LED street lights controversy

[Bryn666]

Not the image in question but from a road safety engineering perspective the advantages of a pedestrian not being killed because they weren't visible outright override the disadvantages of you losing sleep through rubbish curtains.

[sotonsteve]

That road is overlit.

[Northern Lights]

Not the image in question but from a road safety engineering perspective the advantages of a pedestrian not being killed because they weren't visible outright override the disadvantages of you losing sleep through rubbish curtains.

If you read some of my latest posts you'll find that a blue rich light is not that good from a pedestrians point of view as it sods up our Mesopic vision (the switching between the day & night systems)...

However I thought that the "killing" machines had xenon headlights, or at the very least halogens...& that's a 30mph zone also...

Seriously that amount of bright white light is NOT justified & it looks over 4000K, maybe even as much as 6000K....


If fact I wonder that with more cars having "Auto" headlights (which switch on via a light sensor in the top of the dash)if under those bright street lights that the "Auto" headlights would think it was bright enough & switch the cars headlights OFF!!!.....

Very flipping clever it that's the case!!!

[Johnathan404]

Not the image in question but from a road safety engineering perspective the advantages of a pedestrian not being killed because they weren't visible outright override the disadvantages of you losing sleep through rubbish curtains.

MY RETINAS HAVE BEEN BURNED TO THE CORE.


Now that's an image the emoticon was made for.

[Bryn666]

It didn't hurt my retinas when I drove through. I suspect my camera makes it look brighter than it really is.

Define 'overlit' anyway, as when we used dimmer LEDs locals complained it was now too dark and they felt unsafe. Typical public, doesn't know what it wants.

[Jeni]

That road is overlit.

On what basis do you come to that conclusion?

[sotonsteve]

That road is overlit.

On what basis do you come to that conclusion?

On what basis do you dispute me?

There are some people out there who complain that anything dimmer than 70W SON on residential streets is too dim. I question that judgement. I live in a county where many residential streets are lit with 36W compact fluorescent dimmed to 24W at brightest, and nobody bats an eyelid. The reason for this is because you can dim down on lighting levels quite a significant amount before it becomes really noticeable and affects visibility after dark. If you go by the British Standards or start quoting numbers it probably looks absolutely horrendous, but in reality it's perfectly fine. When the lighting PFI started in my area, lanterns ran at 100% output until radio frequency nodes were installed. Later a decision was made that the maximum output at any time of day would be reduced to 75%. This was revised a couple of years later to 65%, and a few weeks ago to 55%. I've been specifically looking out for the dimming, and whilst the dimmed lanterns do appear dimmer than the non-dimmed ones (identifiable by still having standard photocells), there is no way they appear 45% dimmer, not by a long shot.

[Northern Lights]

It didn't hurt my retinas when I drove through. I suspect my camera makes it look brighter than it really is.

Define 'overlit' anyway, as when we used dimmer LEDs locals complained it was now too dark and they felt unsafe. Typical public, doesn't know what it wants.

That picture looks ok as the white balance looks fine to me, even in the dark areas..

Your statements that """" we used dimmer LEDs locals complained it was now too dark and they felt unsafe. Typical public, doesn't know what it wants."""

This is what the councils like as they get away with this utter mess.

Yes the amount of light on the road surface measured in Lux may be less than the older SON/SOX, but because the light is a higher CCT our eyes perceive it as "brighter" and the bluer the white light is the "brighter" we perceive it!

However people also correctly state they are "dimmer" because the beam contrast between the lit & unlit areas is greater than with the old SON/SOX so the lit area appears smaller..Also generally speaking the LED units are better shielded than the older SON/SOX because people can't be bothered doing those as they should have been...

[Brenley Corner]

Elsewhere on the net, I see Brenley Corner has posted a picture on Facebook that describes the problem with 4K LED lights far better than any posts here could. Something to think about, perhaps?

I'm not sure it was me, Ritchie - are you mixing me up with someone else? I haven't posted any pictures about LED lights into FB - or anywhere else .

Tony

[simonnicholas]

Not the image in question but from a road safety engineering perspective the advantages of a pedestrian not being killed because they weren't visible outright override the disadvantages of you losing sleep through rubbish curtains.

Oh dear.

6000K versus 5000K versus 4000K versus 3000K versus <3000K.

Discuss.

[simonnicholas]

As an example of the misinformation being peddled, check out this recent response to a concerned resident by Doncaster Council which is highly selective in its wording and full of "cut-and-paste platitudes".

Clearly the source of this misleading propaganda must be the lighting industry itself, but shame on Doncaster Council for such a response when they should be taking a long hard look at the detail of their "SmartLight Doncaster project" to see just how smart it really is (answer: not very):



Dear Mr XXXXX

Thank you for your email.

Central Government cuts imposed on Doncaster mean that by 2020 Doncaster Council will be spending approximately £268 million less every year on public services, when compared to 2010. By investing in innovative solutions such as the Smartlight Doncaster project we are taking action to improve our street lighting service, whilst the money saved every year will mean fewer cuts to other Council services are required. I have attached a leaflet that provides an overview of the councils Smartlights project.

The luminaires selected by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council are not the "cool white" type. Their colour temperature is "neutral white" which was selected as it offers the best compromise in terms of lighting quality and energy saving.

There has been some concern over the suppression of melatonin, due to blue light content, with the fear that it will adversely affect the circadian rhythm. However, the latest research (carried out by circadian neuroscience experts at the Nuffield Laboratory of Opthalmology) suggest that the risk is extremely low and only in very high lighting levels for many hours of intense exposure. For residential lighting where the lighting level is low the risk is considered negligible and potential harm to residents from not having the lighting, or having alternative lighting, is greater. Similarly, the amount of light from the new lanterns is actually less than the old, but since the lighting quality is higher visibility is improved.

It should be noted that fluorescent light sources and LED lighting used in energy-saving bulbs for domestic lighting contains blue light and lighting levels are much higher than in street lighting. Furthermore, much higher exposure to blue light comes from computer and televisions screens than from street lighting.

Risks to eye health are minimised through compliance with EN-IEC62471 which deals with photo-biological safety. The luminaires chosen by Doncaster MBC, installed on a column, are assessed as "risk group zero" for all the risk categories - UV on the skin and eye, UVA on the eye, blue light radiance on the eye and thermal radiance on the retina. Risk group zero means that the product is not required to carry any warnings as it is considered safe under all intended operating conditions.

Artificial lighting of all kinds is known to disrupt wildlife to some extent - not just LEDs. Bat's for example, are seriously affected by all light sources including low pressure sodium however the latest research indicates that some species may be better off with LEDs as their prey's avoidance response appears to be diminished. Extensive use of other white light sources (such as fluorescent) for street lighting elsewhere in the UK has not resulted in widespread problems for wildlife. The Council has made efforts to choose lighting which offers the greatest benefit at the lowest cost and risk to people and the environment as a whole, including the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming.

Yours sincerely

....... and here is DMBC's totally scandalous response to my FOI:

Contact: Mr. XXX XXXXXX Tel: 01302 XXXXXXXX Email: FOI@doncaster.gov.ukWebsite: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk

Date: 18th April 2016.

Dear Mr. Nicholas,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 6th April 2016 for information about LED street lighting Please find below Doncaster Council’s responses to the questions you have raised.

1) Please supply copies of all original communications between officers of Doncaster Council and any third parties which relate to the response you sent to Mr XXXX on 18th February 2016 - to include specific disclosure of the precise sources of the information associated with each of the various claims made in your letter.

1) Response – Please refer to the attached documents.

2) Please supply full details - if any - of health and environmental impact assessments carried out by the Council in relation to its decision to specify a "neutral white" CCT (Correlated Colour Temperature) for its LED luminaires - and in particular what consideration was made (if any) of the potential impact of moving from existing street lighting technology (with a blue content of between zero and 8%) to a choice of LED specification which has a blue content in the region of 30%.

2) Response – No information available.

3) Similarly, where your response to Mr XXXXX states that [neutral white] "was selected as it offers the best compromise in terms of lighting quality and energy saving" please provide a full explanation as to why "lighting quality" and "energy saving" appear to have been the only criteria which informed the decision on specification, and why environmental and health impacts appear not to have been a consideration at all.

3) Response - Central Government cuts imposed on Doncaster mean that by 2020 Doncaster Council will be spending approximately £268 million less every year on public services, when compared to 2010. By investing in innovative solutions such as the installation of LED’s for street lighting we are taking action to improve our street lighting service, whilst the money saved every year will mean fewer cuts to other Council services are required. The installation of LED street lighting also benefits the councils carbon reduction commitment.


4) With regard to circadian disruption, your response refer specifically to "the latest research (carried out by circadian neuroscience experts at the Nuffield Laboratory of Opthalmology)" . Please can you supply full copies of this research, and also a full and detailed explanation how any conclusions drawn in this research relate specifically to the Council's choice of LED luminaire specification.

4) Response – The information that refers to the research carried out by the Nuffield Laboratory of Opthamology was provided to Doncaster Councils by the councils LED luminaire supplier. Doncaster Council do not hold copies of the documents nor does Doncaster Council have any further information.

5) Please can you supply full details of any quantitative analysis which might support of your assertion that "where the lighting level is low the risk is considered negligible" since it is now becoming clear that risk exists from non-visual as well as visual effects - particularly where there is a high proportion of blue, short-wavelength emission as there is from the Council's chosen LED luminaire - which has a CCT of c. 4000K and emissions in the blue part of the spectrum of around 30%.

5) Response – No information available.

6) Please supply full details - if any - of quantitative analyses carried out in respect of the various other CCT options available to the Council - and whether an assessment of the potential variation in risks to health, environment, light pollution and road safety were considered in respect of the differing options of CCT.

6) Response – No information available.

7) Please supply full details of any risk assessment carried out relating to photobiological damage and blue light hazard. (Your response states that "the luminaires chosen by Doncaster MBC ...... are assessed as "risk group zero" for all the risk categories" in respect of IEC62471", yet you failed to disclose that it is generally accepted within the lighting industry that IEC62471 cannot adequately assess the risk of LED street lighting luminaires due to inappropriate methods of assessment.)

7) Response – No information available.

8) Please supply full details of the research on bats referred to, in which you claim that "the latest research indicates that some species may be better off with LEDs".

8) Response - Please refer to the attached documents.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

[Haydn1971]

Do you live in Doncaster Simon ?

[simonnicholas]

Do you live in Doncaster Simon ?

No. I lodged an FOI on behalf of a resident who is understandably concerned about Doncaster Council's LED street lighting programme.

As you can see, above - when he raised concerns with the council, the bullsh!tometer went off the scale ..........

It just goes to show how utterly clueless council officers are when it comes to the wider issues surrounding LED street lighting, and how they are prepared to blatantly mislead the public in order to cover their ar$es.

[Northern Lights]

It just goes to show how utterly clueless council officers are when it comes to the wider issues surrounding LED street lighting, and how they are prepared to blatantly mislead the public in order to cover their ar$es.

Oh NO they're not...

Exhibit number 1:-

I wrote to my MP & he wrote to the Council reiterating my detailed concerns & this is the reply he received from my Council:-

[RichardA35]

Or possibly all the "research" has not been accepted (yet) by any recognised standards bodies and the "clueless" council actually has, at present, no codified guidance and no remit (and certainly no budget) to do anything other than pursue lighting on a lowest cost basis?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Northern Lights]

Or possibly all the "research" has not been accepted (yet) by any recognised standards bodies and the "clueless" council actually has, at present, no codified guidance and no remit (and certainly no budget) to do anything other than pursue lighting on a lowest cost basis?

In the UK that is the nub of the matter. However in the USA the councils etc are ripping out & replacing with lower CCT units & they have made a standard for lights which is the IDA fixture seal here:-

http://darksky.org/fsa/fsa-products/


Most resellers etc are abiding by this new standard in the USA..over here the councils are just sticking their fingers in their ears & ignoring the warnings people like me are stating to them. I am trying to stop them wasting money in the long term by fitting "bad lighting" & helping them, to fit/specify the correct lighting, in my case the council is in it's first year of a four year "replace everything with LED" programme.

If the USA can do it why not us?? Hell I thought we were the 52nd state, & yesterdays statements confirm it!

What is even more apparent is that they do not even understand the true basics of lighting design...unfortunately for them I did lighting design as part of my qualifications at Uni...

[Haydn1971]

No. I lodged an FOI on behalf of a resident who is understandably concerned about Doncaster Council's LED street lighting programme.

On behalf ? Do you represent an organisation or do you just like causing trouble ?

As you can see, above - when he raised concerns with the council, the bullsh!tometer went off the scale ..........

Not really, the FOI system is in place to ensure public sector oversight - you appear to have an opinion on something, which is different to a public body, you are quite entitled to have that opinion, however, it's hardly fair to go ranting on a third party website that the public body has no sight of - so essentially, you are wasting your time, because the people you are angry at cannot see your anger.

Also, I'd like to remind you that this is a family friendly forum, should you continue to use offensive language, I'll be happy to discuss suspending you from posting for a few weeks with the rest of the site management team. We operate a pre watershed policy here, please adhere to that policy.

It just goes to show how utterly clueless council officers are when it comes to the wider issues surrounding LED street lighting, and how they are prepared to blatantly mislead the public in order to cover their xxxx.

Again, I'll refer you to the posting guidelines on bad language - happy for you to explain your case, but it's worth noting that the world is not black and white and there are often numerous other reasons for taking choices on public spending - with street lighting there isn't just the capital and electricity costs, there is a huge overhead on maintenance costs and risks to maintenance operatives who would otherwise have to visit sites at night to attend to old technologies, the LED systems on the market today reduce that risk considerably making the road environment safer for the people working to keep the network operational for users like you and me.

[sotonsteve]

There are good reasons for using LED technology. The problem is, people in charge of street lighting within councils don't have the skill and engineering judgement that previous generations of lighting engineers had. In fact, some people making decisions probably aren't even lighting engineers, more "handle-turners". Thanks to technology, people just punch numbers into a computer and rely on the output being correct without interrogating the data. I honestly believe that a large proportion of street lighting departments haven't even considered a lot of the things discussed on these threads. They probably just see LED as being "low energy low maintenance white light", just like some so called lighting engineers I have spoken to have referred to low pressure sodium as "the yellow lights" or high pressure sodium as "those bright halogen ones". Colour temperature and colour rendering, the good people in councils will know all about it, but it would blow over the tops of heads of the bad. So it would be no surprise if not all points have been considered thoroughly. In the FOI response, read "no information available" as meaning "we haven't considered that aspect".

[Haydn1971]

I think that is the case across many local government organisations though Steve, I look back at places I've worked in the past, Sheffield had a 700 strong design department for public buildings, structures, drainage and highways - there's probably 100 people left, another 200 consumed by Amey and the old hands retired... I was one of the youngest engineers at Calderdale in the late 00s in my late 30s, I'm back in the private sector now and I'm one of the oldest, I'm surrounded by dozens of 20 something's who have never hand drawn, done manual calculations or even remember days before a desktop computer was an essential item for all staff.

[simonnicholas]

It just goes to show how utterly clueless council officers are when it comes to the wider issues surrounding LED street lighting, and how they are prepared to blatantly mislead the public in order to cover their ar$es.

Oh NO they're not...

Exhibit number 1:-

I wrote to my MP & he wrote to the Council reiterating my detailed concerns & this is the reply he received from my Council:-

first-reply-MP.jpg

So ...... another utterly clueless public servant who is prepared to lie and blag in his response to your MP. This now constitutes institutionalised self denial.

Interestingly, other elements of the FOI response from Doncaster Council revealed that the officer responsible didn't have the knowledge to respond either to the original FOI (from the concerned resident) or my subsequent one.

It appears that all this highly misleading tosh has come directly from Doncaster's lantern supplier: Urbis Schreder.

Quelle surprise.