The reporting of accurate and appropriate conclusions is an essential aspect of scientific research, and failure in this endeavor can threaten the progress of cumulative knowledge. This is highlighted by the current reproducibility crisis, and this crisis disproportionately affects fields that use behavioral research methods, as in much lighting research. A sample of general and topic-specific lighting research papers was reviewed for information about sample sizes and statistical reporting. This highlighted that lighting research is generally underpowered and, given median sample sizes, is unlikely to be able to reveal small effects. Lighting research most commonly uses parametric statistical tests, but assessment of test assumptions is rarely carried out. This risks the inappropriate use of statistical tests, potentially leading to type I and type II errors. Lighting research papers also rarely report measures of effect size, and this can hamper cumulative science and power analyses required to determine appropriate sample sizes for future research studies. Addressing the issues raised in this article related to sample sizes, statistical test assumptions, and reporting of effect sizes can improve the evidential value of lighting research.

Previous research suggests darkness increases the risk of a collision involving a pedestrian and the severity of any injury suffered. Pedestrian crossings are intended to make it safer to cross the road, but it is not clear whether they are effective at doing this after-dark, compared with during daylight. Biannual clock changes resulting from transitions to and from daylight saving time were used to compare RTCs in the UK during daylight and darkness but at the same time of day, thus controlling for potential influences on RTC numbers not related to the ambient light condition. Odds ratios and regression discontinuity analysis suggested there was a significantly greater risk of a pedestrian RTC at a crossing after-dark than during daylight. Results also suggested the risk of an RTC after-dark was greater at a pedestrian crossing than at a location at least 50m away from a crossing. Whilst these results show the increased danger to pedestrians using a designated crossing after-dark, this increased risk is not due to a lack of lighting at these locations as 98% of RTCs at pedestrian crossings after-dark were lit by road lighting. This raises questions about the adequacy and effectiveness of the lighting used at pedestrian crossings.

Cycling has a range of benefits as is recognised by national and international policies aiming to increase cycling rates. Darkness acts as a barrier to people cycling, with fewer people cycling after-dark when seasonal and time-of-day factors are accounted for. This paper explores whether road lighting can reduce the negative impact of darkness on cycling rates. Changes in cycling rates between daylight and after-dark were quantified for 48 locations in Birmingham, United Kingdom, by calculating an odds ratio. These odds ratios were compared against two measures of road lighting at each location: 1) Density of road lighting lanterns; 2) Relative brightness as estimated from night-time aerial images. Locations with no road lighting showed a significantly greater reduction in cycling after-dark compared with locations that had some lighting. A nonlinear relationship was found between relative brightness at a location at night and the reduction in cyclists after-dark. Small initial increases in brightness resulted in large reductions in the difference between cyclist numbers in daylight and after-dark, but this effect reached a plateau as brightness increased. These results suggest only a minimal amount of lighting can promote cycling after-dark, making it an attractive mode of transport year-round.