Maurice Gavin

Switch that light off or face a fine

Interesting article with pollution map of Britain on front page of
Daily Telegraph today [Thursday 9th Dec] by Environment Ed stating....

" light pollution to become a statutory offence ... won't apply to
airports, bus garages but street lights and nuisance neighbours
not exempt... fines to £50,000"
Roll on !!!!

Malcolm Stewart

"Maurice Gavin" <m.gavin@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:41b8aac8.1439761@news.freeuk.net...
> Switch that light off or face a fine
>
> Interesting article with pollution map of Britain on front page of
> Daily Telegraph today [Thursday 9th Dec] by Environment Ed stating....
>
> " light pollution to become a statutory offence ... won't apply to
> airports, bus garages but street lights and nuisance neighbours
> not exempt... fines to £50,000"
> Roll on !!!!

Interesting coincidence that two nights ago on my way to my astro club
meeting, I noticed a new form of very white street lighting (metal halide
? ) now being installed in the domestic roads of a new housing development
in Milton Keynes. The white glow and spill was very evident from some
distance away, so the reflectors aren't doing that good a job of pushing the
light down to the ground. (OK, there didn't seem to be any light going
directly upwards, but horizontally, yes.)

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

Ian Paterson

Spookily enough, I just visited the Campaign for Rural England's web site
and found some info there today too.

http://www.cpre.org.uk/news-releases...2004/77-04.htm

Visit the above link for more....

:-)

Maybe neighbours' dogs barking at 5.30 am will be next!

--
To Reply, use my proper E-Mail Address of
pateril@ianpaterson.freeserve.co.uk
"Maurice Gavin" <m.gavin@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:41b8aac8.1439761@news.freeuk.net...
> Switch that light off or face a fine
>
> Interesting article with pollution map of Britain on front page of
> Daily Telegraph today [Thursday 9th Dec] by Environment Ed stating....
>
> " light pollution to become a statutory offence ... won't apply to
> airports, bus garages but street lights and nuisance neighbours
> not exempt... fines to £50,000"
> Roll on !!!!

Martin Frey

m.gavin@freeuk.com (Maurice Gavin) wrote:

>Switch that light off or face a fine
>
>Interesting article with pollution map of Britain on front page of
>Daily Telegraph today [Thursday 9th Dec] by Environment Ed stating....
>
>" light pollution to become a statutory offence ... won't apply to
>airports, bus garages but street lights and nuisance neighbours
>not exempt... fines to £50,000"
>Roll on !!!!

A consequence, I suspect, of the Dark Skies campaign coupled with the
CPRE (Campaign for Protection of Rural England) joint resentation to
Select Committee and follow up from (don't mock) the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister. Well done them.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

chris.b@mail.dk

I'm afraid the lights in question cannot be fully shielded. The true,
full-cut-off downlighters are very, very obvious. They have them in the
village I pass through on the way home.

They have the unique advantage that they don't force the eye pupil to
automatically close down. So everything appears brighter and you can
see deep into the softer shadows. Driving and walking is much safer!

In comparison, conventional lights are very poor security for those
living in the overlit area. Anybody could be hiding in the nearest dark
shadow and you wouldn't even be aware of it. Because your eye has
automatically adjusted to the glaring brightness of the nearest light
waster! And the next and the next as you travel through a daisy chain
of skylighters.

Try telling that to the local council claiming they are increasing the
inhabitants security and safety by flooding the village with stray
light. It simply isn't true. Unless they use true downlighters.

Personally I think downlighters have a magical effect on an area that
uses them. They give a sophisticated apearance that raises the village
well up-market. So if a conventional streetlight is blazing in front of
your house. You can honestly claim that it is reducing the value of
your home and you'd like a reduction in rates, thanks very much.

Any moron using a halogen floodlight must be unaware of the LOSS of
security as a result of blinding any potential witnesses to an
approach. A farm on my way home has a powerful halogen light just above
head height directly facing the main road! Since passing car drivers
have to shield their eyes there isn't much chance of anyone seeing
burglars! Perhaps he needs the light to dawb extra mud on his tractor
tyres before he takes his gentle tour in the early morning rush-hour?
Who knows.

I heard recently of a local Crime Prevention Officer recommending all
night halogen flood lighting to avoid burglary! It makes yer weep
dunnit?

A new neighbour has taken to leaving all his outside lights on 24 x 7.
I presume this is to tell any "friends" who might be passing that he is
never at home? Struth!

Chris.B

Ian Robinson

<
> Personally I think downlighters have a magical effect on an area that
> uses them. They give a sophisticated apearance that raises the village
> well up-market. >

Agree with the sentiment re light pollution but if downlighters give a
'sophisticated apperance' & raise a village well up-market' as you suggest,
do we really want that either?? Just a thought.......

Ian

David Entwistle

In article <41b8aac8.1439761@news.freeuk.net>, Maurice Gavin
<m.gavin@freeuk.com> writes
>Switch that light off or face a fine
>
>Interesting article with pollution map of Britain on front page of
>Daily Telegraph today [Thursday 9th Dec] by Environment Ed stating....

Can anyone provider a pointer to this legislation on the governments website?

The CPRE announcement suggests the legislation is related to the 'Clean
Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill', but I didn't see any reference to light
pollution after reading here:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/issues/...viron-1208.htm

or here

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...bill/index.htm

or here

http://www.publications.parliament.u...11/2005011.htm

--
David Entwistle

Phil Alner

"David Entwistle" <atdt30@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:spCFBBAm$euBFwJn@dial.pipex.com...
> In article <41b8aac8.1439761@news.freeuk.net>, Maurice Gavin
> <m.gavin@freeuk.com> writes
> >Switch that light off or face a fine
> >
> >Interesting article with pollution map of Britain on front page of
> >Daily Telegraph today [Thursday 9th Dec] by Environment Ed stating....
>
> Can anyone provider a pointer to this legislation on the governments
website?
>
> The CPRE announcement suggests the legislation is related to the 'Clean
> Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill', but I didn't see any reference to
light
> pollution after reading here:
>
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/issues/...viron-1208.htm
>
> or here
>
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...bill/index.htm
>
> or here
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.u...11/2005011.htm
>
> --
> David Entwistle

From :-
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...n/05011x-d.htm
Clause 102 Statutory nuisance: lighting

260. Clause 102 amends section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act
1990 so as to provide that the statutory nuisances listed in that section
include "artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to
health or a nuisance". This has the effect of subjecting nuisance lighting
to the statutory nuisance regime in Part 3 of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990.

I would guess that we won't be seeing any changes to existing street
lighting as I doubt that the local councils or county councils will be able
to afford to change all the old street lamps ...... or watch-out for
increased council tax bills.

Phil Alner

David Entwistle

In article <41b8aac8.1439761@news.freeuk.net>, Maurice Gavin
<m.gavin@freeuk.com> writes
>Switch that light off or face a fine
>
>Interesting article with pollution map of Britain on front page of
>Daily Telegraph today [Thursday 9th Dec] by Environment Ed stating....
>

Sorry if this appears twice.

Can anyone provider a pointer to this legislation on the government's
website?

The CPRE announcement suggests the legislation is related to the 'Clean
Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill', but I didn't see any reference to
light pollution after reading here:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/issues/...viron-1208.htm

nor here

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...bill/index.htm

nor here

http://www.publications.parliament.u...011/2005011.ht
m

--
David Entwistle

David Entwistle

In article <gmoud.222$LO1.29@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, Phil Alner
<phil.alner@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>From :-
>http://www.parliament.the-stationery...lls/011/en/050
>11x-d.htm
>Clause 102 Statutory nuisance: lighting
>
>260. Clause 102 amends section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act
>1990 so as to provide that the statutory nuisances listed in that section
>include "artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to
>health or a nuisance". This has the effect of subjecting nuisance lighting
>to the statutory nuisance regime in Part 3 of the Environmental Protection
>Act 1990.
>

Thanks Phil,

Encouraged by your pointer I did find the web page showing the appropriate section
of the bill.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...-76.html#j1701

I guess that means any objection to poor lighting would need to demonstrate that it
was 'prejudicial to health or a nuisance'. That certainly seems to be a step in the
right direction.

Thanks,

--
David Entwistle

David Entwistle

In article <gmoud.222$LO1.29@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, Phil Alner
<phil.alner@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>I would guess that we won't be seeing any changes to existing street
>lighting as I doubt that the local councils or county councils will be able
>to afford to change all the old street lamps ...... or watch-out for
>increased council tax bills.
>

Yes. I'm not sure street lighting would be covered by the amendment to
the Bill, as I wouldn't have thought street lighting would be considered
as 'emitted from premises'. On the other hand, shopping centre car
parks, and the like, would be covered.

--
David Entwistle

Maurice Gavin

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:44:08 GMT, m.gavin@freeuk.com (Maurice Gavin)
wrote:

I've posted the Daily Telegraph article at

http://home.freeuk.com/m.gavin/uknite.htm

Eric Kay

Ian Robinson wrote:

>> Personally I think downlighters have a magical effect on an area that
>> uses them. They give a sophisticated apearance that raises the village
>> well up-market. >
>
> Agree with the sentiment re light pollution but if downlighters give a
> 'sophisticated apperance' & raise a village well up-market' as you
> suggest, do we really want that either?? Just a thought.......

Exactly. You can't beat a few burnt-out abandoned cars to give a village
a nice down-to-earth feeling. I've personally donated a nice rusty
Montego to my local community. As for the new law, it sounds like an old
codgers bill. What next? A curfew at 22:00 and anyone found walking the
streets after that time spends a night in the clink? A fine of £10,000
for anyone caught taking a much needed slash on their way back from the
pub?

Ron Larham

"Maurice Gavin" <m.gavin@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:41baf3ba.12613349@news.freeuk.net...
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:44:08 GMT, m.gavin@freeuk.com (Maurice Gavin)
> wrote:
>
> I've posted the Daily Telegraph article at
>
> http://home.freeuk.com/m.gavin/uknite.htm

What is the chance of this bill ever being passed?
Aren't we expecting an election next year?

RonL

Mark Ayliffe

On or about 2004-12-11,
Roger Smith <roger@escore.demon.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> In message <1102669861.514442.296300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> chris.b@mail.dk wrote
>>Any moron using a halogen floodlight must be unaware of the LOSS of
>>security as a result of blinding any potential witnesses to an
>>approach.

*shrug* security in my home has been improved by using halogen floodlights.
They are on PIR controllers and a short cycle and are pointed well down. And
they don't make the light pollution worse then it is already in my bit of
Cambridge. I can observe reasonably well from my back garden, more
restricted by trees than light. :-(

But granted they can be fitted or operated foolishly. As one or two of my
neighbours can demonstrate...

--
Mark
Real email address | Why don't they make the whole plane out of the material
is mark at | used for the indestructible black box ?
ayliffe dot org |

Roger Smith

In message <dqlr82-m93.ln1@news.ntlworld.com>, Mark Ayliffe
<me@privacy.net> wrote
>On or about 2004-12-11,
>Roger Smith <roger@escore.demon.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>> In message <1102669861.514442.296300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
>> chris.b@mail.dk wrote
>>>Any moron using a halogen floodlight must be unaware of the LOSS of
>>>security as a result of blinding any potential witnesses to an
>>>approach.
>
>*shrug* security in my home has been improved by using halogen floodlights.
>They are on PIR controllers and a short cycle and are pointed well down. And
>they don't make the light pollution worse then it is already in my bit of
>Cambridge. I can observe reasonably well from my back garden, more
>restricted by trees than light. :-(
>
>But granted they can be fitted or operated foolishly. As one or two of my
>neighbours can demonstrate...
>

Just a minor complaint, it would have been nice if you had snipped my
attribution from the above seeing as you removed my comments.
--
Roger
52:54:41N
01:30:05W
Orion 127mm Maksutov.

Dr John Stockton

JRS: In article <lhZHzDAJ2muBFwoa@dial.pipex.com>, dated Sat, 11 Dec
2004 03:46:17, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy, David Entwistle
<atdt30@dial.pipex.com> posted :
>In article <gmoud.222$LO1.29@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, Phil Alner
><phil.alner@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>I would guess that we won't be seeing any changes to existing street
>>lighting as I doubt that the local councils or county councils will be able
>>to afford to change all the old street lamps ...... or watch-out for
>>increased council tax bills.
>>
>
>Yes. I'm not sure street lighting would be covered by the amendment to
>the Bill, as I wouldn't have thought street lighting would be considered
>as 'emitted from premises'. On the other hand, shopping centre car
>parks, and the like, would be covered.


Agreed. Phil's reasons are cogent.

Moreover, the case for new installations of public street lighting
being designed to direct the light only towards the surfaces of the
streets and the lower metre or two of the users of the streets seems
to be adequately established.

It would be well for the law to be such as to impose significantly
greater penalties on those whose lights are directed at the eyes of
drivers, whether or not the drivers are on the highway. Lights that
dazzle in those circumstances are a real safety hazard, and those put
at risk are rarely the illuminators. It should certainly be illegal
to exceed the amount of dazzle permitted to dipped headlights, and the
standard for lights on fixed installations should really be more
stringent. Calling for dazzle-banning should increase the weight of
opinion in favour of the Bill as a whole, and that can only be of
benefit to those who want to look upwards.

It's obvious that airports do need to shine landing-lights somewhat
upwards; but why should bus-stations be exempt?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Martin Frey

Dr John Stockton <spam@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>It's obvious that airports do need to shine landing-lights somewhat
>upwards; but why should bus-stations be exempt?

Double deckers?

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Mark McIntyre

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:11:18 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Mark Ayliffe
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>*shrug* security in my home has been improved by using halogen floodlights.

Not trying to be diffiicult, but I think we'd all beinterested to see your
actual evidence for this. By which I mean

- you have been burgled or mugged less since installing them
- you have spotted burglars in flagrante and scared them off
- your neighbours have been targeted instead of you
- etc ad naus

Other than merely feeling safer......

I assume you've considered that
- its much easier to pick a lock when you can see it
- well-lit patios & drives are easier to carry stolen goods over
- nobody suspects someone breaking into a well-lit house
- and so on.


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

chris.b@mail.dk

My argument is that a light coming on (thanks to a sensor) is a damn
sight more noticable than a light left on all night. Who's even going
to bother looking to see if the arsehole neighbour (who blinds
everybody, every night ) is crossing his own lawn in the early morning?
Or if it's an eight metre tall tentacled alien dragging the "arsehole"
away by the scrotum?

Chris.B

David Entwistle

In article <B+XcjvDPK3uBFw9A@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, Dr John Stockton
<spam@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>It's obvious that airports do need to shine landing-lights somewhat
>upwards; but why should bus-stations be exempt?
>

With respect to airports, it is my experience that the apron and car
park lighting, and not the runway lights, that cause the greatest light-
pollution. I wouldn't like to think that these non-specialist
applications would be given special exemption.

I can't think of a good reason why bus-stations should be exempt. But, I
note that British Standard BS 5489 - 'Code of practice for the design of
road lighting' specifically covers lighting around aerodromes, railways,
harbours and navigable waterways. So maybe it's considered that these
particular exemptions are already covered elsewhere.


--
David Entwistle

Mark Ayliffe

On or about 2004-12-11,
Roger Smith <roger@escore.demon.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>
> Just a minor complaint, it would have been nice if you had snipped my
> attribution from the above seeing as you removed my comments.

Sorry about that. I'm usually more careful.

--
Mark
Real email address | One good thing about egotists is that they don't
is mark at | talk about other people.
ayliffe dot org |

Mark Ayliffe

On or about 2004-12-12,
Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> illuminated us with:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:11:18 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Mark Ayliffe
><me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>*shrug* security in my home has been improved by using halogen floodlights.
>
> Not trying to be diffiicult, but I think we'd all beinterested to see your
> actual evidence for this. By which I mean
>
> - you have been burgled or mugged less since installing them

Yes. Admiteddly very small numbers of cases, but we had a break in and a
case of trivial thieving before they were installed, not since (now 7 years
plus I think). In that time there have been other break-ins at neighbouring
houses. Certainly a statistician could make mincemeat of my assertion, but I
do think it is working in my case.

I'm for not using more light than necessary, but I was reacting to the
implication "anyone who installs halogen floodlights is a moron" made
further up the thread. It is possible to use them (in a city) in a way which
doesn't add greatly, if at all, to the LP. I'd agree that it's near
impossible to use them in an essentially dark village or other rural
location in such a way, but the earlier poster didn't offer that
qualification.

--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | Yhy didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?
ayliffe dot org |

Dr John Stockton

JRS: In article <nF0HqAA50CvBFwjG@dial.pipex.com>, dated Sun, 12 Dec
2004 11:36:25, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy, David Entwistle
<atdt30@dial.pipex.com> posted :
>In article <B+XcjvDPK3uBFw9A@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, Dr John Stockton
><spam@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>It's obvious that airports do need to shine landing-lights somewhat
>>upwards; but why should bus-stations be exempt?
>>
>
>With respect to airports, it is my experience that the apron and car
>park lighting, and not the runway lights, that cause the greatest light-
>pollution. I wouldn't like to think that these non-specialist
>applications would be given special exemption.

Agreed. They may be justifiably somewhat inhibited about sticking big
poles high up in the air, but the car parks at least can be lit by low
standards shielded from the sky, without much extra expense.

>I can't think of a good reason why bus-stations should be exempt. But, I
>note that British Standard BS 5489 - 'Code of practice for the design of
>road lighting' specifically covers lighting around aerodromes, railways,
>harbours and navigable waterways. So maybe it's considered that these
>particular exemptions are already covered elsewhere.

They should not be exempted merely because they are already covered; for
a start, it's likely to deceive someone who does not check by reading
*all* currently-valid legislation. And surely a Code of Practice is not
itself legislation, though it might be given authority by proper
legislation.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

Hils

Mark Ayliffe wrote

>*shrug* security in my home has been improved by using halogen floodlights.
>They are on PIR controllers and a short cycle and are pointed well down. And
>they don't make the light pollution worse then it is already in my bit of
>Cambridge. I can observe reasonably well from my back garden, more
>restricted by trees than light. :-(
>
>But granted they can be fitted or operated foolishly. As one or two of my
>neighbours can demonstrate...

Obtrusive "security lighting" is predominantly what's meant by light
pollution, since it's a major cause of complaints by the public. Making
it a statutory nuisance is more about legislative consistency than
tackling the kind of problem which usa regulars will be familiar with.

As has been hinted in a recent thread, this may be a two-edged sword:
don't be *entirely* surprised if, when you ask a LA officer to assess
your light pollution problem, you're asked for the certificates for your
windows and outdoor electrical installations. :-)

--
Hil

Charles Gilman

Light pollution comes in all manner of forms. In my area the M25 and M3 are
a major source. When I was at university, at Bath, I was struck by the irony
of how the abbey was lit from below. Would the Herschels have been able to
discover Uranus had the city had such lighting in their day?
"Hils" <hils@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VcftdBAJvivBFwFP@newearth.demon.co.uk...
> Mark Ayliffe wrote
>
> >*shrug* security in my home has been improved by using halogen
floodlights.
> >They are on PIR controllers and a short cycle and are pointed well down.
And
> >they don't make the light pollution worse then it is already in my bit of
> >Cambridge. I can observe reasonably well from my back garden, more
> >restricted by trees than light. :-(
> >
> >But granted they can be fitted or operated foolishly. As one or two of my
> >neighbours can demonstrate...
>
> Obtrusive "security lighting" is predominantly what's meant by light
> pollution, since it's a major cause of complaints by the public. Making
> it a statutory nuisance is more about legislative consistency than
> tackling the kind of problem which usa regulars will be familiar with.
>
> As has been hinted in a recent thread, this may be a two-edged sword:
> don't be *entirely* surprised if, when you ask a LA officer to assess
> your light pollution problem, you're asked for the certificates for your
> windows and outdoor electrical installations. :-)
>
> --
> Hil

Hils

Charles Gilman wrote

>Light pollution comes in all manner of forms. In my area the M25 and M3 are
>a major source. When I was at university, at Bath, I was struck by the irony
>of how the abbey was lit from below. Would the Herschels have been able to
>discover Uranus had the city had such lighting in their day?

There seems to be yet another arms race going on, between light
pollution and anti-light pollution filters. The last time I went through
Bath by train the abbey still looked very striking, but I wonder how
many people actually go out of their way to see illuminated public
buildings.

--
Hil