Robin Dadson, of Churchfields, Dartmouth, writes:

I would like to take up your invitation to comment on the recent introduction of restricted street lighting in the Dartmouth area and the wholly predictable reaction of some residents.

From the report in your edition of December 9, it could well be assumed that there are a very large number of people who regularly make it a habit to frequent the pubs in the town centre before staggering back to their homes in the early hours, while hoards of would-be vandals are roaming the streets after 12.30am looking for opportunities to commit anti-social behaviour.

My wife tells me she has had conversation with a number of more senior residents who have expressed such views but then go on to say they are never out and about at that time of night anyway.

On the number of occasions that I have been out in Dartmouth that late at night, I have yet to witness any such activity, no doubt because the vast majority of people are and in bed asleep at such a time in anticipation of having to get up to go to work the following morning.

Sadly you also reported that there was a raid on a Dartmouth shop just one day after the switch off came into effect but I would suggest that this had been planned somewhat in advance and the matter of the restricted lighting could be co-incidental. It is a plain, simple fact that criminals will continue in their activities come what may whether they be of a anti-social nature or something more serious.

Quite recently it was well documented that serious vandalism has taken place along the river embankment in Dartmouth centre which, ironically, was and still is illuminated. This, it would appear, proved no deterrent.

Furthermore both anti-social behaviour and more serious crimes are often reported as having taken place in broad daylight when street lighting was obviously not required.

Prior to retiring to Dartmouth, I spent regular holidays in the area and, should I have visited the town centre in the evenings at that time, I was obliged to walk several miles back to my hoiday accomodation in the dark. Problem? No, of course not. I merely provided myself with a very handy little device known as a torch to assist my progress along darker lengths of the route.

In closing, I would like to comment on developments that took place in my former home town where my previous residence backed onto a narrow rural footpath.

When I moved there in 1969 this was a typical unmade path bordered by hedges in which wild life thrived. It was used reasonably frequently in those days by all manner of people during the day but fewer at night. After a good number of years, a well-meaning councillor had the path made up underfoot although, I should point out, there was a viable alternative route along residential roads running parallel with the path about 200 yards away.

This development not only destroyed the rural nature of the path but also provided a wonderful race track for motor cycles, bicycles etc, ridden at high speed by thoughtless youths. Fewer people then used the path for fear of being injured.

Some years down the line a subsequent councillor had street lighting installed along the entire length and, within weeks, the whole path had become a haven for gangs of youths to gather resulting in drug taking, vandalism, drinking, urinating and many other unacceptable activities. Apart from these louts virtually nobody else continued to use the path in spite of the lighting for fear of them.

When I finally moved away from the area, which had been a delightful rural footpath, had been turned into a recognised hotbed of crime and was acknowledged as such by the local police.

Lighting is not the be all and end all of everything and I would submit that its reduction in the early hours when most folk are securely indoors is not going to prove the principal reason for any increase in crime – should it occur – but more so the huge reduction in police levels in the town.