Hi all

I don't really understand why the M1 is lit all of the way from London to
Northampton but then only at some junctions from then on. Is it because
commuters can't drive in the dark?

Why not switch all of the lights off apart from at major junctions to save
energy?

Tony

"TMC" wrote in message
...
Hi all

I don't really understand why the M1 is lit all of the way from London
to Northampton but then only at some junctions from then on. Is it
because commuters can't drive in the dark?

Why not switch all of the lights off apart from at major junctions to
save energy?

Decisions on motorway lighting used to be (and probably still are) based
on an assessment of the economic benefits of a reduction in accident
numbers. This took into account traffic flows (actual and predicted)
and historical data on accident rates, which I believe are lower on lit
roads, all other factors being equal. There was also an assessment of
the incidence of fog at different locations.


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. )***

TMC wrote:
Hi all

I don't really understand why the M1 is lit all of the way from
London to Northampton but then only at some junctions from then on.
Is it because commuters can't drive in the dark?

Why not switch all of the lights off apart from at major junctions to
save energy?

If the government thought there was any benifit in doing this, they would
have done it, there isn't so they haven't, unless you believe all the
bull**** about global warming, this is a natural trend and the govt have
seized on it as a way of making money, when in reality, there's feck all we
can or can't do as a species to change it one iota.
So saving energy doesn't really enter the equation I'm afraid....I doubt
that the 24/7 power stations which can't really be 'switched off' would stay
open at all if this were adopted nationally

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:52:30 GMT someone who may be "Phil L"
wrote this:-

If the government thought there was any benifit in doing this, they would
have done it, there isn't so they haven't, unless you believe all the
bull**** about global warming, this is a natural trend and the govt have
seized on it as a way of making money, when in reality, there's feck all we
can or can't do as a species to change it one iota.

Ah, proof by assertion.

I think I'll take the view of those who understand the subject
deeply, thank you.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:52:30 GMT someone who may be "Phil L"
wrote this:-

If the government thought there was any benifit in doing this, they
would have done it, there isn't so they haven't, unless you believe
all the bull**** about global warming, this is a natural trend and
the govt have seized on it as a way of making money, when in
reality, there's feck all we can or can't do as a species to change
it one iota.

Ah, proof by assertion.

I think I'll take the view of those who understand the subject
deeply, thank you.

Don't mention it.

But who / what caused the last global warming which melted all the ice after
the ice age? - or the other thirty or forty ice ages previous to that? -
many scientists are now saying that it's part of a warming trend - something
the earth goes through regularly, followed by a cooling trend (ice age), and
Britain has been a desert, a jungle, a warm tropical lagoon and been under a
mile of ice on numerous occasions over the eons, there's no reason to
believe that just because we can now measure this occuring that we have
caused it, nor can we cause it to stop, just go with the flow, at least it's
going to get warmer before it gets nippy, very nippy, for a few thousand
years

Phil L wrote:
TMC wrote:
Hi all

I don't really understand why the M1 is lit all of the way from
London to Northampton but then only at some junctions from then on.
Is it because commuters can't drive in the dark?

Why not switch all of the lights off apart from at major junctions to
save energy?

If the government thought there was any benifit in doing this, they would
have done it,
Hahah!! can I quote you on that.

What you meant WAS

"If teh government thought there was any benefit in dioiung tjis, in
terms of winning teh next election, trhey would have done it"

Spending other peoples money to pander to the road safety lobby for no
gain is standard Nu Laber rule #13.

there isn't so they haven't, unless you believe all the
bull**** about global warming, this is a natural trend and the govt have
seized on it as a way of making money, when in reality, there's feck all we
can or can't do as a species to change it one iota.
So saving energy doesn't really enter the equation I'm afraid....I doubt
that the 24/7 power stations which can't really be 'switched off' would stay
open at all if this were adopted nationally

Phil L wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:52:30 GMT someone who may be "Phil L"
wrote this:-

If the government thought there was any benifit in doing this, they
would have done it, there isn't so they haven't, unless you believe
all the bull**** about global warming, this is a natural trend and
the govt have seized on it as a way of making money, when in
reality, there's feck all we can or can't do as a species to change
it one iota.
Ah, proof by assertion.

I think I'll take the view of those who understand the subject
deeply, thank you.

Don't mention it.

But who / what caused the last global warming which melted all the ice after
the ice age? - or the other thirty or forty ice ages previous to that? -
many scientists are now saying that it's part of a warming trend - something
the earth goes through regularly, followed by a cooling trend (ice age), and
Britain has been a desert, a jungle, a warm tropical lagoon and been under a
mile of ice on numerous occasions over the eons, there's no reason to
believe that just because we can now measure this occuring that we have
caused it, nor can we cause it to stop, just go with the flow, at least it's
going to get warmer before it gets nippy, very nippy, for a few thousand
years


If you do your research, you will fund that global CO2 is likely to
exceed what the world has seen since the carboniferous era..thats a good
few millions of years back,when insects were the dominant life form..oh
and giant ferns.

You may look forward to being reincarnated as a giant gnat, but I don;t
have that faith..

"TMC" wrote in message
...
Hi all

I don't really understand why the M1 is lit all of the way from London to
Northampton but then only at some junctions from then on. Is it because
commuters can't drive in the dark?

Why not switch all of the lights off apart from at major junctions to save
energy?

Lit roads are much safer at motorway speeds, as they greatly extend the
range at which people can see, particularly if there is an unlit
obstruction, such as an accident. Driving with a uniform lighting level is
also less tiring than looking down the beam of headlights. However, below a
certain level of traffic, the improvement is not enough to justify the cost
of lighting the whole motorway.

Colin Bignell

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
Lit roads are much safer at motorway speeds, as they greatly extend the
range at which people can see, particularly if there is an unlit
obstruction, such as an accident. Driving with a uniform lighting level is
also less tiring than looking down the beam of headlights. However, below a
certain level of traffic, the improvement is not enough to justify the cost
of lighting the whole motorway.

That's all very well, but the transition in and out of lit areas is
often much worse than the dark stretches. The light level they aim for
is also quite high - 1/2 the power pread as evenly would seem to do
pretty well towards the same ends.

--
Spamtrap in use
To email replace 127.0.0.1 with btinternet dot com

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Phil L"
saying something like:

If the government thought there was any benifit in doing this, they would
have done it, there isn't so they haven't, unless you believe all the
bull**** about global warming, this is a natural trend and the govt have
seized on it as a way of making money, when in reality, there's feck all we
can or can't do as a species to change it one iota.
So saving energy doesn't really enter the equation I'm afraid....I doubt
that the 24/7 power stations which can't really be 'switched off' would stay
open at all if this were adopted nationally

Got anything else you know **** all about you'd like to pontificate on?

Stop talking out of your arse.
--

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Phil L wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:52:30 GMT someone who may be "Phil L"
wrote this:-

If the government thought there was any benifit in doing this, they
would have done it, there isn't so they haven't, unless you believe
all the bull**** about global warming, this is a natural trend and
the govt have seized on it as a way of making money, when in
reality, there's feck all we can or can't do as a species to change
it one iota.
Ah, proof by assertion.

I think I'll take the view of those who understand the subject
deeply, thank you.

Don't mention it.

But who / what caused the last global warming which melted all the
ice after the ice age? - or the other thirty or forty ice ages
previous to that? - many scientists are now saying that it's part of
a warming trend - something the earth goes through regularly,
followed by a cooling trend (ice age), and Britain has been a
desert, a jungle, a warm tropical lagoon and been under a mile of
ice on numerous occasions over the eons, there's no reason to
believe that just because we can now measure this occuring that we
have caused it, nor can we cause it to stop, just go with the flow,
at least it's going to get warmer before it gets nippy, very nippy,
for a few thousand years
If you do your research, you will fund that global CO2 is likely to
exceed what the world has seen since the carboniferous era..thats a
good few millions of years back,when insects were the dominant life
form..oh and giant ferns.

In case you hadn't noticed, or were blinded by the human superiority complex
that most of us suffer from, insects are still the most dominant life form,
and more to the point, 60% of all animals on earth have 6 legs - humankind
is a tiny blip on the biology of earth, as are all mammals for that matter.

You may look forward to being reincarnated as a giant gnat, but I
don;t have that faith..

Who cares? - we're born, we live, then we die..the middle bit is *life* - I
certainly ain't spending the rest of my life worrying about something that
none of us can change.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Phil L"
saying something like:

If the government thought there was any benifit in doing this, they
would have done it, there isn't so they haven't, unless you believe
all the bull**** about global warming, this is a natural trend and
the govt have seized on it as a way of making money, when in
reality, there's feck all we can or can't do as a species to change
it one iota.
So saving energy doesn't really enter the equation I'm afraid....I
doubt that the 24/7 power stations which can't really be 'switched
off' would stay open at all if this were adopted nationally

Got anything else you know **** all about you'd like to pontificate
on?

Stop talking out of your arse.

Ohh look a sweary mary

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
snip
Got anything else you know **** all about you'd like to pontificate on?
I've stopped following this thread but :-))


--
Spamtrap in use
To email replace 127.0.0.1 with btinternet dot com

Chris Hodges wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
snip
Got anything else you know **** all about you'd like to pontificate
on?
I've stopped following this thread but :-))

Me too.

"Chris Hodges" wrote in message
...
nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
Lit roads are much safer at motorway speeds, as they greatly extend the
range at which people can see, particularly if there is an unlit
obstruction, such as an accident. Driving with a uniform lighting level
is also less tiring than looking down the beam of headlights. However,
below a certain level of traffic, the improvement is not enough to
justify the cost of lighting the whole motorway.

That's all very well, but the transition in and out of lit areas is often
much worse than the dark stretches.

One reason that fully lit motorways would be better.

The light level they aim for is also quite high - 1/2 the power pread as
evenly would seem to do pretty well towards the same ends.

The lighting levels have been worked out, over many years, as the minimum
needed to do the job. No lighting authority wants to pay for more light than
they need.

Colin Bignell

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
"Chris Hodges" wrote in message
...
nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
Lit roads are much safer at motorway speeds, as they greatly extend the
range at which people can see, particularly if there is an unlit
obstruction, such as an accident. Driving with a uniform lighting level
is also less tiring than looking down the beam of headlights. However,
below a certain level of traffic, the improvement is not enough to
justify the cost of lighting the whole motorway.
That's all very well, but the transition in and out of lit areas is often
much worse than the dark stretches.

One reason that fully lit motorways would be better.

The light level they aim for is also quite high - 1/2 the power pread as
evenly would seem to do pretty well towards the same ends.

The lighting levels have been worked out, over many years, as the minimum
needed to do the job. No lighting authority wants to pay for more light than
they need.


Indeed, But they don't pay. The taxpayer pays..and pays..and pays..
Colin Bignell