I have long argued that switching off street lighting after a certain time or making lighting more intelligent (and traffic lights) would help.... why light unused streets? (why wait at red lights when there is no contending traffic?)
The problem is that one shouldn't do things in isolation nor should one neglect the law of unintended (but not unanticipated) consequences.
The examples quoted above should be enough to have clued the authorities in as to what consequences might be expected and instead of appointing zillions of zealots to collect spot fines from people who drop bits of meat pie that are instantly hoovered up by passing seagulls (and bio-degradable anyway) they should have sent out a covey of "street wardens" like the link-men of old.
Maybe they could even have diverted some police from catching speeding motorists and TV licence evaders to old fashioned street policing.
Of course, the real intent of this exercise was actually to justify spending (I'll think of a reason why some time, I'm just supposing this must be the case or they'd surely have done the job better) a fortune on street lighting and hence the negative effects were actually counted upon.