Mad solar-powered streetlights on N1



S

Simon Brooke

Guest
Geoff Pearson wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Geoff Pearson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "TheMgt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:%[email protected]
>>>> Geoff Pearson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't want a light every 25 metres on a path which runs through
>>>>> fields
>>>>> where I can still see the stars.
>>>>
>>>> I'm amazed you can see more than a handful of the brightest stars
>>>> anywhere near Edinburgh.
>>>
>>> You need to be out and away from street lights more than 20 minutes - by
>>> the time you get to Haddington the sky is full!

>>
>> You can see a starry sky from the west coast of the Outer Hebrides if
>> you're
>> lucky. You'll see fewer than 10% of the visible stars from anywhere in
>> the central belt.

>
> I've see the starscape from Unst. East Lothian is a not as good as that
> but
> it is all I have most of the time. I don't want less of it.


Fairy Nuff

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock
 
D

Doki

Guest
"Geoff Pearson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> This weekend they completed the installation of, I guess, 50 solar powered
> street lights on the part of the N1 that runs from Queen Margaret
> University in Musselburgh to Newcraighall. Next week end the vandals
> arrive with bolt cutters to take away the large lead-acid batteries
> mounted on the ground, The following weekend the more athletic neds will
> be up the poles to steal/smash the huge solar panels, leaving the way
> clear for the lamps themselves to be used for air rifle practice.
>
> Surely Sustrans should be objecting to this ludicrous waste of cash and
> quite unnecessary addition to rural street lighting? It should demand to
> see the environmental impact assessment.


What Matt said. I'd very much doubt there's any need for an EIA on fitting
lighting - it doesn't look like it would come under Schedule 1 or 2 works,
without power transmission lines associated.
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
In news:[email protected],
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> tweaked the
Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Does that mean that I can remove waterbourne disease from my risk
> assessment?
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/files/leavalleyra



It's missing the following:

Being mistaken for food by Edmonton resident. Affects child and instructor.
Risk Rating high. Control measures: bring a dead dog or two to distract
them.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Ernesto, give me that Kit-Kat, or I will kill you.
 
J

J. Chisholm

Guest
Geoff Pearson wrote:
> "Tracker1972" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
>> Geoff Pearson wrote:
>>> This weekend they completed the installation of, I guess, 50 solar
>>> powered street lights on the part of the N1 that runs from Queen Margaret
>>> University in Musselburgh to Newcraighall. Next week end the vandals
>>> arrive with bolt cutters to take away the large lead-acid batteries
>>> mounted on the ground, The following weekend the more athletic neds will
>>> be up the poles to steal/smash the huge solar panels, leaving the way
>>> clear for the lamps themselves to be used for air rifle practice.
>>>
>>> Surely Sustrans should be objecting to this ludicrous waste of cash and
>>> quite unnecessary addition to rural street lighting? It should demand to
>>> see the environmental impact assessment.
>>>
>>> The lights were on this morning at 0630 and will now permanently spoil a
>>> decent running and cycling path.
>>>
>>> Last weekend, just half a mile from this spot, I saw an otter on the
>>> Esk - we cannot allow the Esk path to be mutilated like this.
>>>
>>> Heads must roll - the lights certainly will.
>>>
>>> Geoff

>> I can understand your concerns about them being trashed but I don't get
>> how they will spoil the path? Do they block off part of the path (now that
>> would be stupid). Is it the council who have added them? They do sound
>> like the sort of "sustainable" (as long as they are not stolen) kind of
>> solution they might go for. Is the potential light pollution the problem?
>>
>> Tracker (who may understand the problem better if he can find a picture of
>> the lights :) )

>
> I don't want a light every 25 metres on a path which runs through fields
> where I can still see the stars.
>
>

On the NCN 51 south of Cambridge they've used solar powered 'cats eyes'.
Unfortunately although they show you where the path goes in the dark,
they don't show up pedestrians in dark clothing. I'm told there have
been a couple of crashes so caused. If you've bright cycle lights, like
me, the people cycling the other way with 'be seen' LEDs or poor battery
lights complain about being dazzled!
This is a path used by hundreds of cycling commuters, as well as a small
number of pedestrains who walk the 2k across the fields to the regional
hospital.
I understand peoples concerns about light pollution, but it seems it is
easy to get planning permission to get megawatts of lighting for sports
fields, but there are always objections about lighting cyclepaths.

On another much used 'unlit' path in Cambridge I've seen a mother with
child in pushchair who had flasshing red LEDs front and rear!

Jim
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:04:40 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
>[email protected] says...
>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:54:09 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >It's not that bad. They've cleaned it up.

>>
>> Does that mean that I can remove waterbourne disease from my risk
>> assessment?
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/files/leavalleyra
>>

>Unless they've also warmed it up you might want to remove
>'hyperthermia' and add 'hypothermia'. ;-)


My God! That's the very first time anyone, as far as I know, has ever
read one of my risk assessments. Usually they are simply filed
without being looked at.

A colleague of mine once put this into a risk assessment:
Hazard: Someone reading this.
Who: No one
Rating: Nil
Control measures: None required
Further action: None required

Needless to say, nothing was said.

Having said that, I do understand the benefits of risk assessments in
focusing the mind of the person completing the assessment.
 
G

Geoff Pearson

Guest
"Geoff Pearson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> This weekend they completed the installation of, I guess, 50 solar powered
> street lights on the part of the N1 that runs from Queen Margaret
> University in Musselburgh to Newcraighall. Next week end the vandals
> arrive with bolt cutters to take away the large lead-acid batteries
> mounted on the ground, The following weekend the more athletic neds will
> be up the poles to steal/smash the huge solar panels, leaving the way
> clear for the lamps themselves to be used for air rifle practice.
>
> Surely Sustrans should be objecting to this ludicrous waste of cash and
> quite unnecessary addition to rural street lighting? It should demand to
> see the environmental impact assessment.
>
> The lights were on this morning at 0630 and will now permanently spoil a
> decent running and cycling path.
>
> Last weekend, just half a mile from this spot, I saw an otter on the
> Esk - we cannot allow the Esk path to be mutilated like this.
>
> Heads must roll - the lights certainly will.
>
> Geoff
>


While I was joking when I posted this I report that the first lamp has been
destroyed - broken light fitting. Only 50 more to go.