On Apr 18, 12:30*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Jethro wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:30 am, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-councils-d....

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Surely half the problem is the myriad ways that street lamps are
controlled ? I know some authorities fitted light-sensors to street
lamps (I vaguely recalled some had one sensor for X lamps), whilst
others (like mine) kept/fitted timers (always amusing after a power
cut). If they're going to start changing the "on" rules, it could
prove very costly. Ideally it'd be nice to control every light
individually - then they could switch to "half lights", or vary the
times for economy. Presumably those lights that are on less will need
replacing less, leading to savings in bulbs ?

Mind you, this falls into my "if it *really* mattered" test ...
similar to being able to control *all* traffic signals (INCLUDING
pedestrian lights). I'm sure if some enlightened local authority did
this, they could improve the efficiency of the road network (i.e.
reduce the need for new roads) by a considerable amount. Unfortunately
the dogma that we mustn't do anything that remotely looks like helping
motorists wins out. Better be careful, straying into urd territory.

Anyway, on topic, to be honest, I can't see that switching/dimming
lights between (say) midnight and 4am would affect a great number of
people.

It would not. as anyone who has actually driven around at that time of
night can tell you.

You have the roads and streets to yourself.

Post midnight all activity tails off to a low at about 3-4 a.m before
the first of the early risers get going around 5 a.m.

However this will only make the load variation on the grid worse, as
there is oodles of spare capacity that has to be ready for the rush hour
spinning away overnight anyway.

Since I have been monitoring the grid, two things seem reasonable
propositions.

British summer time immediately increase electricity demand.

If everybody worked from home, we would save 20% of the nations electricity.

Which leads back to my "if it *really* mattered" argument. Is there
*any* government push for homeworking (tax breaks for companies,
etc) ? Bear in mind that taking just a small %age of cars off the road
in rush-hour has a remarkable effect on congestion. The fact nothing
is done, reinforces my suspicion, that we are nowhere near the end of
the world that some would have us believe.

On Apr 18, 11:35*am, Jethro wrote:

Mind you, this falls into my "if it *really* mattered" test ...
similar to being able to control *all* traffic signals (INCLUDING
pedestrian lights). I'm sure if some enlightened local authority did
this, they could improve the efficiency of the road network (i.e.
reduce the need for new roads) by a considerable amount.

Many areas already do have centrally controlled traffic signals.

In message on Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:20:38 +0100
Andy Wade wrote:

On 18/04/2011 08:30, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

Yes, because you're dimming a sodium discharge lamp, not a tungsten
filament. With tungsten the lumens per watt efficacy drops dramatically
when you under-run the lamp. With a discharge lamp it may still fall
off, but to a much lesser extent.

Dimming is not new. The street lights in the road where I live were
replaced a couple of years ago. After midnight they dim to 75% output,
or so the letter from the council said.

'Intelligent' street light control seems to be becoming a large
industry, e.g. http://www.e-streetlight.com/

Our lights don't dim but they were all replaced about ten years or so ago with
more efficient lamps that don't waste light illuminating the sky.

They have a complex set of prisms built into the glass that distribute the
light evenly over a wide area. Instead of bright spots with dark areas in
between, the roads and footpaths are now very evenly illuminated but at a much
lower level.

The prisms seem to be designed to throw some light back to the footpath as well
as covering the footpath opposite without shining into the windows on either
side of the road, so it doesn't matter if several posts are on the same side of
the road rather than the usual alternating pattern.

--

Terry

On Apr 18, 10:30*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:35:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
They've been considering that round here. It's already pretty
black at
night (village). Certainly seems to be a retrograde step WRT
accidents
and crime...

AS far as accidents go, all vehicles have lights - except cyclists of
course. You can see a light in a pitch black place easily.

If you are a cyclist with no lights, you deserve what you get anyway.

Same for pedestrians, what is it with people not carrying a torch or
wearing something light coloured or better retro-reflective on them?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Too many people walking or cycling wearing dark clothing, they don't
realise the danger they are in, when driving I can't see them until
I'm dangerously close. I always wear a hi-vis vest when walking to and
from work in the dark, and a light-coloured coat or scarf at other
times.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:58:41 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

There were no streetlights in the village. There are here. So, maybe if
we get rid of the streetlights, all the criminals will move away.

They well may do, to places where they can move around with
attracting attention to themselves waving a torch about...

And the drunks will stop driving round at night.

I fail to see an relationship between drunk driving and street
lighting.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:56:26 -0700 (PDT), alexander.keys1 wrote:

Many areas already do have centrally controlled traffic signals.

What are traffic lights?

Nearest permenant set to us are about 15 miles away on Britains
oldest "temporary" road bridge errected in 1968. After that set the
next nearest are about 20 miles away.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"alexander.keys1" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 10:30 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:35:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
They've been considering that round here. It's already pretty
black at
night (village). Certainly seems to be a retrograde step WRT
accidents
and crime...

AS far as accidents go, all vehicles have lights - except cyclists of
course. You can see a light in a pitch black place easily.

If you are a cyclist with no lights, you deserve what you get anyway.

Same for pedestrians, what is it with people not carrying a torch or
wearing something light coloured or better retro-reflective on them?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Too many people walking or cycling wearing dark clothing, they don't
realise the danger they are in, when driving I can't see them until
I'm dangerously close. I always wear a hi-vis vest when walking to and
from work in the dark, and a light-coloured coat or scarf at other
times.

======== GT Reply starts: =========

Whenever anyone mentions poor visibility of pedestrians it reminds me of my
own experience a few years ago on a country lane. It was daylight, but a
mile or so of the road is tree-lined. I spotted a lone jogger in a high vis
jacket and I moved over to the right side of the road (nothing coming) to
pass him. Only as I passed him, I realised he was the 'back marker' for a
group of soldiers on a training run - in full camoflage, in leafy-shadowy
conditions, against a backdrop of bushes. There must have been about 30 of
them, but I simply hadn't seen them - the camoflage worked!

Jethro wrote:
On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, The Natural Philosopher


If everybody worked from home, we would save 20% of the nations electricity.

Which leads back to my "if it *really* mattered" argument. Is there
*any* government push for homeworking (tax breaks for companies,
etc) ? Bear in mind that taking just a small %age of cars off the road
in rush-hour has a remarkable effect on congestion. The fact nothing
is done, reinforces my suspicion, that we are nowhere near the end of
the world that some would have us believe.

No sadly it reinforces my suspicion that the system of government is
totally staffed by political common purpose idiots with chips on their
shoulders and axes to grind that the last thing they consider doing, or
have the ability to do, is to change the country for the better.

Remember political survival consists not on doing the right thing, but
in *appearing* to do the right thing, up to the point where the whole
thing implodes.

I give it about 2 years.

Let's face it, switching off street lamps, even if it leads to accidents
and crime, is easily and cheaply countered by saying that if they are
that scared people should stay at home after dark.

In the same way you might say 'here is a lake. If you cant swim, don't
go in'

alexander.keys1 wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:35 am, Jethro wrote:
Mind you, this falls into my "if it *really* mattered" test ...
similar to being able to control *all* traffic signals (INCLUDING
pedestrian lights). I'm sure if some enlightened local authority did
this, they could improve the efficiency of the road network (i.e.
reduce the need for new roads) by a considerable amount.

Many areas already do have centrally controlled traffic signals.
Indeed. The put some in our local town. Congestion has tripled now.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:58:41 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

There were no streetlights in the village. There are here. So, maybe if
we get rid of the streetlights, all the criminals will move away.

They well may do, to places where they can move around with
attracting attention to themselves waving a torch about...

And the drunks will stop driving round at night.

I fail to see an relationship between drunk driving and street
lighting.

Composes several replies, then realises that you don't "get" irony
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Apr 18, 12:56*pm, "alexander.keys1"
wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:35*am, Jethro wrote:



Mind you, this falls into my "if it *really* mattered" test ...
similar to being able to control *all* traffic signals (INCLUDING
pedestrian lights). I'm sure if some enlightened local authority did
this, they could improve the efficiency of the road network (i.e.
reduce the need for new roads) by a considerable amount.

Many areas already do have centrally controlled traffic signals.

but many have not. In particular, I am thinking of the idiotic
junctions where the pedestrian lights manage to stop traffic entering
into the road, meaning you have to watch, helplessly, as your green-
phase goes red without having let a single car through.

I can't prove it, but I swear such designs are deliberate - as I said
previously, there's a culture in government of not being seen to do
anything to help the motorist, with the dogma of "public transport"
not far behind.

On 18/04/2011 08:30, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ave-money.html


Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

This makes interesting reading, considering the pros and cons of reduced
street lighting levels.

http://www.theilp.org.uk/uploads/Fil...SL1_secure.pdf

Alternative savings measures, such as fitting more efficient designs of
lamp, which use a lower wattage to achieve the same lighting levels, and
turning off things like traffic bollard lighting during the day are also
discussed.

Colin Bignell

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ave-money.html

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the power
consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?



My council is turning off every 3 lamppost, or alternate side lampposts on
dual carriageways

Steve Firth wrote:
Mark wrote:
[snip]

Of course the council won't have to bear the costs of increased road
collisions and crime so they would probably save a little bit of
money.

Oh FFS isn't it time you townies stopped being scared of the dark? It
's bloody miles from my home to the nearest streetlight. Crime is
low, vehicle collisions at night are rare. The significant crash
hazard is during daylight hours.

For some reason, ever since I saw the first post on the subject this morning
all the streetlights on my street have been on! Probably the sunniest day we
have had this year.

--
Adam

On 18/04/2011 12:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jethro wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:30 am, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-councils-d...

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Surely half the problem is the myriad ways that street lamps are
controlled ? I know some authorities fitted light-sensors to street
lamps (I vaguely recalled some had one sensor for X lamps), whilst
others (like mine) kept/fitted timers (always amusing after a power
cut). If they're going to start changing the "on" rules, it could
prove very costly. Ideally it'd be nice to control every light
individually - then they could switch to "half lights", or vary the
times for economy. Presumably those lights that are on less will need
replacing less, leading to savings in bulbs ?

Mind you, this falls into my "if it *really* mattered" test ...
similar to being able to control *all* traffic signals (INCLUDING
pedestrian lights). I'm sure if some enlightened local authority did
this, they could improve the efficiency of the road network (i.e.
reduce the need for new roads) by a considerable amount. Unfortunately
the dogma that we mustn't do anything that remotely looks like helping
motorists wins out. Better be careful, straying into urd territory.

Anyway, on topic, to be honest, I can't see that switching/dimming
lights between (say) midnight and 4am would affect a great number of
people.

It would not. as anyone who has actually driven around at that time of
night can tell you.

You have the roads and streets to yourself.

Post midnight all activity tails off to a low at about 3-4 a.m before
the first of the early risers get going around 5 a.m.

It depends where you are. In some areas pubs and clubs close at various
times between 23:20 and 4:20, so there can be a lot of tired, drunk
people roaming the streets right through the night!

SteveW

Steve Walker wrote:
On 18/04/2011 12:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jethro wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:30 am, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-councils-d...


Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Surely half the problem is the myriad ways that street lamps are
controlled ? I know some authorities fitted light-sensors to street
lamps (I vaguely recalled some had one sensor for X lamps), whilst
others (like mine) kept/fitted timers (always amusing after a power
cut). If they're going to start changing the "on" rules, it could
prove very costly. Ideally it'd be nice to control every light
individually - then they could switch to "half lights", or vary the
times for economy. Presumably those lights that are on less will need
replacing less, leading to savings in bulbs ?

Mind you, this falls into my "if it *really* mattered" test ...
similar to being able to control *all* traffic signals (INCLUDING
pedestrian lights). I'm sure if some enlightened local authority did
this, they could improve the efficiency of the road network (i.e.
reduce the need for new roads) by a considerable amount. Unfortunately
the dogma that we mustn't do anything that remotely looks like helping
motorists wins out. Better be careful, straying into urd territory.

Anyway, on topic, to be honest, I can't see that switching/dimming
lights between (say) midnight and 4am would affect a great number of
people.

It would not. as anyone who has actually driven around at that time of
night can tell you.

You have the roads and streets to yourself.

Post midnight all activity tails off to a low at about 3-4 a.m before
the first of the early risers get going around 5 a.m.

It depends where you are. In some areas pubs and clubs close at various
times between 23:20 and 4:20, so there can be a lot of tired, drunk
people roaming the streets right through the night!

SteveW


Round here the pubs are all closing.

You cant smoke,
You cant drink, because there is no public transport. And the distances
are a bit long to stagger.

And no one can afford to eat out. We have no public sector jobs at all.

dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...

There's lots of residential on-street parking here, most don't bother
parking facing the "right" way because the streetlights are on at the
time they actually park, not thinking that they'll be parked
illegally once the lights go off.


A untapped revenue stream, better phone the council so they can have
someone go around and issue tickets.

BTW its illegal to park the wrong way around with the street lights
*on*. Its illegal to park without parking lights (that requires two
lights at the front and two at the rear not the ones you get when you
flip the indicators to the park position) when there are no street
lights so there is potential for even more revenue.
Of course with all the car parking lights on then you won't need
street lights anyway.

Bet you cannot guess who always parks on a pavement facing the wrong way
most nights?

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

Bet you cannot guess who always parks on a pavement facing the wrong way
most nights?

Yeah my next door neighbour's a sparky too ... AND he usually wakes me
up when arrives back from night shifts at about 04:20 :-)

On 18 Apr,
"dennis@home" wrote:


I wish they would turn the street lights off around here save me having to
use a filter on the scope.

For once I agree with Dennis.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 18 Apr,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:30:16 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money

What are street lights? Oh those 'orrible orange things that screw up
the night sky in towns and cities...

Can we send you a few thousand? We've far too many here, probably causing the
glow in your sky to the south east.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 18 Apr,
Terry Casey wrote:

Our lights don't dim but they were all replaced about ten years or so ago
with more efficient lamps that don't waste light illuminating the sky.

They have a complex set of prisms built into the glass that distribute the
light evenly over a wide area. Instead of bright spots with dark areas in
between, the roads and footpaths are now very evenly illuminated but at a
much lower level.

The prisms seem to be designed to throw some light back to the footpath as
well as covering the footpath opposite without shining into the windows on
either side of the road, so it doesn't matter if several posts are on the
same side of the road rather than the usual alternating pattern.

They replaced ours with similar a couple of years ago. Nice metal halide
ones. Pity they used the wrong (new) poles, and didn't mount the lights
horizontally so some do shine into bedroom windows, others have swung in the
gales to point in the wrong direction and others have had the bulbs replaced
by sodium ones untuned to the optics.

So much for the cheapest privatised quote for maintaining the streetlights!

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

Andy Wade wrote:
On 18/04/2011 08:30, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much
in electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce
the power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

Yes, because you're dimming a sodium discharge lamp, not a tungsten
filament. With tungsten the lumens per watt efficacy drops
dramatically when you under-run the lamp. With a discharge lamp it
may still fall off, but to a much lesser extent.

Dimming is not new. The street lights in the road where I live were
replaced a couple of years ago. After midnight they dim to 75%
output, or so the letter from the council said.

'Intelligent' street light control seems to be becoming a large
industry, e.g. http://www.e-streetlight.com/

There was an LED street light outside a house I worked at last month.

They must be cheap to run, but not cheap to install. The odd thing is it was
the only LED street light there. The rest were discharge lamps (and new ones
as they stood next to the old concrete streetlamps)

--
Adam

On 18/04/2011 15:46, Rick Hughes wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ave-money.html


Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?



My council is turning off every 3 lamppost, or alternate side lampposts
on dual carriageways

I wonder if they have checked whether that invalidates 30mph speed
limits without repeater signs? Lighting can hardly count as being
provided at the necessary minimum distances if the lights are
intentionally turned off by the Council.

Colin Bignell

On 18/04/2011 13:25, Dave Liquorice wrote:

alexander.keys1 wrote:

Many areas already do have centrally controlled traffic signals.

What are traffic lights?

You are a cyclist AICMFP.

Andy Burns wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

Bet you cannot guess who always parks on a pavement facing the wrong
way most nights?

Yeah my next door neighbour's a sparky too ... AND he usually wakes me
up when arrives back from night shifts at about 04:20 :-)

I'll put money on it that facing the wrong way on the carriageway is not
what wakes you up.

The postman that lives next door but one is a right ****. He leaves for work
at 4AM. He also runs the PO van engine running for 15 minutes to de-ice the
windows in winter:-)

--
Adam

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

Street lighting is hardly ever tungsten - the home type where dimming
isn't very efficient. Dimming tungsten does save *some* energy - but not
as much as replacing the bulb with a smaller one of the 'dimmed' output.
This is because the efficiency of a dimmed tungsten goes down dramatically.

Street lighting is usually discharge. Similar to modern car headlights.

Does "modern" mean "upmarket German" in this context?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message ...
Andy Wade wrote:
On 18/04/2011 08:30, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much
in electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce
the power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

Yes, because you're dimming a sodium discharge lamp, not a tungsten
filament. With tungsten the lumens per watt efficacy drops
dramatically when you under-run the lamp. With a discharge lamp it
may still fall off, but to a much lesser extent.

Dimming is not new. The street lights in the road where I live were
replaced a couple of years ago. After midnight they dim to 75%
output, or so the letter from the council said.

'Intelligent' street light control seems to be becoming a large
industry, e.g. http://www.e-streetlight.com/

There was an LED street light outside a house I worked at last month.

They must be cheap to run, but not cheap to install. The odd thing is it was the only LED street light there. The rest were
discharge lamps (and new ones as they stood next to the old concrete streetlamps)

--
Adam

Was the light from it steady or strobed?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

ARWadsworth wrote:

I'll put money on it that facing the wrong way on the carriageway is not
what wakes you up.

No, he's relatively considerate about his unsociable arrival time, he
coasts the last few yards down the road, if he did spin round to face
the right way he'd make more noise.

If only he'd fix his front door, so he didn't have to slam, SLAM,
SLAMMMM!! it every time.

Graham. wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

Street lighting is usually discharge. Similar to modern car headlights.

Does "modern" mean "upmarket German" in this context?

I suspect so, I've never had a car with bi-xenons before, but I treated
myself this time and *boy* do everyone else's lights look dingy and
orange now.

In article , Mark i@dontget
lotsofspamanymore.invalid writes

Even though this story is in the Daily Mail it really is being
proposed in some districts near me.

My local council is running a trial of the dimming devices in the area I
live in, approximately 3 miles sq. The lights only dim between 10pm and
7am. It is noticeable, but not as bad as the claimed 50% savings
suggest.

I did notice, however, that following the fitting of the control gear a
very large proportion (perhaps approaching 50%) of lights failed.

I have a feeling that the cost of installation and maintenance is going
to outweigh the savings.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...


I wonder if they have checked whether that invalidates 30mph speed limits
without repeater signs? Lighting can hardly count as being provided at the
necessary minimum distances if the lights are intentionally turned off by
the Council.

It doesn't invalidate it during the day when the lights are also switched
off.

On 18/04/2011 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2011 13:25, Dave Liquorice wrote:

alexander.keys1 wrote:

Many areas already do have centrally controlled traffic signals.

What are traffic lights?

You are a cyclist AICMFP.

I'm saying nothing :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 18/04/2011 19:01, dennis@home wrote:


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...


I wonder if they have checked whether that invalidates 30mph speed
limits without repeater signs? Lighting can hardly count as being
provided at the necessary minimum distances if the lights are
intentionally turned off by the Council.

It doesn't invalidate it during the day when the lights are also
switched off.


If the street lighting is provided in accordance with section 82 of Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984, switching it off during the day or even
having the odd lamp that fails, does not invalidate the speed limit.
However, I think it could be argued that intentionally switching off
every third lamp is not providing a system of lighting by means of
street lights placed not more than 200 yards (185m in Scotland) apart,
as required by the Act, assuming the lamps are more than 100 yards apart.

There have been plenty of cases where 30mph limits have been declared
invalid because of mistakes in the street lighting, including one where
it was successfully argued that the lighting was not provided for the
street, but for the pedestrian walkway alongside it.

Colin Bignell

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes
In article , Mark i@dontget
lotsofspamanymore.invalid writes

Even though this story is in the Daily Mail it really is being
proposed in some districts near me.

My local council is running a trial of the dimming devices in the area I
live in, approximately 3 miles sq. The lights only dim between 10pm and
7am. It is noticeable, but not as bad as the claimed 50% savings
suggest.

I did notice, however, that following the fitting of the control gear a
very large proportion (perhaps approaching 50%) of lights failed.

I have a feeling that the cost of installation and maintenance is going
to outweigh the savings.

Probably a different department, as long as they can say they have saved
50% on the running costs then they can conveniently ignore all the
others.




--
Bill

In message on Mon, 18 Apr 2011
15:46:12 +0100
Rick Hughes wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ave-money.html

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the power
consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?



My council is turning off every 3 lamppost, or alternate side lampposts on
dual carriageways

I remember that happening round here during one fuel crisis or another -
miners' strike? Power worksrs' strike? Oil price hike? Combination of two or
more? Can't remember, but crime rates shot up and there was a dramatic swing in
the composition of the local coucil at the next election ...

(Greater London - one vote for all every three years, rather than the vote for
a third of them every year, as happens in (most) other places ...)

--

Terry

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...


I remember that happening round here during one fuel crisis or another -
miners' strike? Power worksrs' strike? Oil price hike? Combination of two
or
more? Can't remember, but crime rates shot up and there was a dramatic
swing in
the composition of the local coucil at the next election ...

Maybe that was the striking workers having nothing to do?

On 18/04/2011 16:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 18/04/2011 12:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jethro wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:30 am, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-councils-d...


Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Surely half the problem is the myriad ways that street lamps are
controlled ? I know some authorities fitted light-sensors to street
lamps (I vaguely recalled some had one sensor for X lamps), whilst
others (like mine) kept/fitted timers (always amusing after a power
cut). If they're going to start changing the "on" rules, it could
prove very costly. Ideally it'd be nice to control every light
individually - then they could switch to "half lights", or vary the
times for economy. Presumably those lights that are on less will need
replacing less, leading to savings in bulbs ?

Mind you, this falls into my "if it *really* mattered" test ...
similar to being able to control *all* traffic signals (INCLUDING
pedestrian lights). I'm sure if some enlightened local authority did
this, they could improve the efficiency of the road network (i.e.
reduce the need for new roads) by a considerable amount. Unfortunately
the dogma that we mustn't do anything that remotely looks like helping
motorists wins out. Better be careful, straying into urd territory.

Anyway, on topic, to be honest, I can't see that switching/dimming
lights between (say) midnight and 4am would affect a great number of
people.

It would not. as anyone who has actually driven around at that time of
night can tell you.

You have the roads and streets to yourself.

Post midnight all activity tails off to a low at about 3-4 a.m before
the first of the early risers get going around 5 a.m.

It depends where you are. In some areas pubs and clubs close at
various times between 23:20 and 4:20, so there can be a lot of tired,
drunk people roaming the streets right through the night!

SteveW


Round here the pubs are all closing.

You cant smoke,

That's an advantage for me. Before the smoking ban, every time a group
of us went out, there'd be one or two that smoked and if we didn't stay
in the smoking area, we'd just have a winging smoker all night. End
result, we all suffered the smoke and went home with sore eyes and
throat (it wasn't good for my combination of asthma and pulmonary
sarcoidosis either) and stinking clothes and hair.

Before you ask, no the ban has not increased how often I go out, but
that's simply because we've got kids of 7, 5 and 3 now, so nights out
are a very, very rare luxury!

You cant drink, because there is no public transport. And the distances
are a bit long to stagger.

Yes, I do understand the problem of just wanting to nip to the pub to
meet up with people or for a drink with your SO.

Is there a group of you that could go out together each week, so you can
all take turns at being the deignated driver? We used to do that, as our
group had spread too far apart to do it any other way - since then two
have moved back into the area, one has moved too far away to meet up
more than a couple of times a year and one has emigrated to Australia!

I do remember a story some years ago of a bunch of farmers that used to
drive to the pub, drink during the evening and then drive home, but the
police could do nothing because they were going home via each others
fields and never on a public road

And no one can afford to eat out. We have no public sector jobs at all.

Public sector jobs aren't that good, my wife has one - just. She was
told in November after training some students, "thanks for training your
replacements." What is really angering her is that they are basing any
redeployment or redundancy on her current banding, when they agreed that
she was wrongly banded 2 years ago and had been for 2-1/2 years before
that. They submitted the paperwork and then bounced it back and forth
while management said they'd done their bit and HR said they hadn't. The
new manager came in in November, told her he would support her banding
appeal and then two hours later told her she was under threat of
redundancy. Senior management then turned her banding appeal down on the
grounds that her job was under threat! The subsequent actions, bullying,
ignoring of procedure and breaking of previous agreements seem designed
to break my wife and make her simply resign due to the pressure. To add
insult to injury, she was the most qualified and experienced in her
team, the only one qualified for one of the duties of the posts and the
only one in the clear after an investigation into working hours -
prompted by a manager querying why she was seeing as many patients in
2-1/2 days as the others were seeing in 5, while also being the only one
without any complaints against her and getting the best outcomes for her
patients.

The culture of mismanagement and bullying seems to be endemic in the NHS
.... I'm glad I don't work for it!

SteveW

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:18:36 +0100, wrote:

What are street lights? Oh those 'orrible orange things that screw
up
the night sky in towns and cities...

Can we send you a few thousand? We've far too many here, probably
causing the glow in your sky to the south east.

Teeside? That's 40 miles away and is by far the worst source of sky
glow. If you know where to look and the conditions are right there is
a small amount, just a blob on the horizon, from Carlisle.


--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:39:39 +0100, JNugent wrote:

Many areas already do have centrally controlled traffic signals.

What are traffic lights?

You are a cyclist AICMFP.

Sorry, you don't get the fiver. There just aren't any traffic lights
around here.

"Bad traffic" is stuck behind another, sometimes two shock horror
cars at the narrows on Front Street as you give way to something
coming up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:30:30 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

I suspect so, I've never had a car with bi-xenons before, but I treated
myself this time and *boy* do everyone else's lights look dingy and
orange now.

As A.N.Other driver I hate the bloody things far too bright and
create blinding dazzle. Particularly on bumpy roads, lower than them
due to the crest of a hill or when they have gone out of adjustment.

--
Cheers
Dave.