When you crash your car on Arthur, do you sue the residents?

[Betsy Voinovich]

I don't know if anyone has formally brought this up with the City Council yet, but I imagine that soon they'll be hearing about it from the police and fire departments, if they haven't already.

When you drive down Arthur, because of the height of the new lamp posts, and the intensity of the bulbs, you can't see. The problem is-- specifically-- when you look down the road in front of you, the lights from the new lamps appear to be only about six inches above the headlights of any oncoming car. So the lamp posts actually disguise the lights of an oncoming car until it's right up on you. This is happening to the other driver as well, at the same time. You suddenly come upon each other. So far, everyone has stayed on their side of the road when I've been driving, but that gets more difficult in the winter, or when there is something or someone in the road.

And there's no way you can see pedestrians, on the sidewalk, or the street.

It is ironic that the lights have made the sidewalk darker, when one of the reasons given for why the lights were a "Necessity" (the name on the legislation making this possible) was that Arthur was so dark it was "dangerous to walk there at night." Now it's much more dangerous. (If you think that Arthur is dangerous, you should move out of Lakewood.)

As there are many families with children on the street, I'm assuming that some of them have alerted SOMEONE about this. But who? The committee who proposed the new lights?

This situation has to be fixed, but who has to pay for it? If someone gets in a car accident, do they sue the residents who unilaterally decided to "fix up" their street? It's so charming now. It looks like a freeway or an airstrip. Did no one check on this? Was this the first time these lights have ever been used on the planet Earth?

Since the City Council had to approve of this-- one would assume that they had vetted the idea itself, if not to the degree that they could legitimately prove ANY necessity, at least to the degree that they would make sure that it wasn't dangerous for the citizens of Lakewood.

So I guess it's on them.

Who will pay for the enormous cost of buying new bulbs and changing them-- which I assume is what they will do very soon? What they should really do is make the lampposts taller. That would be ridiculously expensive. It's not like they stretch.

Shouldn't the residents pay for this? This was their great idea after all. (What of the ones that stridently opposed it and were shunned and ridiculed? Merry Christmas, by the way. Should they have to pay too?) They should probably be assessed more money on their city taxes to pay for the upgrade.

One can only hope that those that are planning to extend this contagion down the street-- yes, next is the next stretch of Arthur, since it's so successful on the first part-- are paying attention, and if they are able to coerce and bully the residents on the next stretch to pay for it themselves, they do a better job choosing the lights.

Don't drive on Arthur Avenue, from Detroit to Franklin.

Betsy Voinovich

[marklingm]

I believe that a claim could be made against the City.

An argument could be made that a claim could even be made against the residents since they requested the “beautification” made by City Hall.

But, I know what my defenses would be if I represented the City.

[Paul Schrimpf]

Betsy typed: "Don't drive on Arthur Avenue, from Detroit to Franklin."

Hmm.. you may be on to the real motive.

Seriously, it is nasty. Over by me on the east end, the "real danger zone," Alameda's aren't nearly as bright, even if you view them without the center trees in the way. The bulb's maximum illumination seems to be tucked up higher in the shade, which dampens the bulb strength. It would be nice if someone in public works weighed in, at least technologically speaking.

[Stan Austin]

Betsy---you certainly raise some troublesome issues. I recall that when this was first proposed I posted that this had the risk of becoming a very cheap looking decorating job.
It seems that it is a barely amusing daytime decoration (note - not necessity) and a nighttime joke at best.
I think that for this to be corrected it would take several things.
First, a disgruntled Arthur Avenue resident who would be willing to file a lawsuit.
Second, a budding lawyer looking to make his or her bones with some precedent setting issues.
The whole design process would have to be "autopsied" to use a currently popular term. Who did the design and does that firm or individual have the equivalent of malpractice insurance?
What was the approval process?
Who gave the go ahead to allow the use of the word "necessity"? What responsibility does that individual bear?
And, what are the remedies? Tear out the poles and go back to what was there? Re-lamp them?
And once remedies have been proposed, who pays for them? The above answers for responsibility would come into play here.
Stan

[marklingm]

It’s been suggested to me that folks need to stop [complaining] in the 'Wood and simply wear sunglasses at night.

... que the music ...

I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, So I can
Forget my name while you collect your claim
And I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, So I can
See the light that's right before my eyes

While she's deceiving me,
she cuts my security (has)
She got control of me
I turn to her and say

Don't switch the blade on the guy in shades (oh no)
Don't masquerade with the guy in shades
(oh no) (I can't believe it)
(cuz) You got it made with the guy in shades (oh no)

[Meg Ostrowski]

Betsy typed: "Don't drive on Arthur Avenue, from Detroit to Franklin."

Hmm.. you may be on to the real motive.

If so, it's working. I no longer use Arthur to return library items at the drive-thru...and it's not easy maneuvering in the parking lot to make the necessary final turn. Sorry Mars.

[Bret Callentine]

I drove down Arthur last night and my first impression was "holy crap those are bright!"

would it be possible to just thicken the coating on the glass that gives it that frosted look?

[russell dunn]

I was poking around some of the LED streetlamp manufacturer websites trying to pin
down this particular style to read specs relating to Dark Skies compliance and the
apparent 90 degree industry standard for light throw measured from the roadway.
( total of 180 degrees )

At least one source states that it is normal for many lights to become brighter through
their first year of use before then beginning a very gradual dimming over time.

Yikes !

[Meg Ostrowski]

Betsy typed: "Don't drive on Arthur Avenue, from Detroit to Franklin."

Hmm.. you may be on to the real motive.

If so, it's working. I no longer use Arthur to return library items at the drive-thru...and it's not easy maneuvering in the parking lot to make the necessary final turn. Sorry Mars.

I took another drive down Arthur after posting just to be sure I wasn't overreacting by changing my route. I have to say that with snow on the ground it wasn't as bad as I recalled but still overwhelming.

I drove down Arthur last night and my first impression was "holy crap those are bright!"

would it be possible to just thicken the coating on the glass that gives it that frosted look?

The snow is due to melt on Friday. I wonder what your reaction will be then.

I was poking around some of the LED streetlamp manufacturer websites trying to pin
down this particular style to read specs relating to Dark Skies compliance and the
apparent 90 degree industry standard for light throw measured from the roadway.
( total of 180 degrees )

At least one source states that it is normal for many lights to become brighter through
their first year of use before then beginning a very gradual dimming over time.

Yikes !

...and in the meantime?