logoalt Hacker News

trollbridgeyesterday at 3:08 PM4 repliesview on HN

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just expect people who want to walk places in the dead of night to wear a headlamp? They're cheap, easy to recharge, and can be adjusted for various brightness levels.


Replies

amiga386yesterday at 3:30 PM

The problem is not just with people who want to walk places, but people who want to mug/murder/rape those that do.

As an example, in the UK, councils are expected to light commonly-traveled paths, both so path users can see where they're going, and to reduce crime. Unlit paths in city parks are still traversed, and are often a haven for crime.

"Dead of night" isn't the right image. 5PM in winter with clouds (as is typical in the UK) has roughly the same level of natural light as 2AM. People are still coming home from work in conditions where natural light is low enough to lead to accidents and crime.

show 4 replies
wongarsuyesterday at 3:17 PM

People associate a lack of lighting with crime

I vaguely remember that studies showed that lack of streetlights does not create crime, but the crime that happens anyways prefers badly lit areas. But from a pedestrian's perspective that's not much relief, you'd still avoid those areas. Which is not what a city planner has in mind for a park

show 1 reply
ninalanyonyesterday at 5:07 PM

No. Unless you expect everyone to always have those things you will need the street lights anyway so why not make them smart and efficient. This especially applies in northern latitudes where it is dark in the evening even before people leave work.

fhdkweigyesterday at 3:17 PM

I would consider that ideal, but there would always be the fear of a potential negligence lawsuit if someone got hurt or crimed, so the government considers them necessary.