I agree that safety is not always associated with adding lights, but the perception of safety is, and that perception of safety can help more people feel comfortable with biking at night.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Minden Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:01 PM To: William Hauda; tim wong; George Perkins Cc: Bikies Subject: Re: [Bikies] Fwd: SW Commuter Bike Path Lighting and WisDOT Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Manual--Double Standard Folks: Let's not blithely believe that 'light equals safety'. While I'm not an expert, I believe multiple studies have shown that increased light is not a significant factor in crime-related safety, that community attitudes as seen in neighbor-to-neighbor relations and the like are the most significant factor. Dave _____ From: William Hauda <[email protected]> To: tim wong <[email protected]>; George Perkins <[email protected]> Cc: Bikies <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, September 30, 2012 5:14:21 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] Fwd: SW Commuter Bike Path Lighting and WisDOT Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Manual--Double Standard Tim's right. When you live in a city, light provides safety. Not just for bicycling, but for general well-being. At 03:53 PM 9/30/2012, tim wong wrote: >Are these anti-lights on the bike path people also proposing getting >rid of all lights on streets? My bedroom faces the street and a >streetlight shines in the window. So I put blinds up to keep the >light out when I'm sleeping. Why can't these people do the same? I >also noticed when I rode through there yesterday that the person with >the large NO LIGHTS sign's house is nowhere near the bike path (my >bedroom is at least five times closer to the light than these people's >would be). Why the double standard? Why this blatant disregard for >safety? Why does anyone listen to them? The argument should be about >the most appropriate type of lighting, not whether there should or >should not be lights. > >On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:15 PM, George Perkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Still, even if bollards will not provide enough light (this is debatable) > > due to lack of ambient and other sources of light, then the current design > > continues to be defective and does not meet the DOT guidelines. The DOT > > guidelines recommend continuous lighting without gaps of darkness between > > light poles. The design proposed by the city spaces the light poles too far > > apart and the result will be alternating patterns of high light intensity > > with very little or no illumination. The poles need to be closer together. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:43 PM, George Perkins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >>>> why the city hasn't considered a design that follows the DOT guidelines > > for lighting a bike and pedestrian path<<< > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bikies mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > >-- >"If we continue to consume the world until there's no more to consume, >then there's going to come a day, sure as hell, when our children or >their children or their children's children are going to look back on >us--on you and me--and say to themselves, 'My God, what kind of >monsters were these people?'" > >--Daniel Quinn >_______________________________________________ >Bikies mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
