You seem to be missing the fairly vital point in your statistics that it's changing back to normal GMT time which increases the casualty rate - it's lower with BST. RoSPA believes that advancing the time all year round so that it's GMT+1 in the winter and GMT+2 in the summer would save around 4500 casualties per year. The period in the sixties which you mentioned was where it was GMT+1 all year round, ie permanently BST, and this saved around 2500 casualties per year.
2006-11-03 18:32:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Graham I 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Changing the clocks really is one of my pet hates. They originally called it “daylight saving time” and it was first introduced by the Germans in World War I. The arguments for it are that it saves energy as there is less need for artificial light in the evenings. Other experts argue that the saving is minimal and far outweighed by the disruption caused by changing the clocks in the first place. However the clock is set the chances are that some people will have to travel to or from work in the dark. There was that experiment (in the late 60’s) when we didn’t change the clocks in the autumn and there were concerns about increased accidents with children travelling to school in the dark mornings. Now there is talk again of us having British Summer Time in the winter but with double summer time in the summer, as they did during the Second World War. They now say this will cut the number of accidents in the evening which is more or an issue than the morning rush. Why can’t the powers that be just decide on what time it is and then leave well alone? Why can’t children have reduced school hours in winter (and longer ones in the summer) so they always travel in daylight? And of course, double summer time means that it will not get dark until almost 11 pm in parts of the UK – that would be just great for getting the children off to sleep.
2006-11-03 18:35:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I always have at least one clock on British SummerTime when the clocks go back. It is the clock on my microwave convection oven. I find it a bit too much to change all the clocks back in the house.
Also, if they ended British Summer Time and less people died as a result then I don't mind losing an hour.
2006-11-03 19:08:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by watcher072000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A friend of mine once explained his vision of future population control:
People will be going here and there to shag whomever and be run over by cars. No shagging will occur amongst those who must run about to shag. Too much traffic. Those who shag in their own domeciles, without braving the streets, however, are free to procreate.
I live in a part of the USA where the topic of "daylight savings time' was a huge subject of debate. We had never been a region where we needed to change time zones in order to know when to do things. We just changed our schedules with the sun and moon. If I had to get up at dawn, I just got up an hour earlier in the summer.
The best reason I can think of for changing our clocks is that we feel a sense of "unity," (not to be confused with unification) which makes us feel okay.
Everytime you (you, meaning anyone) quote statistics, I remember that 96.897% of statistics are made up on the spot, and I have a strong tendency to look up anecdotal evidence instead.
2006-11-03 18:45:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jonathan T 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. There is no reason for it now. I think it was first introduced to allow farmers to work later in the summer during the war to get the harvest in but with the advent of portable electric lights there's no need now.
Also I work in IT and we have to change the time about 40 IBM AS/400's times twice a year and it's a pain in the ****.
2006-11-03 17:58:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Martin G 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Its alright saying leave the clocks as they are in the South of Engand, but if you left the clocks as they were it would still be dark in Scotland in the mornings where I stay.
At the moment I leave the house at 6.30am to go to work and it is still dark. It also starts to get dark at 4.00pm.
It is light enough for the children to go to school, but if the clocks remained unchanged it would still be dark. Either way you can have dark mornings or dark nights depending on which way you choose to leave the clocks. There would still be deaths regardless.
If you really want to clocks to stay at BST then I think we should leave your clocks as they are and we should change ours.
That might keep you 50,000,000 + people happy.
2006-11-06 10:27:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by dunfie 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
BST or British Summer Time was introduced as a war measure, primarily to give farmers more daylight hours in which to work. Coincidentally, PAYE tax was also introduced as a war-time measure. Enough said???????
2006-11-03 18:21:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes
2006-11-03 17:54:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
not much of a summer anyway,
best go to portugeese summer time
time is an illusion ,a fantasy any way
if you dont believe in it ,it doesnt work
just like paper money
2006-11-03 17:58:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I didnt know we had a summer time
i thought it was only places like Spain,Greece,Australia,and Newzeland that had them
2006-11-03 20:00:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋