Switching off street lights led to a big rise in injuries and fatalities

[JamesF]

I'm not sure the Mail will have access to the original data for the article as they appear to be just reporting on what has been printed in the Times.

I'm not willing to pay for access to the Times so can't check the full article, but I notice that the preview of the article says:

"324 more people were killed or seriously injured in crashes at night on roads where streetlights were unlit in 2011-2012 than in 2009-2010"

which carefully avoids stating whether the streetlights were unlit in 2009-2010.  It's also possible that it's attempting to draw a correlation

between the deaths and injuries and the unlit streetlights when there may be other reasons that have been ignored or not considered.

In the Mail article there are all sorts of alarmist statements that are clearly intended to give a specific impression without any genuine basis

for it.  For example:

"The AA said its research showed that night-time accidents in bad weather on well-lit 30mph urban roads had been slashed by 15.6per cent over the past five years.

By contrast, where street lights have been switched off or are not present, the fall was just 2per cent."

Whilst without doubt intended to convey cause for alarm, that statement actually tells us very little because we know nothing about the data.  Perhaps there's been a significant attempt to curb accidents on busy 30mph urban roads because of a perceived high level of accidents when little has been done about unlit roads because it's either not seen as cost-effective or for other reasons.  Better "management" of areas where pedestrians are liable to come close to traffic in urban areas might decrease deaths and injuries considerably, for example, whereas pedestrians aren't really much of an issue on unlit motorways or country lanes in the middle of nowhere.

Whilst others have said that it would be wrong for lights to be switched off if it does increase the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads, it would be equally wrong to make one's opinions and determine policy based on the deliberate misrepresentation of data in the media.

James

[JamesF]

I suspect the data is correct and not a daily mail scaremongering news item. The Daily Mail, in this case, is just reporting what the Times had already reported. The Times in turn was basing their assessment on data provided by the Department of Transport. Unfortunately while the Times article offered a link to the source data that link didn't work on my tablet but the DoT should be pretty good at statistical analysis so I suspect the analysis is correct. Is it worth putting on street lights to reverse that trend? In the short term yes the data clearly supports street lighting but is the underlying cause poor driver and pedestrian behaviour where both parties behave as they would if there was street lighting. In the longer term street lighting encourages that behaviour over personal responsibility. Is that a trade off that is worth accepting in exchange for lower accident rates? Personally I'd say it's not, individual responsibility is too valuable to surrender for perceived safety. But that's a personal attitude and the decision is one for society en masse.

I suspect the only useful response we could offer as astronomers to that article is to highlight that it is a campaign for dark skies not necessarily a campaign for dark streets.

Can you post the DOT link?  It would be useful to see what they said, rather than what has been reported that they said.

James

[jnb]

Can you post the DOT link?  It would be useful to see what they said, rather than what has been reported that they said.

James

Unfortunately not, it's embedded in an interactive graphic in the Times app and rather than linking it's behaving just as text and being a subscription thing I can't pull it apart to see the source.

[JamesF]

There appears to be some related coverage on the AA website: http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2014/street-lights-night-time-accidents.html

But again, the statistics presented are often worded in such a way to render them meaningless out of context whilst apparently being as alarming as possible.

James

[tenbyfifty]

u would at least think there would be a bar chart breaking down accidents by transport type ie  drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc

also, by time of night eg is there a spike after the pubs close etc.

just saying "deaths rose by 39 per cent, serious injuries rose by 27 " is not very informative.

Its what I hate most about rags like the Daily Heil , they just want to inject emotion into every article rather 

than take a rational, analytical , problem solving approach.

[JamesF]

u would at least think there would be a bar chart breaking down accidents by transport type ie  drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc

also, by time of night eg is there a spike after the pubs close etc.

just saying "deaths rose by 39 per cent, serious injuries rose by 27 " is not very informative.

Its what I hate most about rags like the Daily Heil , they just want to inject emotion into every article rather 

than take a rational, analytical , problem solving approach.

Quite.  It occurred to me for example that there may be a correlation between reduced accident rates in lit areas and anti drink-driving campaigns by local police forces.  There might also be a bias towards people driving uninsured and/or unroadworthy cars, which might perhaps be more likely to be involved in accidents, on unlit roads because the drivers think they're less likely to be stopped.

I've not yet been able to find the DfT paper on which these articles were based, but some of the previous reports do seem to break accident statistics down into groupings such as "unlit roads", "lit roads" and so on.  Even if they've added a category for "newly unlit roads" or "part-time lit roads", that's just not sufficient grounds for the likes of the media and the AA to be trying to make people draw the conclusions they're intending.  The analysis needs to be considerably more detailed than that.

There does need to be a rational debate about this whole issue.  Not just about the accident rates, but the environmental and financial issues too.  It's not just a question of "lights on" or "lights off".  The more the media and other organisations attempt to misdirect and polarise opinion however, the less likely that is to happen

James

[Moonshane]

Personally, I feel that most people find rapid change difficult. For me it would have been more beneficial in the longer term to go from all lights on all the time to maybe 75% of lights on to 50% and gradually decreasing to all lights off after a certain time. That way, the population has an opportunity to adapt their behaviour to changed circumstances.

I am also doubtful that the correlation is proven but I take it as face value at this point in the absence of any contradictory evidence.

[johnd]

Just posted this in another Dark Sky Topic that had a film link showing the difference with LP and non-LP in Wellington in New Zealand and its just as relevant I believe to this one, may be more so?

"

Yeah, Wellington is a great city and NZ is one of my favourite  places, I'd live there in a heartbeat.

I remember many moons ago as a teenager being in a little mountain-side village in Southern Italy and getting up one night at about 2am to go outside in the summer heat and looking up at a sky that was glowing with millions of crystal clear stars. I struggled to find anything due to there being too many stars, it was the first time I'd really seen milky way in a non-LP location and it was jaw dropping. I truly believe that if we had the opportunity to see our world how it really is we would appreciate it far more and demand (not 'legalised') it be cared for by everyone. I know we have to be moderate with our political statements/views but all I'll say is that IMHO (and experience) when ANY government/Multinational Comp/Agency say they are doing ANYTHING for our benefit they are simply lying. Rant over.

"

[davew]

A possibly over looked word or two in the AA report was that the figures they are working on include, " Night-time accidents in bad weather on 30 mph urban roads have been slashed by 15.6% over the past five years. But, where street lights have been switched off or are not present, the fall is just 2.0%, AA research reveals "    

Note " Or are not present "  Unlit roads do of course include some high speed roads not just 30 MPH roads.

This link may, or may not, help in the quest for hard figures.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf

Some pre bed light reading for someone !

Dave.

[JamesF]

light reading

Ho ho.  I see what you did there

James

[davew]

Ho ho.  I see what you did there

James

You make it worth the effort, thank you.   

----------------------------------------------------------------

One of the things that I fear most are those few words regarding street lights not being present. Does that mean when lighting becomes cheaper that we'll have more roads lit rather than less on the off chance accidents will reduce ? Is that what organisations like the AA will press for ?

Dark days ahead !

Dark

[Davey-T]

As the man said, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics", when we're all driving cars with anti collision sensors we won't need streetlights at all.

Dave

[knobby]

2 words... Motion sensors

[Scooot]

This study is currently taking place but the results wont be available until next year. It looks very thorough so the results will be interesting. Page 10 of the PDF gave an interesting breakdown of some Road traffic casualty figures.

http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/phr/11300402

http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/82274/PRO-11-3004-02.pdf

[crashtestdummy]

2 words... Motion sensors

Probably worse for your night vision than a constant glow

I think this is just something we have to deal with and for me it makes trips to dark sites all the more appreciated

[laser_jock99]

Personally I think the 'part night lighting' schemes will be a temporary thing. There are too many of the "we'll all be murdered in beds" brigade (even in my small village) for the Councils to resist for much longer. Unfortunately the vocal minority seems hold sway in many areas of society and the silent majority lie down and take it. When this particularly persistent councillor did a door to door survey in the village on the part night lighting scheme he was aghast to find that most people were indifferent (ie the switch off did affect them in any way) or actually wanted it. Needless the result of the 'Big Survey' was quickly lost and/or forgotten!

The future- cheap to run, bright white LED lamps will be left on all night. Path of least resistance.......

[Scooot]

Personally I think the 'part night lighting' schemes will be a temporary thing. There are too many of the "we'll all be murdered in beds" brigade (even in my small village) for the Councils to resist for much longer. Unfortunately the vocal minority seems hold sway in many areas of society and the silent majority lie down and take it. When this particularly persistent councillor did a door to door survey in the village on the part night lighting scheme he was aghast to find that most people were indifferent (ie the switch off did affect them in any way) or actually wanted it. Needless the result of the 'Big Survey' was quickly lost and/or forgotten!

The future- cheap to run, bright white LED lamps will be left on all night. Path of least resistance.......

Only votes and money count to them. Based on your village survey they won't lose many votes and of course they're saving lots of money, so hopefully you're being a tad pessimistic. -

[michaelmorris]

_{The original article on the AA website http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2014/street-lights-night-time-accidents.html states that road accidents in bad weather in all urban areas have fallen, but that this fall is largest in street light ones.  It doesn't say anything about comparing before and after accident rates in areas where street lights have been turned off.  It lumps all unlit streets together, ones that have never been lit and those where lights have been turned off.}

_{It seems to me that, on the face of it, it is a huge leap to then imply that turning off street lights on a risk-based approach will de facto lead to a rise in serious accidents.  It sounds as though more study is needed.}

[Cath]

I do wonder at times just how civilization managed to survive before the big switch on occured. We certainly seem to be becoming so very feable as a species, which must surely be a warning to our future ability to survive.

What a strange species we have become.

[Bukko]

An old saying springs to mind...

There are lies...

There are dammned lies...

Then there are statistics...

Now, continuing down that path are Government statistics..

And at the bottom of the pile lives the Daily Mail !!

Just my pennies worth...

Gordon.

[HumptyMoo]

I do wonder at times just how civilization managed to survive before the big switch on occured.

Unfortunately there isn't any valid data because, anyone who wasn't in their bed was out murdering...

[StuartJPP]

People should be more careful.

I'll rephrase that...stupid people should be more careful.

I'll rephrase that again...stupid people should be less stupid.