Should We Put The Clocks Back...?

[St Landrew]

Yes, this weekend is the last in October, and so the annual ritual of putting the clocks back from British Summer Time [BST] to Greenwich Mean Time [GMT] has come around again this Sunday morning in the traditional effort to make the mornings lighter.

 

But a great many people wonder each year why we still have to do this..? An experiment 40 years ago found that not putting the clocks back was beneficial. It was only stopped by complaining Scots, yet today, special allowances could be made for them, as happens in Scandanavia. Must we live in the dark ages for 6 months every year..? Yet again, there is a report on some study that supports us NOT putting the clocks back. These come along on an annual basis, it seems too.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4992686.ece

 

But the Govt, when asked the question in Parliament says that there is no public demand for a change from the present setup. So, in that case, what do we think..?

Edited 24 October, 2008 by St Landrew

[Pancake]

To be honest, does it really make that much of a difference? I mean, wow, the morning will be darker for an hour longer, but its the winter anyway, the amount of time it "light" is shorter anyway.

 

In relation to the Times article, I really dont want it to be light until 11pm during the Summer thanks. Mainly as it will only encourage the less socially aware members of the public to stay out on the streets longer and cause more annoyance to the rest of us.

 

I cant see the view expressed on safety will stand up either. So, by the thinking of the writers of the study, its safer to drive in a low-in-the-sky sunset than it is when it dark? ********, if you out on any main road at twilight, you will see people with sunglasses on, people with no-awareness of if they should have their lights on, people with the sun-visors down... all of which, IMHO, contribute a alrger hazzard to road safety that driving in the dark, when its bleeding obvious that you need you lights on (yes, Im aware that you still some some tools that dont have them on, but hey you cant help some people)

[Crouchie's Lawyer]

You may wanna simplify the question to 'Should we put the clocks back an hour in winter every year'.

 

I can see some *ahem* people getting confuzzled.

[St Landrew]

To be honest, does it really make that much of a difference? I mean, wow, the morning will be darker for an hour longer, but its the winter anyway, the amount of time it "light" is shorter anyway.

 

In relation to the Times article, I really dont want it to be light until 11pm during the Summer thanks. Mainly as it will only encourage the less socially aware members of the public to stay out on the streets longer and cause more annoyance to the rest of us.

 

I cant see the view expressed on safety will stand up either. So, by the thinking of the writers of the study, its safer to drive in a low-in-the-sky sunset than it is when it dark? ********, if you out on any main road at twilight, you will see people with sunglasses on, people with no-awareness of if they should have their lights on, people with the sun-visors down... all of which, IMHO, contribute a alrger hazzard to road safety that driving in the dark, when its bleeding obvious that you need you lights on (yes, Im aware that you still some some tools that dont have them on, but hey you cant help some people)

 

The trick is Pancake, is that this has already been experimented on in reality, during the 1970's. The findings then indicated that not putting the clocks back was quite beneficial to the country as a whole. Reports you can reject. Proper evidence to the effect is a bit more difficult. And nobody is suggesting we put the clocks forward at the end of March, but that could be an option.

[St Landrew]

You may wanna simplify the question to 'Should we put the clocks back an hour in winter every year'.

 

I can see some *ahem* people getting confuzzled.

 

I'm not sure I'd want the confuzzled to vote, but I see your point.

[Scummer]

To be honest, does it really make that much of a difference? I mean, wow, the morning will be darker for an hour longer, but its the winter anyway, the amount of time it "light" is shorter anyway.

 

Isn't it the other way round?

[Master Bates]

I'm sure I already posted we should yes.

[Crouchie's Lawyer]

There seems to be a lot of people in favour of keeping it the same way?!

 

Or are they getting confused?

[trousers]

My clock goes back this weekend.

 

I just hope I kept the receipt.

[St Landrew]

I'm sure I already posted we should yes.

 

Come the revolution, laddie...

[Deano6]

Doesn't really matter. Bigger fish to fry. Leave it as it is.

[saintwarwick]

Dont see any reason why not to, It's just another excuse for us brits to moan about something, Just put the damn things back

 

Absolutely, doesn't make any difference to me, just change a few clocks and done.

[jawillwill]

Of course we need to put the clocks back. Imagine if we didn't, we'd just be moving forward an hour ever year, and before you know it in 2015 it'll be dark at 2 in the afternoon.

[St Landrew]

Of course we need to put the clocks back. Imagine if we didn't, we'd just be moving forward an hour ever year, and before you know it in 2015 it'll be dark at 2 in the afternoon.

 

Oh my god, now here's a person who has determindly missunderstood.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Oh my god, now here's a person who has determindly missunderstood.

 

Spelling! You poor pedant!

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determinedly

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misunderstood

 

:cool:

 

You must have done this on purpose!

 

 

 

Edited 26 October, 2008 by EastleighSoulBoy

[Durleyfos]

Yes, this weekend is the last in October, and so the annual ritual of putting the clocks back from British Summer Time [BST] to Greenwich Mean Time [GMT] has come around again this Sunday morning in the traditional effort to make the mornings lighter.

 

But a great many people wonder each year why we still have to do this..? An experiment 40 years ago found that not putting the clocks back was beneficial. It was only stopped by complaining Scots, yet today, special allowances could be made for them, as happens in Scandanavia. Must we live in the dark ages for 6 months every year..? Yet again, there is a report on some study that supports us NOT putting the clocks back. These come along on an annual basis, it seems too.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4992686.ece

 

But the Govt, when asked the question in Parliament says that there is no public demand for a change from the present setup. So, in that case, what do we think..?

 

Why not just put Scotland back?

 

Or is that too obvious?

 

Other countries survive with numerous timezones.

[Ponty]

Where is this 'proper evidence' then StL? The only way there could be any real evidence that it would be better not to use BST is if we'd tried it for a year, in modern times, as a comparitor. I must've missed that year. There may be speculation that it would be beneficial to drop BST but even the work done on that is nearly 40 years out of date, by your admission.

 

I don't see how a study undertaken in the 70s is wholly relevant to modern Britain tbh.

[St Landrew]

Where is this 'proper evidence' then StL? The only way there could be any real evidence that it would be better not to use BST is if we'd tried it for a year, in modern times, as a comparitor. I must've missed that year. There may be speculation that it would be beneficial to drop BST but even the work done on that is nearly 40 years out of date, by your admission.

 

I don't see how a study undertaken in the 70s is wholly relevant to modern Britain tbh.

 

Why..? What do you think might have changed that is significant..? All we do nowadays is eat more, exercise less, and consume more utilities than back in the 70's. As for proper evidence, go and find it. I'm not here to link people to every piece of information and entertainment that happens to be worth looking at. I know about the reports from that time. If you're interested you'll find some, if you're not, you won't.

 

My winter depression has already set in.

[Ponty]

I can tell!

 

I meant changes with regards to traffic volume and quality, the quality of street lighting, the fact we don't tend to have the rolling blackouts of the 70s... That sort of thing. Anyway, I was after evidence rather than supposition which is all that's available.

 

For me, I think it's nice to get up in daylight for a few more weeks, even if it does mean it's dark earlier. Waking up in the sunlight feels far more natural.

[Scummer]

For me, I think it's nice to get up in daylight for a few more weeks, even if it does mean it's dark earlier. Waking up in the sunlight feels far more natural.

 

I find it a bit odd though. I was waking up in daylight, then I was waking up in the dark, now I'm waking up in daylight again, and in a few weeks I'll be back to waking in the dark.

[hypochondriac]

Does it really matter?

[Weston Super Saint]

Surely the question should be : Should be get rid of British Summer Time??

 

Without BST, we would only have GMT, so there would be no Spring forward Fall back anyway, unless we're talking about changing the concept of GMT :shock:

[St Landrew]

Surely the question should be : Should be get rid of British Summer Time??

 

Without BST, we would only have GMT, so there would be no Spring forward Fall back anyway, unless we're talking about changing the concept of GMT :shock:

 

Nobody would be changing the concept of GMT, if the UK adopted BST for all the year. GMT stands for the prime meridian. All earthbound time is set by GMT [or Universal Time Coordinated - UTC], whether nations adopt midday in Greenwich as their midday or whether it is midnight where they are. GB are not the guardians of GMT. It doesn't need protecting or preserving. The Earth functions in time on it.

 

Btw, there is no original Spring forward and Fall back phrase in Britain. Let's leave the Fall to the USA and Canada, and keep to Autumn, ta.

 

There is actual data from the 1970's when the last experiment was carried out, that significant drops in energy consumption, accidents on the road, crime, and rises in spending on outdoor activities, and rises in personal exercise, compared to years when the clocks weren't put back, and weighted for economic activity fluctuations, finds it is beneficial for Britain to have the clocks permanent set to BST. That is evidence, not hearsay, or folklore. There is absoutely no reason to suggest that the same, or similar results would not be achieved in modern day Britain. The 1970s weren't exactly the middle ages..! It is considered that this trend may well be further enhanced if the clocks were set forward, one hour, from a newly adopted winter BST equivalent, at the last weekend in March, and set back during the last weekend in October - hence Double Summer Time during the warmer months between those dates. This is well considered supposition, although it was actually adopted during WW11, so that energy consumption would be lowered at prime times of the day, and that people would be awake and active during German night air raids so that they could escape the bombs.

 

There is a real case for not putting clocks back in the winter. For people who say, why bother not to, my answer would be.. why bother at all..? If it means that little, then any time would seem to be suitable to them. Why the reluctance for beneficial change..?

[Ponty]

The 70s may not be that far removed from the 00s in your opinion StL, but 1916 certainly was and I assume that the data for economic activity during winter without BST can only come from prior to then.

[Weston Super Saint]

Nobody would be changing the concept of GMT, if the UK adopted BST for all the year. GMT stands for the prime meridian. All earthbound time is set by GMT [or Universal Time Coordinated - UTC], whether nations adopt midday in Greenwich as their midday or whether it is midnight where they are. GB are not the guardians of GMT. It doesn't need protecting or preserving. The Earth functions in time on it.

 

I think, to be fair, that if midday in Greenwich were permanently an hour ahead of Greenwich mean time, the whole concept of GMT would definitely have changed.

[JustMike]

i thought it was originally done to aid the farmers, as they get extra light in the morning. at least thats what my dear old nan used to tell me