The SW path lights originally turned off at 10. At some point this season, the
city moved the off switch to 11. I doubt the owl people, or the owls, noticed,
and hopefully we'll get to midnight next year. In the middle of the summer
especially, it's very common for lots of people to be out at 11 when the lights
go off.
From: tim wong via Bikies <[email protected]>
To: sasyna-discussions <[email protected]>; Dave Cieslewicz
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; "Ross, Arthur"
<[email protected]>; "Fernandez, Anthony" <[email protected]>;
"Dryer, David" <[email protected]>; BikiesSubmissions
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] [SASYNA-Discussions] Re: Owls vs. Rape (was Bike Lights,
etc.)
Cathy,
In my view the whole discussion about owls and lighting was a bogus smokescreen
by people who just didn't want lighting on the bike path. Some of them might
have lived near the bike path; but, as far as I can tell, and I ride that path
often, none of the houses is as close to street lights (on virtually every
street in the city, or at least the non-suburban sections such as our
neighborhood) as, for instance, mine is. (The Gregory St. folks might have have
a case, living downhill from the path for a short while.) As was suggested, if
the lights shine in our bedrooms, we put up curtains and blinds. Who would
live in Wisconsin and not cover windows at night in winter?
However, the city ignored the comments by bicyclists across the city and
affected pedestrians and caved to the noisy minority whom, I suspect, mostly
don't like bicycling as a transportation mode. I do recall several decades ago
that people fought every bike path and bike path extension with the unspoken
suggestion that only marauders and criminals would use the bike path.
And, now as a result of the city's pandering to these anti-bicycling folks, we
had this horrendous attack on a person who had the "nerve" to walk down a
(bike) street at night. You probably can't argue that this attack couldn't
have happened had there was better lighting, but it could have been a
deterrent. We don't know how many collisions occur on the SW bike path that go
unreported because they don't cause serious injuries or are just near misses.
However, I happened to be riding on the SW path one night at exactly 11 p.m.,
and was thrust into total darkness when the lights shut off. As people who
rode the path before the lights were installed know, this path was dangerous at
night, especially with bikes with no lights and pedestrians, some of whom
appear to have been drinking (walking two and three abreast). The lights were
a godsend. The city bent over backwards to prevent lighting from going
anywhere except directly over the path and did a good job, except . . . .the
"owl bullies" persuaded them to shut the lights off at 11 p.m., as if nobody
rides a bike or no one walks on the paths after 11 p.m.; the post-11 p.m. peds
and bikes are probably more likely to have been drinking and engaging in unsafe
walking on a shared use path.
I think it is time to revisit the city's decision to turn the lights off at 11
p.m. If the city really can't afford the electricity and can't leave the
lights on (my streetlights are on all night despite only having about 200-300
vehicles a day in a 24-hour period), then how about doing a count of peds and
bikes on the bike paths? I suspect traffic lightens after 2 a.m or so, so if
they really can't be on all night, the city could experiment by turning them
off at 2 a.m.
Recall, the city is still trying to get platinum status for its bicycling
programs. When a city shuts lights off at 11 p.m., that is not platinum grade
decision making
I hope some alders and the mayor will take action to reverse the decision,
universally opposed by the bicycling community, to darken the paths at 11 p.m.
tim
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:51 PM, [email protected] [SASYNA-Discussions]
<[email protected]> wrote:
Must we think in such stark polarities Tim? I ride bike, favor more
funds/resources going to non-car transportation, am concerned about personal
safety.... AND I love owls and dark skies. There is no reason why we cant
have all of these things.
The discussion should be more about what is good and effective lighting - not
"more" lighting or "less" lighting. It sounds like the city is on the right
track with the shielded cut-off fixtures being installed. The same principles
apply to both public and private lighting - people next to streetlights should
nt have to suffer excessive glare either. The technology and knowledge exists
to better direct it to where it is needed.
For anyone who's interested - this site has plethora of information - including
details re choosing dark sky friendly lighting and model dark sky ordinances.
http://darksky.org/
Cathy on E Main St. __._,_.___ Posted by: [email protected]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • |
Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (3) |
Visit Your Group
- New Members 2
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
--
"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
