[Darksky]Re: [magnitude6] UK fines "light polluters" (fw)
Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:08:29 +0100 (CET)
I suspected there should be something on it in the CfDS list at yahoo and
so became a member an hour ago, cross-posting this message there too.
I agree with the remarks to the bill. Light is, at the moment, just a very
small part of it, but an important one, which devotes its publicity.
I can imagine why there are so many nonsense exemptions, for facilities
dealing with transport mainly: they use lights for signalling as well.
These are inevitably visible from a distance, and may be disturbing to
people which are unlucky to be in their cone. Even signal lights should be
however covered, if they shine strongly to another directions then those
they really need to be visible from. And if they are the same strength
(luminous intensity) day and night (then they can be too glaring even for
their own users).
Just those special lights should be exempted in some way, not the
(I my legal proposal
they are listed among exemptions to the basic lighting rules as:
c) (traffic lights)
are used as light signals for the purposes of ensuring transport
safety, defence and security of [EU, country, province,...].
the relevant URLs:
All info on the bill, including a non-hypertext pdf with full its text --
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill
the relevant part is
102 Statutory nuisance: lighting
on pages 74 to 76, or directly accessible within some html file as
and the page with explanatory notes to it is
(it begins just with the Clause 102 Statutory nuisance: lighting).
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) :
its News release 8 Dec 2004:
its basic info on the cause, Our campaign:
(in my view, the basic info should include a remark, that for most people
and most their time, glare is a larger hindrance for enjoying the stars
than the artificial contribution to the sky luminance; the bill could
help against glare at the first place, if it becomes an Act with not so
my best regards to rural and sky campaigners!