No idea how that affects the photo, all i know is that they are very very bright and compared to the OPs lights they let see you a dang sight more .
The photo does not state the exposure time so i wondered where you get your information from?
Photos like this can often contain a great deal if info, in their EXIF data. If you use a free program called Opanda IEXIF2 you can view all sorts of things. The exposure time is one, but I can also see your make and model of camera, the date and time you took the photo (though this is only accurate if you have set it correctly in camera) what F stop was used, ISO equivalent etc. It is a nice long exposure image IMO.
I guess HovR's point was that it is difficult to assess the amount of light output from a photo, especially one with a long exposure, as our eyes see the world very differently, in general cameras are very bad at making the most of low light levels whereas our eyes aren't bad. It appears that you used only 200 ISO though, and that would probably need this length of exposure to produce and image that comes close to what you actually saw at the time. A longer exposure could give the impression that the lights provide even more light than they actually do.
RB