BlythPower
Member
This! British Summer Time should become British Standard Time and be used all year round. The 'typical' working day is 9 to 5. BST puts the sun's peak at around 1pm which sits nicely in the middle of this day.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Changing the UK's time zone
- Thread starter Zoe
- Start date
- Status
This! British Summer Time should become British Standard Time and be used all year round. The 'typical' working day is 9 to 5. BST puts the sun's peak at around 1pm which sits nicely in the middle of this day.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,857
One word for the OP:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seconded.
PaulLothian
Member
It is a complicated debate.
There are various factors at play here - as suggested in a couple of threads, it is not just about how far north you are, but also how far west - Cornwall, Northern Ireland and the far west of Scotland will see the dawn 15-20 minutes after those on the Greenwich meridian.
In London the midwinter sun rises at 8.06, where I live in Scotland's central belt it rises at 8.46, and at Thurso, mainland Scotland's most northerly town, it rises at 9.06. Combine that with a dark and wet morning, and it is barely light till much later, but that effect is more marked as you move north - I don't fully understand the complicated calculations which relate to the density of the clouds and the angle the sun strikes them at!
One under-discussed point in this debate is why we are this year putting the clocks back 53 days before the winter solstice, and will put them forward again 94 days after the solstice - why not equal time each side of the shortest day? Would there be a reasonable case for a much shorter period on GMT - say, mid-November to mid-February?
There are various factors at play here - as suggested in a couple of threads, it is not just about how far north you are, but also how far west - Cornwall, Northern Ireland and the far west of Scotland will see the dawn 15-20 minutes after those on the Greenwich meridian.
In London the midwinter sun rises at 8.06, where I live in Scotland's central belt it rises at 8.46, and at Thurso, mainland Scotland's most northerly town, it rises at 9.06. Combine that with a dark and wet morning, and it is barely light till much later, but that effect is more marked as you move north - I don't fully understand the complicated calculations which relate to the density of the clouds and the angle the sun strikes them at!
One under-discussed point in this debate is why we are this year putting the clocks back 53 days before the winter solstice, and will put them forward again 94 days after the solstice - why not equal time each side of the shortest day? Would there be a reasonable case for a much shorter period on GMT - say, mid-November to mid-February?
Can we have a poll added to this thread please?
Barrett M95
Member
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 223
Personally, I couldn't care less. From early October to some time in March/April, I leave in the dark in the morning and get back in the dark in the evening.
Any changes to the times means you lose some daylight at one end and gain it somewhere else. It might be a good thing, it might make no difference.
Whatever happens, I'll still get up at the same times, leave for work at the same times and come home at the same times whatever the weather, whatever the light.
Any changes to the times means you lose some daylight at one end and gain it somewhere else. It might be a good thing, it might make no difference.
Whatever happens, I'll still get up at the same times, leave for work at the same times and come home at the same times whatever the weather, whatever the light.
No it won't, because the muggers will still be in bed when its dark in the morning, and there will be an hour less available for them to mug beople under cover of darkness in the evenings.
As far accidents involving schoolkids, in the mornings they have to gho straight to school but in the evenings they can take as long as they like to get home (within reason) and so are likely to out on the streets for longer after school than beforehand.
I do think that Peter and Paul have a point when they say that noon should be in the middle of the day and midnight being the middle of the night though. A reasonable alternative solution would to bring everything (including the morning peak restrictions!) forward an hour. If I want to go out for the day, its no good to me getting light at 7am instead of 8 if I can't catch a train before 9.30.
TheJRB
Established Member
This particular debate (though it's barely worth it as virtually nobody supports it as we can see here) crops up every time we change the clocks back or forward and the media love to cover it especially when there's no real news.
Daylight Saving Time is used in a lot of countries around the world and we're very much used to going back and forth now. What would be the real point in changing it?
Daylight Saving Time is used in a lot of countries around the world and we're very much used to going back and forth now. What would be the real point in changing it?
I predict nothing will happen. This debate comes round every single time we change the clocks, and what happens? Nothing!
Um, what?
I'm not sure what our body clocks have to do with anything since what ever is decided it will get dark in the winter long before most people go to bed.
There is no plan to stop changing the clocks, the only change would be that it would be from GMT+1 in the winter to GMT+2 in the summer.
I wouldn't be any different to now, an hour forward on the last Sunday in March and an hour back in the last Sunday in October.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The clocks have to change on the dates listed above, as specified by an EU directive.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
I imagine there are plenty of people who would support BST all year round, or at least put up with it, who would not agree with the double summer time. It would mean dark mornings from much earlier on in the year and until much later. It would mean the sun would not rise until 8 for all of October, and many people would be getting up or leaving in the dark through much of September. It would provide no real advantage in the evening though as the real effect in the evening isn't until we change to GMT. In the Spring it would likely mean plunging the mornings for most people back into darkness when the clocks were changed. For the period of the year when most people are going to be out doing outdoor activities in the evening, it stays light until late enough anyway, especially considering that other than Friday, Saturday and Sunday most people are having to be in bed fairly early to be up for work or school next morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15490249
The government are now considering a three year trial.
The government are now considering a three year trial.
90019
Established Member
Because we've really got loads of money to throw around on administrative crap just now.
PaulLothian
Member
Just because the EU states it must be so does not automatically make it reasonable!
Lampshade
Established Member
That no one voted for; the politicians can use whatever cover story they like, but it's clearly the EU interfering AGAIN
That no one voted for; the politicians can use whatever cover story they like, but it's clearly the EU interfering AGAIN
Um what? We don't directly vote for a lot of decisions made in Parliament. We vote MPs in to make decisions; that's their job.
Also what's this got to with the EU? This is a discussion the UK Parliament is having about the UK.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
That no one voted for; the politicians can use whatever cover story they like, but it's clearly the EU interfering AGAIN
Funniest post this year!
That no one voted for; the politicians can use whatever cover story they like, but it's clearly the EU interfering AGAIN
Why do people keep bringing the EU into this? As I keep saying, the UK isn't the only country in the EU to use this time zone! It's Western European Time as used in the EU by Ireland, the UK, Portugal and the Canary Islands (Spain).
Sorry, but the quoted post sounds like it came straight out of the Daily Mail!
Last edited:
Lampshade
Established Member
True, and Portugal did try to change their time zone, it flopped.
Note to self: no more wild conspiracy theories
Cruithne3753
Member
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 76
NO! I hate having to get up when it's still night.
SS4
Established Member
We have plenty of money for Coalition favourites but when it comes to those which will do social good the previous government has spent all our money. Thanks to Tory-friendly Murdoch controlling the Press the sheeple are none the wiser :roll:
BlythPower
Member
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,006
There have been a couple of experiments with this over the years and they just last a few years before we go back.
If this is tried again - once the reality of having an extra two months a year where we have to get up in the dark hits home, the demands to change back will be a strong as they were last time around.
Put simply most people really hate getting up in the dark! I know I do, spending December and the January with it being dark to about 9:30 just does not bear thinking about.
And do we really want it to be light to almost midnight in June/July?
If this is tried again - once the reality of having an extra two months a year where we have to get up in the dark hits home, the demands to change back will be a strong as they were last time around.
Put simply most people really hate getting up in the dark! I know I do, spending December and the January with it being dark to about 9:30 just does not bear thinking about.
And do we really want it to be light to almost midnight in June/July?
Yes please
Alan[/QUOTE]
I don't. It's harder to get to sleep when it's light, and it will do no good for those who have to be up early for work. Similarly in Winter, getting up in the dark is less pleasant than getting up in the light. Peter Mugrdige and Paul Sidorczuk make very good points about our body clocks.
The whole thing is going to be a waste of time and money. The majority of UK citizens appear to be quit ehappy with things the way they are, so just leave it alone.
As stated above, I think the clocks should be left at BST (perhaps after being renamed) all year round, meaning that we don't have stupidly long days in June, but also have light evenings until 5pm in November/December/January/February.
The advatnages of it being light until 1700 (obviously the time will vary according to where you are) will be offset by the darker mornings. We can't create more light and longer days by fiddling around with the clocks!
- Status