Outdoor Lighting and Crime - Amper

much as 60 % of the emitted light above the horizontal when the globes are clean and 70% or
more when they have collected grime as usual on their lower parts. 33
Erroneous scientific hypotheses and flawed investigations contribute to human progress
insofar as they stimulate debate and further investigation. Only rarely are scientific papers in
scientific journals withdrawn and even then they remain physically available in distributed
copies of the journals. But continued unqualified propagation or citation of the material after
it has been disproved or discredited retards progress. For example, Grabosky and James
(1995) includes an uncritical two-page summary of Painter’s London project, headed ‘Crime
prevention and fear reduction through enhanced street lighting’. It also includes a summary
of ‘Public transport safety in Victoria’, which involved multiple treatments including
overbright lighting for railway stations. 34 The Grabosky and James document, sub-titled
‘Leading crime prevention programs’ was reprinted in 1997 and was still available online,
apparently unchanged, into 2003. Many other crime prevention articles and books from
apparently reputable sources likewise continue to promote the supposed crime prevention
effect of lighting, regardless of the existing evidence against any such effect. Academic and
professional bodies involved might usefully reconsider their scientific publication standards.
Neighbourhood Watch (NHW) and similar organisations are well established in Australia and
elsewhere. NHW publications frequently state or imply that lighting is a crime prevention
method, 35 encourage the installation and use of outdoor domestic lighting to prevent crime,
and encourage immediate complaints to local authorities when streetlights fail and supposedly
increase the risk of crime. Advice by the writer to various branches of NHW about their
circulation of such erroneous advice has frequently been met with disbelief and even ridicule.
Subsequent propagation of the established view seems to have continued unabated and
without qualification.
Finally, for all the value of the Internet, it has the downside of allowing unprecedentedly rapid
dissemination and reinforcement of urban myths. The Council of Europe (2000) encouraged
local authorities to light up all their public places “to give citizens a sense of safety”, despite
the gross levels of outdoor lighting and lighting waste that already beset much of Europe.
33
It is disappointing that well-known Australian universities are among the numerous
persistent users of large numbers of such lamps at the time of writing. These bodies could be
expected to be far more discerning about glare, energy waste, health hazards, and
environmental damage, given that they teach undergraduates about such topics.
34
The associated study, Carr and Spring (1993), received a Scientific Methods Score of 2 in
Sherman et al. (1997) and was rejected in the review by Welsh and Farrington (2002). The
various mutually confounding treatments included CCTV and increased security staff. Crime
at the stations has grown greatly in the subsequent decade- see Section 5.6.1.
35
In 2002, the writer received a NHW message on a card from a real estate agent
announcing:
“Put the spotlight on crime. Criminals don’t like to be seen (so make sure you can
see them). As you might expect, there are many crimes and offences committed
during the night. But the mere presence of light creates problems for an offender.
Why? Because you can see them.”
This introduction was followed by similar assertions that outdoor lighting would deter or
prevent crime.
36