There is a difference between “we did this and it might have negative side effects. Let’s reevaluate” and “we should not even try this because we should not try anything new, ever (because my imaginary friend in the sky said so, pinky-swear)”
this is actually part of my job, crime, and using enviromental context to reduce it. (as private security,)
If anyone gives you a blanket altruism about xyz reduces your risks of being broken into or reduces hoodlumism or something, it’s usually safe to ignore them.
The only exception to that is deadbolts on residential doors. (and read that as “reduces”… if you’re an idiot who parks a $500,000 cybertruck in the open and leaves your front door unlocked, you’re a moron whose going to donate a cybertruck to the ‘I need some joy’ ridership fund.)
In any case lighting is very contextual. It’s different for parks, different for streetways, and different for residential houses. even different neighborhoods. or between different sorts of apartment buildings.
You’ve piqued my interest. I had read about something similar to the lights being piloted in one of the Scandinavian countries. Something to the effect of “using blue hued lights and reducing light pollution with scheduled lighting” was correlated with a reduction in criminal activity in piloted neighborhoods.
Would you happen to know anything about this? I never saw any follow up on it, but as a farm boy that moved into the city I definitely noted a change between dark at night and artificially lit at night
I would actually prefer this. There are studies that claim that crime and suicide rates go down when cities turn off the lights at night.
Anyway, I’m not a big fan of many atheism posts here, the Catholic church had good sides, too. But black and white thinking it is, apparently.
There is a difference between “we did this and it might have negative side effects. Let’s reevaluate” and “we should not even try this because we should not try anything new, ever (because my imaginary friend in the sky said so, pinky-swear)”
Yeah, I’m with that pope on this one. Street lighting should be used way more sparingly than it is now.
this is actually part of my job, crime, and using enviromental context to reduce it. (as private security,)
If anyone gives you a blanket altruism about xyz reduces your risks of being broken into or reduces hoodlumism or something, it’s usually safe to ignore them.
The only exception to that is deadbolts on residential doors. (and read that as “reduces”… if you’re an idiot who parks a $500,000 cybertruck in the open and leaves your front door unlocked, you’re a moron whose going to donate a cybertruck to the ‘I need some joy’ ridership fund.)
In any case lighting is very contextual. It’s different for parks, different for streetways, and different for residential houses. even different neighborhoods. or between different sorts of apartment buildings.
You’ve piqued my interest. I had read about something similar to the lights being piloted in one of the Scandinavian countries. Something to the effect of “using blue hued lights and reducing light pollution with scheduled lighting” was correlated with a reduction in criminal activity in piloted neighborhoods.
Would you happen to know anything about this? I never saw any follow up on it, but as a farm boy that moved into the city I definitely noted a change between dark at night and artificially lit at night
Don’t do crime bro.
deleted by creator