Street Lighting's effect on traffic safety

[Brian556]

Does anybody know offhand of any studies on this?

To me, having streetlighting on heavily traveled urban arterials is very helpful. Not having it makes it hard to judge the speed and distance from you of other vehicles when you are turning left from, onto, or crossing an arterial roadway at night. This is because you can't see the ground.

Not only that, not having streetlighting makes oncoming headlights hurt your eyes more.

I noticed that the Orlando area is pretty good on streetlighting, but where I live, there is none except at signalized intersections.

[cpzilliacus]

Not only that, not having streetlighting makes oncoming headlights hurt your eyes more.

I noticed that the Orlando area is pretty good on streetlighting, but where I live, there is none except at signalized intersections.

By biggest complaint about unlighted highways (especially this time of year) is that potholes and other pavement issues are not especially visible on unlighted roads after sunset.

[1995hoo]

My biggest issue with inadequate lighting in urban or suburban areas is that it makes pedestrians difficult to see. This is compounded by the irresponsibility of many pedestrians who persist in wearing all dark clothing with nothing light-colored to help you see them. I've seen some very smart cyclists who wear reflective vests (similar in concept to what road construction workers wear), but very few pedestrians do and it can be hard to see them even when they cross legally in reasonably well-lit areas. When they saunter out mid-block in dark areas, it can be a very bad situation (example: pedestrian fatalities on Suitland Parkway in Southeast DC).

I've seen a few crosswalks that are designed to help with this sort of thing–for example, off the top of my head I know of one in the City of Alexandria where the pedestrian presses a button and it causes yellow lights embedded in the pavement to blink. This solution isn't ideal everywhere, of course, because in snowy areas the lights might not be visible. In the City of Fairfax there's a crosswalk outside the courthouse where the yellow pedestrian crossing sign (which is not visible on Street View due to an outdated image) has some sort of overhead sensor that causes yellow lights beneath the sign to flash. It's not quite as obvious as the embedded lights in Alexandria, but at night the yellow lights would grab your attention (though that particular crossing doesn't see a lot of demand at night because the courthouse isn't open). Annoyingly, though, over in the District of Columbia some of the uncontrolled crosswalks are quite inadequately-lit and do not have any of these sorts of lights to help call your attention to pedestrians. The three I encounter most often are on Virginia Avenue NW between New Hampshire Avenue and the light at E Street; the situation is compounded because Virginia Avenue uses an underpass and the walls on either side further restrict your view of the crosswalks.

[Brian556]

quote from 1995hoo:

My biggest issue with inadequate lighting in urban or suburban areas is that it makes pedestrians difficult to see. This is compounded by the irresponsibility of many pedestrians who persist in wearing all dark clothing with nothing light-colored to help you see them. I've seen some very smart cyclists who wear reflective vests (similar in concept to what road construction workers wear), but very few pedestrians do and it can be hard to see them even when they cross legally in reasonably well-lit areas. When they saunter out mid-block in dark areas, it can be a very bad situation (example: pedestrian fatalities on Suitland Parkway in Southeast DC).

Agreed. There is an intersection beside my place of work where many pedestrians cross a busy street to get between stores. The intersection needs a traffic signal, but doesn't even get so much as a street lamp.

As for pedestrians, I think there needs to be a law that pedestrians walking on unlighted streets should be required to have a lighting device to make them visible at night. This would primarily apply to recreational pedestrians; not so much as those crossing at lighted signalized intersections in business/entertainment districts.

I have on several occasions nearly hit pedestrians on several occasions at night with my bike. I do have good lights, but still can't see them in time, especially when coming around a curve.

[NE2]

I have on several occasions nearly hit pedestrians on several occasions at night with my bike. I do have good lights, but still can't see them in time, especially when coming around a curve.

Sounds like you don't have good lights, or were going too fast for conditions.

[Brian556]

Quote from NE2

Sounds like you don't have good lights, or were going too fast for conditions.

My headlight is LED, and is good enough to light the ground in front of me far enough ahead for me to detect road defects and debris with ease.

I was not going too fast. Headlights don't shine around curves. Pedestrians should be responsible for making themselves visible. Just because they move slower than cars doesn't mean they should be allowed on the traveled portion of the roadway at night without lights. Just imagine if the law said that cars traveling at 10 MPH or less did not have to have their lights on. Same concept.

Kinda worse with pedestrians in a way, because they run against traffic, and are moving toward you, making your reaction time a lot less.

[NE2]

Just imagine if the law said that cars traveling at 10 MPH or less did not have to have their lights on. Same concept.

Not the same concept. Lights are so you don't hit something, not so something doesn't hit you.

[Brian556]

Not the same concept. Lights are so you don't hit something, not so something doesn't hit you.

Huh? Then how do you explain tail lights?

[NE2]

Not the same concept. Lights are so you don't hit something, not so something doesn't hit you.

Huh? Then how do you explain tail lights?

By pulling something out of my arse.

[1995hoo]

Just imagine if the law said that cars traveling at 10 MPH or less did not have to have their lights on. Same concept.

Not the same concept. Lights are so you don't hit something, not so something doesn't hit you.

They're for both purposes. Lights are just as much to help other drivers see you. Hence why many states have the law requiring the use of headlights in the rain, snow, or fog. There are a lot of utter dumbshits on the road who think this law doesn't apply to them; I can only assume they think "I can see fine, so I don't need my headlights." WRONG! Either turn them on like you're supposed to (regardless of whether state law requires it) or stay off the road. I wish the cops would ticket those people for reckless driving. When some asshole is driving a white car in a blinding snowstorm with no headlights, it's extremely dangerous! Heck, around here there are way too many people who drive at night without headlights.

Now, if you were to argue that high-beam headlights and fog lights (front-facing fog lights, anyway) exist so that you don't hit something, I'd agree with that because you're supposed to turn off your high-beams when other vehicles are around so as not to blind the other drivers. Logic therefore dictates they can't be intended to help other drivers see you because by turning them off, you render them irrelevant in that equation. Fog lights cast such a low-aimed beam of light that extends such a short distance that they're probably irrelevant in helping you be seen. (Rear-facing fog lights are different. I recall my mom's 1988 Volvo sedan had a rear fog light–a single especially bright red taillight adjacent to the other taillights on one side. It was essentially intended to help underscore there was a car there. I don't ever remember her using that light.)