I’m curious if the lights are off completely, or are they dimmed and/or motion activated. Also curious about how it affects the costs (and is there a financial motivation as well).
For the UK, important streetlight (motorways, junctions, etc) are kept on. But the quieter streets and away from junctions are shut off.
It’s done for “climate” reasons but I’m pretty use the root cause is actually just another cost cutting measure.
But regardless, energy savings was also one of the cited reasons. So to answer your question: both.
It’s not really any difference to other traditional climate concerns like wind nor rain aside from light being a non-tactile property. But then neither is heat.
I will concede that my interpretation of the term “climate” here might not be correct. I’m not an expert in this field so it’s entirely possible I’ve stretched the definition
My county isn’t listed there so there plenty more councils which also do this and arent mentioned.
“Many” is subjective though. So your experience could be valid and my statement still true.
To me that seems like a really alien solution. What about closing the curtains?
If you don't want the lights, why not just turn them off?
It's really common in many cities in France too, also in the countryside to reduce disruption for bats in particular.
When it comes to driving, I would definitely prefer they keep the street lights on, for the increased visibility/safety.
By what measure?
Right, so you're saying the country itself is within the top 5 by GDP not that the city within your country is a top 5 city (regardless of country).
It seems self-evident that simply turning off street lights in the vast majority of cities will not cause them to become world-leading bastions of calm and safety.