Turning off street lights on freeways to save money.
By mac6304
@mac6304 (76)
United States
December 10, 2009 2:55pm CST
Our city has decided to turn off the lights on our freeways to save money. When asked if the city was going to be resposible for any accidents caused by not being able to see if there is anything on the road such as ice, they said no. Their response was that it was the drivers responsibility to be able to drive in the dark. I do not see well in the dark and the lanes are not reflectively marked. There are places you could drive straight off into a ravine. When asked if they would give up their tax payer supplied cell phones and cars, of course they said no. We are about to get some more bad weather and I will just stay home instead of driving with people who can't see or drive to fast. But I think the city should be responsible for the lights being off. Find another way to save money. Maybe we shouldn't have built that new baseball stadium when the one we had was perfectly fine and we couldn't fill it up already. What do you think? Should the city be responsible for accidents due to lack of light?
1 person likes this
10 responses
@youless (112100)
• Guangzhou, China
11 Dec 09
I don't think this is a very good idea. In fact I have heard that these lights can be replaced by the solar lights. Namely they don't have to use the electricity because in daylight they store the electricity from the sun. I think this will be a better idea. It can really save the electricity and it is good for the environment. I think people should take advantage of the solar energy. It is dangerous to be without lights at night.
I love China
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
12 Dec 09
Yes I do think the city should be responsible for accidents due to a lack of light. I reckon this will become more common in the years to come. Cost-cutting measures will become the norm if we don't make a stand now. The UK has already banished 100 watt light bulbs without any consultation with the general public, who it will affect more than most, especially the elderly.
Driving in the dark would not be my idea of fun. It would be bad enough WALKING in pitch darkness, have they thought about that I wonder? Probably not!
Which city is it anyway?
@VANILLAREY (1470)
• India
11 Dec 09
Safety should come first. If a family wants to reduce its expenses, it is not going to stop buying medicines or first aid kit. The city is acting irresponsibly.
@hhmfw0 (44)
• China
11 Dec 09
Save money through turning off the city lights?I think it's Ridiculous.
No lights on the city street,is it still like a city?I can't image.
The bureau of course should be responisible for the accidents happend due to no lights.Saving money has more ways,why should choose such bad one.
@etongong (164)
• Philippines
12 Dec 09
First of all, turning off the lights on the freeway is totally stupendous thing to do much more not owning up the responsibility in cases where there will be eventuality that will lead to accidents due to turning off the lights. I think you can send letters of notice to your national government or somewhere that could help your cause there. Is corruption high on your place?
@TierrasMommy (125)
• United States
11 Dec 09
Turn off the street lights on the freeways to save money are you kidding me?!? That is crazy and stupid on the city's part come on they need to be responsible if people get hurt more often cause of their stupid choice. theres a fine line between saving money and putting peoples lives in danger. Money is the root of all evil just wish people would stop focusing on money and care for each other
@johnnykay (1056)
• Hungary
10 Dec 09
well, i don't know where you live, but it is very irresponsible decision from your city to turn off the lights to save money.. i couldn't imagine that in my country..
nobody cares here what amount of money should be paid for anything..:S :D
have a nice day!
@coolcoder (2018)
• United States
10 Dec 09
If people get killed on that freeway because of the lack of light, I hope their families sue the city for everything it has. That is the height of arrogance, and it's maddening to think that if something tragic happens, these bureaucrats are going to wash their hands of the whole thing and say "Well, the driver should have been paying attention more closely." Here's hoping that someone with sense realizes what might happen before it does happen. 
@Fulltank (2882)
• Philippines
10 Dec 09
What a useless and irresponsible idea your city government officials do. Street lightings are of course very important to the safety of the drivers as well as passengers. Their reason was very out of the book. I'm sure that road accidents at night would increase dramatically if your city government will not lift-off that ordinance.
@speedlover1994 (217)
• United States
10 Dec 09
While it does seem dangerous and irresponsible for them to turn the lights off, and it would be good and a good move for them to take responsibility for the accidents, I guess they don't technically have to. I mean, there aren't street lights on every street of America, and towns aren't responsible for any accidents on those streets, so I suppose they can expect you to drive in the dark. Still, it's kind of ridiculous that they are doing this. Good luck. Cheers!
