state university, several robberies took place in the dark early hours of the morning. The safety office issued a warning to all students and employees, not to avoid early morning hours when few people are around, or to walk in groups if they must be out at that time, but to stay in well lit areas. I called the office and was told that the crimes occurred on streets with streetlights at every block. The spokesman insisted that darkness was a factor because the crime took place at night, and that the incidents occurred between the streetlights, rather than directly under. For generations, the immediate reaction to crime has been to increase lighting without any real data to back up the reaction.
In my own home county of Powhatan, there have been recent daytime burgleries of residences. One of the main suggestions included in the article, by law enforcement, was that people should light up their houses front and back, as being one of the best ways to repel intruders. Where is the logic in that? These were daytime burglaries.
A recent petty crime took place at a local gas station. A blogger wrote in following the article that this was surprising, considering how well lit the parking lot is at night.
Of course I know that concealed source lights are needed, when working or walking outside at night, for safety reasons. But lighting areas as if to help guide in aircraft, to prevent crime, just isn't logical, from my own observations.
I have recently seen articles that show law enforcement's reaction to a crime is to warn people against darkness. At the local state university, several robberies took place in the dark early hours of the morning. The safety office issued a warning to all students and employees, not to avoid early morning hours when few people are around, or to walk in groups if they must be out at that time, but to stay in well lit areas. I called the office and was told that the crimes occurred on streets with streetlights at every block. The spokesman insisted that darkness was a factor because the crime took place at night, and that the incidents occurred between the streetlights, rather than directly under. For generations, the immediate reaction to crime has been to increase lighting without any real data to back up the reaction.
In my own home county of Powhatan, there have been recent daytime burgleries of residences. One of the main suggestions included in the article, by law enforcement, was that people should light up their houses front and back, as being one of the best ways to repel intruders. Where is the logic in that? These were daytime burglaries.
A recent petty crime took place at a local gas station. A blogger wrote in following the article that this was surprising, considering how well lit the parking lot is at night.
Of course I know that concealed source lights are needed, when working or walking outside at night, for safety reasons. But lighting areas as if to help guide in aircraft, to prevent crime, just isn't logical, from my own observations.
Friday, December 18, 2009
This discovery made possible with dark skies.
This disovery made possible via terrestrial-based telescopes under dark skies. Check out www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6959588.ece
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Check out Fauquier County's Updated Lighting Ordinance
Follow the links:
www.fauquiercounty.gov
Government-Departments(drop down)-Community Development-Document Library-
Zoning Ordinance-Table of contents-Article 9 Part 10
Included are guidelines for managing glare
www.fauquiercounty.gov
Government-Departments(drop down)-Community Development-Document Library-
Zoning Ordinance-Table of contents-Article 9 Part 10
Included are guidelines for managing glare
Friday, September 4, 2009
Marina Lighting
Of concern around large bodies of water now, is unshielded lighting used around boat docking areas. Safety in navigating boats into glaring lights is the main problem. Other problems include disruption of nocturnal wildlife, birds, and fish that live in these areas, and polluting of the night sky to those who come to water's edge to enjoy the stars.
Awareness is increasing at the state level and perhaps soon legislation will prevent or reduce this disruption of the night time environment. Without, may I add, taking away anyone's rights to light up their own pier or boardwalk!
Awareness is increasing at the state level and perhaps soon legislation will prevent or reduce this disruption of the night time environment. Without, may I add, taking away anyone's rights to light up their own pier or boardwalk!
State Ordinances
I have occasionally attempted to involve myself in the state level of fighting light pollution. IDA now has a DC office, to educate state lawmakers in this area which is a good thing. It has been suggested by the IDA home office that I stay at the local level, and leave the state level to the experts.
There are two concerns I have with recent new state ordinances, 1) that they are not enforceable, because they are watered down in order to allow for ease in passing, and 2) that if a clause is not included to say that a more stringent local ordinance supersedes the state ordinance, that the state will undermine the local effort.
I have read all the state lighting ordinances I can find. Later ordinances copy earlier ones, getting less strict as they evolve. I say an ordinance that is not enforceable or effective should not be passed into law. We as fighters against light pollution must believe enough in what we say, that a shielded light of any wattage is most effective for security, that we are willing to stand up for the idea, rather than appeasing the opposition just so that the ordinance will pass.
There are two concerns I have with recent new state ordinances, 1) that they are not enforceable, because they are watered down in order to allow for ease in passing, and 2) that if a clause is not included to say that a more stringent local ordinance supersedes the state ordinance, that the state will undermine the local effort.
I have read all the state lighting ordinances I can find. Later ordinances copy earlier ones, getting less strict as they evolve. I say an ordinance that is not enforceable or effective should not be passed into law. We as fighters against light pollution must believe enough in what we say, that a shielded light of any wattage is most effective for security, that we are willing to stand up for the idea, rather than appeasing the opposition just so that the ordinance will pass.
Residential shielded lighting
In the two years since Powhatan enacted its lighting ordinance, to include residential rules, almost a dozen other Virginia counties have residents who have contacted me about ordinances of their own. I am happy to say that Goochland County is now developing a lighting ordinance.
When speaking to local government officials about ordinances, I have found that there is a reluctance to include residential properties. The main answer to my questions as to why, is that the people will object, saying that their rights are being taken away.
1. It only takes one bad light to ruin the night sky for everyone far around.
2. No one's rights are being taken away. Anyone may light up their own yard. Regulations merely say that the light must be shielded so glare stops at the property line. This can be accomplished with inexpensive covers over the light source. Rights are being preserved in this manner, the rights of neighbors who prefer dark skies not to have a neighbor decide against that preference.
When speaking to local government officials about ordinances, I have found that there is a reluctance to include residential properties. The main answer to my questions as to why, is that the people will object, saying that their rights are being taken away.
1. It only takes one bad light to ruin the night sky for everyone far around.
2. No one's rights are being taken away. Anyone may light up their own yard. Regulations merely say that the light must be shielded so glare stops at the property line. This can be accomplished with inexpensive covers over the light source. Rights are being preserved in this manner, the rights of neighbors who prefer dark skies not to have a neighbor decide against that preference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
