Proposed Summertime Change would cut emissions, save lives and reduce energy costs

[TS7]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/26/british-summertime-change

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[PermaBanned]

Now you say 'save lives', as there would be more light for the evening rush hour. But what i don't get is that there would be less light for the morning rush hour, so wouldn't it balance out? Perhaps even cost more lives as in the morning everybody's still really tired.

 

[Smit]

I'm unconvinced it would change that much. Only had a brief chance to skim the article but just because it was brighter outside doesn't mean a lot more people would walk rather than drive.

 

[Tonyator]

Even if it didn't do all those things. Having waking hours inline with daylight would make more sense.

 

[Tute]

lolGuardian.

 

[Feek]

Oh ffs, not again. Every year we get the same crap raised.

I wish we'd just stick to GMT and not faff about changing the clocks at all.

 

[MacRS4]

Oh ffs, not again. Every year we get the same crap raised.

I wish we'd just stick to GMT and not faff about changing the clocks at all.

This. That way the clock in my car would be right all the time

 

[Wyrdo]

Oh ffs, not again. Every year we get the same crap raised.

I wish we'd just stick to GMT and not faff about changing the clocks at all.

Exactly what I was going to say, I'm sure they roll out the same article every time the clocks change.

Leave the clocks alone, there's no need to change them.

 

[Haiku]

The whole concept of moving clocks forwards and backwards seems ridiculous to me. Why don't they just say that in winter, schools (or whatever) start at 10am instead of 9am? Surely that would be easier than all this mucking about?

 

[Chris1712]

I don't get it, Its still going to be dark going to work OR coming home, so who cares? I think I'm missing something.

 

[SiriusB]

The whole concept of moving clocks forwards and backwards seems ridiculous to me. Why don't they just say that in winter, schools (or whatever) start at 10am instead of 9am? Surely that would be easier than all this mucking about?

I suspect spending 10 minutes changing your clocks twice a year would be simpler.

 

[Wyrdo]

I suspect spending 10 minutes changing your clocks twice a year would be simpler.

Doing nothing at all would be simpler.

 

[SiriusB]

Doing nothing at all would be simpler.

Very true, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Gilly]

If it saved fuel before, why did we go back to how it is now?

There must be an argument for it or it wouldn't have happened...

 

[-|ScottFree|-]

I have been saying this for years... but common sense has been foreign to the governments of this country for quite some time!

 

[LordSplodge]

Oh ffs, not again. Every year we get the same crap raised.

I wish we'd just stick to GMT and not faff about changing the clocks at all.

Leave the clocks alone, there's no need to change them.

 

[Naffa]

I'd quite like to have GMT+2 for this summer to see what would actually happen. I love later evenings, so from that perspective, it would be a lot nicer for me. I can see the extra hours of daylight helping tourism. But more importantly, if it does reduce energy consumption then I would definitely lean in favour of it.

Maybe it could be like a hazard kind of thing, if we need to cut our spending a bit, whack another hour onto daylight savings.

 

[starfighter]

It would be better really, I have always though we should be on summer time all year long.

 

[Meridian]

BST was invented so that office workers would have time in the fields after work, to grow food in WW2. I think we can probably give it up now.



M

 

[jwest]

BST was invented so that office workers would have time in the fields after work, to grow food in WW2. I think we can probably give it up now.



M

Is that true? I'm constantly hearing different reason why the clocks change. I'd really like to know what the actual reason is.