A good thing

[pecunium]

Yesterday while walking through Mudchute Park on my way to Asda I was displeased to see the following posted around the various entrances to the woodland, on laminated bits of A4 (loosely paraphrased).

So they made some counterflyers.

Comments

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Excellent.

In Ottawa, we had two horrible incidents a few years ago where two women were murdered in wooded areas that were actually quite close to well-travelled roads/housing developments. The best that could be reconstructed afterwards is that the attackers fooled the women into stopping and talking to them, rather than jumping out of shrubbery.

We had two recent incidents in the last month of attacks on paths -- this time both victims were male.

If an area is dangerous for women, it's dangerous for everyone.

The reaction should be to remove any obvious hiding places for attackers, possibly to increase lighting (if that can be done w/o increasing glare), and if necessary, put up signage suggesting that it not be used after dark. That also depends whether the path is an important pedestrian/cyclist link that needs to be accessible 24h/day or whether it's just for recreation.

[feonixrift.livejournal.com]

If people are being conversationally stopped, I'm not clear on the benefits of additional lighting.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Bright lights make people think they are more likely to be seen, this reduces the attraction of a given area to someone who wishes to commit a crime (be it against a person, or a property).

[feonixrift.livejournal.com]

Ah, that explains it. And is a correlation I'm surprised I didn't spot, given that I was for a long time more comfortable with badly lit areas for a related reason - no clear view of anything I might do defensively.