More stupid "tech" to produce light pollution

Are Brits so stoned they need this to keep from miss-stepping? More money for the STATE to squander instead of paying-down debt?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...s-smart-street

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 8:21:53 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Are Brits so stoned they need this to keep from miss-stepping? More money for the STATE to squander instead of paying-down debt?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...s-smart-street

Than take the red pill!
Join up with ISIS! )o:

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 08:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Are Brits so stoned they need this to keep from miss-stepping? More money for the STATE to squander instead of paying-down debt?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...s-smart-street

Very cool. This is the sort of stuff that makes cities interesting
places (to live or to visit, depending on your temperament).

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...-lights-on-lon
don-s-smart-street

Chris L Peterson:
Very cool. This is the sort of stuff that makes cities interesting
places (to live or to visit, depending on your temperament).

I suppose. But pavement that is flexible, that moves up and down? I
would walk around it.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:39:05 -0400, Davoud wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...-lights-on-lon
don-s-smart-street

Chris L Peterson:
Very cool. This is the sort of stuff that makes cities interesting
places (to live or to visit, depending on your temperament).

I suppose. But pavement that is flexible, that moves up and down? I
would walk around it.

Maybe. But it also looks like it would be low-impact, which for most
people would be a benefit. And better than the cobblestones you still
find on many streets in England, even in London!

(I'd suggest it's also possible that pavement like this would actually
encourage more efficient lighting, since the effects are likely to be
best appreciated when the overall lighting of the area is somewhat
subdued.)

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 8:21:53 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Are Brits so stoned they need this to keep from miss-stepping? More money for the STATE to squander instead of paying-down debt?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...s-smart-street

Here you go!

For Distracted Phone Users, Germany Puts Traffic Lights on the Ground

https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/04...-users/479445/

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 4:59:07 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 08:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Are Brits so stoned they need this to keep from miss-stepping? More money for the STATE to squander instead of paying-down debt?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...s-smart-street

Very cool. This is the sort of stuff that makes cities interesting
places (to live or to visit, depending on your temperament).

Too much light at night in urban areas is already causing psychological and health problems for people. How much do they want, daylight 24hrs a day?

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:49:32 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 4:59:07 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 08:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Are Brits so stoned they need this to keep from miss-stepping? More money for the STATE to squander instead of paying-down debt?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...s-smart-street

Very cool. This is the sort of stuff that makes cities interesting
places (to live or to visit, depending on your temperament).

Too much light at night in urban areas is already causing psychological and health problems for people. How much do they want, daylight 24hrs a day?

This doesn't create "too much light". As noted, it might even result
in reduced light.

Urban areas are always going to be well lit. We should just seek for
that lighting to be efficient and well designed. That doesn't mean
utilitarian. There's nothing wrong with using light as an
architectural or artistic element.

On Thursday, 6 July 2017 16:00:46 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:49:32 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 4:59:07 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 08:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Are Brits so stoned they need this to keep from miss-stepping? More money for the STATE to squander instead of paying-down debt?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technolog...s-smart-street

Very cool. This is the sort of stuff that makes cities interesting
places (to live or to visit, depending on your temperament).

Too much light at night in urban areas is already causing psychological and health problems for people. How much do they want, daylight 24hrs a day?

This doesn't create "too much light". As noted, it might even result
in reduced light.

Urban areas are always going to be well lit. We should just seek for
that lighting to be efficient and well designed. That doesn't mean
utilitarian. There's nothing wrong with using light as an
architectural or artistic element.

I could never understand the need for headlights on vehicles _AND_street lighting. Why aren't all street lights switched on and off to the demands of a pedestrian proximity sensor? The same goes for "security" lighting. Is there anybody in the streetlighting ordering department who still thinks... about anything? Like ordering only fully shielded down lighters with pedestrian proximity sensors, for example?

I heard one cynic's argument that ridiculous levels of light pollution were only "invented" to act as a power sink for ridiculously inflexible, nuclear power. Once the offices and [few remaining] factories closed for the night they had nowhere to dump all their unwanted electricity and needed many hours to react. Only to have to very slowly turn up the wick again every morning. So the office block owners were told to leave all the lights on in the "national interest."

It's the familiar story of ridiculously overpowered cars. This is despite strict global speed limits. And, only ever carrying one ridiculously overweight passenger the hundred yards to the local takeaway: Mr Blobby: The driver and totally deluded poser. ;-)

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 22:59:53 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

I could never understand the need for headlights on vehicles _AND_street lighting.

I think they often serve different purposes. In urban areas,
headlights are more about making cars visible to other drivers (thus
daytime running lights, which are shown to reduce accidents). Of
course, when used for that purpose headlights can be substantially
dipped.

Street lighting can be for cars, but is really only necessary at
intersections and selected spots, not regularly spaced. Street
lighting for pedestrians can be low and dim, possibly proximity
activated in at least some situations.

And certainly, all lighting should be designed to put the light where
it's needed, and to hide the light source itself.