You're comparing apples to oranges.
On a bridge you don't need bright so people can read their bibles, you need bright enough so people can see the structure ahead of them.
I'd bet anything that the FC on those bridges is much lower than they were before. And I don't have ANYTHING against it. They were probably too bright to begin with.
Same approach won't work with a task light.
I need to get much closer to a light to take a splinter out of my hand than I used to 10 years ago.
The energy reduction can't be credited to LEDs or only partial, if any. If you replace a 100W bulb with 75W bulb, the power saving is not due to "75W light bulb technology" which is along the line of thought LED sales people like to claim credit for.
Some LED products are less efficient than what they're replacing. They still achieve energy saving, because the output is also lower. This saving can't be credited to LEDs. Same can be accomplished for far less cost by using a lower wattage lamp of the same technology.
According to this LRC report, the spectral sensitivity of eyes shift as people age. Supposedly human eye lenses yellow like plastic headlight lenses with age. I haven't got to that point yet... and I should enjoy myself as much as I can while still young, but... its something for design considerations.
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/lightHealth/AARP/pdf/AARPbook3.pdf
What I'm saying is that S
ratio that LED marketeers often use may not be consistent across the entire population. Rich in blue light may not provide as high of S
ratio for a 70 year old as it does for a 18 year old. These two ends represent the approximate top and bottom end of driving group and are an important consideration for road lighting.