Road lighting and pedestrian reassurance after dark: A review

Lighting Research & Technology

Uttley

2016

Self Cite

This paper investigates the illuminance needed to detect trip hazards for pedestrians walking after dark. In previous work, it was assumed that the critical obstacle height is 25 mm: further review of accident data and foot clearance data suggests instead that 10 mm is the critical height. Eye tracking records suggest a tendency for obstacles to be detected approximately 3.4 m ahead. Interpretation of obstacle detection data suggests horizontal photopic illuminances of up to 0.9 lux are required for peripheral detection of a 10 mm obstacle 3.4 m ahead, according to the scotopic/photopic ratio of the lighting and the age of the observer.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illuminance required to detect a pavement obstacle of critical size

Lighting Research & Technology

Uttley

2016

Self Cite

“…Further concerns about laboratory studies arise from the fact that test participants know they are being observed which may affect their behaviour 16 and that the level of reassurance 30 does not reflect that experienced in outdoor locations -it is unlikely that confederate pedestrians in the experiments will be considered as threatening, and will thus be allowed to come closer for a given level of comfort. 16 These concerns are addressed in field studies.…”

Section: Studies Of Interpersonal Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

Observing other pedestrians: Investigating the typical distance and duration of fixation

Lighting Research & Technology

Yang

Uttley

2014

Self Cite

After dark, road lighting should enhance the visual component of pedestrians' interpersonal judgements such as evaluating the intent of others. Investigation of lighting effects requires better understanding of the nature of this task as expressed by the typical distance at which the judgement is made (and hence visual size) and the duration of observation, which in past studies have been arbitrary. Better understanding will help with interpretation of the significance of lighting characteristics such as illuminance and light spectrum. Conclusions of comfort distance in past studies are not consistent and hence this article presents new data determined using eye-tracking. We propose that further work on interpersonal judgements should examine the effects of lighting at a distance of 15 m with an observation duration of 500 ms.

“…"Reassurance" describes the feeling of confidence a pedestrian might gain from road lighting (among other factors) to walk along a road, in particular if walking alone after dark, and is used here to encompass the terms "perceived safety" [Knight 2010] and "fear of crime" [Atkins and others 1991] as used in past studies. Reassurance is that which provides the comfort that makes someone feel less worried or less afraid or doubtful and restores confidence [Fotios, Unwin, and Farrall 2015]. Planning guidance from the UK government identified the need for local development plans to "reassure the public by making crime more difficult to commit .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using a qualitative approach that aimed to avoid specific focus on lighting, Fotios, Unwin, and Farrall [2015] demonstrated that reassurance is gained by the presence of lighting. This qualitative approach did not permit a statistical analysis of significance but provided parallel support for quantitative investigations that may have unintentionally biased respondents to indicate such an effect; for example, by raising the prominence of lighting among other environmental attributes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specifying Enough Light to Feel Reassured on Pedestrian Footpaths

Castleton

2016

LEUKOS

This article discusses lighting for pedestrians and how investigation of reassurance might lead toward an understanding of the right amount of light. A conventional approach is to evaluate reassurance after dark under road lighting of different illuminance: this tends to show the trivial result that higher illuminances enhance reassurance, and that alone does not enable an optimum light level to be identified. One reason is that the category rating procedure widely used is prone to stimulus range bias; experimental results are presented that demonstrate stimulus range bias in reassurance evaluations. This article also recommends alternative methods for future research. One such method is the day-dark rating approach, which does not tend toward ever higher illuminances, and results are presented of two studies using this method.