I'd compare the number of people who want to walk after dark without tripping and breaking bones and would like their kids to visit friends without fear of abduction with the number who expect their binocular view of the Pliades to reveal something that isn't in the NASA imagery. Hmmm
Of course I live near number 4 on this list so I can have my cake and eat it!
Well, to me it says that all the glaring security lights on houses seem to be unnecessary. That they are allowing burglars to see their way around the house without tripping .........
Also for not tripping on the road - you can carry a torch. There is no lighting within a mile or more of where we live so everyone automatically carries a torch, or makes sure their eyes have adjusted to the light level.
I think @Astro Pen has a valid point. However there is a lot of excessive lighting around.
On the other hand should kids likely to be the target of abductors, be out in the dark at night.
There is the "dragged into the bushes" problem, but well lit streets doesn't prevernt that happening.
@Montero 's point about the torch is valid too, but is it civilised. There are plenty of caves we could move back into, but I haven't seen a mad rush to go back to candles and and washboards at the river.
Personally I like a bit of stargazy in the back yard. Nowadays I only get to do it on holiday in an isolated bay in the Med, but maybe that's one of the reasons that holidays are special. You get to see things you don't see at home.
I think this is one of those things where there's a lot of moving parts to any study and that its important not just to look at the nature of lighting and crime, but also the region, the situation and also the types of crime being committed.
Also I think that its important to link lighting with policing.
If you've all the light in the world but no one to see anything in the light then the light is performing no function save to aid the criminal. I'd argue that increased lighting is only one part of the equation and that it would be dangerous to conclude any results from a specific study of only one aspect of the situation.
That is a valid point to mention to anyone who says "increase security lights, you don't need more police" or other such statements - you need someone to see things.
Having security cameras with lo-light features is another thing.
Security cameras, in my view, need several things to be effective:
1) Good quality recording. Having a fuzzy blurry blob moving around might prove something happened; but its going to be hard to impossible to link that moving blob to any specific person.
2) Good angles. High up might mean you can cover a wide area and its harder to damage, but at the same time it might also inhibit identifying key aspects of a persons face if they are wearing a hoodie or cap .
3) Good visibility of the area. Both in terms of the individual camera view and also of the coverage from the network in an area.
4) Good visibility of the camera. Video coverage will only reduce crime if it can be seen. If you can't see the cameras then teh camera isn't going to prevent a crime.
Of course any good visibility camera is more at risk of damage or of people identifying the area the camera covers and conducting crime outside of that area of cover. So good visibility of cameras should go hand in hand with harder to detect cameras in other key locations. One set are design to deter, the other to catch
The risk with cameras is that they are static and can encourage the "traffic camera"effect; whereby within the cameras range issues reduce; however before and after its view range the potential for breaking the law goes up. People speed before and after the traffic camera, sometimes specifically because they feel that the camera is "slowing them down".
So they will never replace actual officers on the ground - just like static traffic cameras only work in conjunction with random speed traps