French streetlights: lights on or lights off?… personal protection vs environmental protection – is that the issue? …
There’s a municipal debate across France over streetlights and whether to reduce lighting at night, for environmental reasons, or not. I feel safer at night under a streetlamp. Light suggests visibility, safety, and protection. Research backs up at least part of my intuition. In some studies, improved lighting has been linked to reductions in crime in certain contexts. There’s also a practical dimension: lighting helps drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians navigate safely and avoid accidents. Except, it’s not quite that simple. A growing body of research suggests that more light does not automatically mean less crime. Some reviews find no clear evidence that increased lighting deters crime. Large-scale studies in England and Wales found little or no impact on crime or road accidents when lights were dimmed or turned off. In France, recent analysis found no significant change in most crimes after lighting reductions, with only a slight rise in burglaries in dense urban areas. In other words: light makes us feel safer, but it may not consistently make us safer. Meanwhile, the environmental case for darkness is growing louder and harder to ignore. Around 80% of the world’s population lives under light-polluted skies, says a Guardian article in February about a Belgian national park turning off “pointless” streetlights. Wallonia wildlife and park administrators stated that darkness is not the absence of something; it’s an ecosystem in its own right. Artificial light at night is now considered a global ecological disruptor, affecting insects, bird migratory patterns, and animal eating and breeding cycles. The debate may not really be about crime statistics or energy bills or animal conservation. It’s about perception. People feel less safe in the dark, and when they feel unsafe, they behave differently. They avoid streets, change routines, and withdraw from public spaces. Even if crime doesn’t increase, the experience of the city changes. So we’re left with a paradox: lighting may not significantly reduce crime, but darkness can still reduce freedom. France is debating it loudly, but this is not a uniquely French dilemma. Cities worldwide are transitioning to LEDs, sensors, and adaptive lighting systems as part of a broader global shift, rethinking the assumption that brighter is always better. So, if “all lights on” is wasteful, and “all lights off” feels unsafe, the answer may lie in something more nuanced. People are calling it “intelligent darkness.” Emerging solutions include smarter lighting, not more lighting, such as motion-activated lamps, lights that dim during low activity hours, and targeted illumination (paths, crossings, and entrances rather than entire streets). Also, better design and not brighter bulbs is another solution. This includes directional lighting that reduces glare and light spill, warmer tones that are less disruptive to wildlife than blue-rich LEDs, and strategic placement of lighting based on actual use, not habit. Context matters too: busy urban areas are not equivalent to rural roads and pedestrian zones are not equivalent to industrial zones. Urban design, visibility, community presence, and social cohesion matter too. Where is light truly needed? What have we lost by illuminating everything, all the time? Maybe the real debate may not be whether streetlights should be on or off, but how much light does a human, and a planet, actually need?
Can’t see the whole article? Want to view the original article? Want to view more articles? Go to Martina’s Substack: The Stories in You and Me More Paris articles are in my Paris website The Paris Residences of James Joyce You're currently a free subscriber to The Stories in You and Me . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
