GMT v BST

[ABCwarrior]

So a 3 year trial may be set to leave the clocks alone at BST (GMT+1), I wish they would this tinkering with the clocks is a pain in the arse and makes life even more depressing!
WWII is over folks, and tractors have lights. And to pretend it's for the safety of kids going to school this maybe applies in London, where on the shortest day the sun rises at 8(it would be 9) and sets at 4 approx(it would be 5).
In Edinburgh this is 8:42 and 15:40, in Inverness this is 08:57 and 15:33,
in Stornoway it's 09:11 and 15:35, and in Lerwick it's 09:08 and 14:57....

So it makes it safe for the home counties kids and then when the days stretch they add an hour on to have a splendid summer evening playing cricket and croquet.
Up here it makes no frigging odds- you're either going to school/work in the dark or coming home in it. Ironically the teuchters in the far north and the isles are the staunchest supporters of the status quo, too stupid to see it makes no difference.
I can't see it working at our work- 8-4pm during Oct-April, they'd just move our hours to 9-5pm so we wouldn't get any benefit. But then if you believed every tabloid especially now near xmas parties etc, EVERYONE in the UK works "in the office", no real work actually goes on so it would work, right kids?!

 

[joinerjohn]

And they have the cheek to call it "Daylight Saving". If they didn't put clocks forward or back, you'd still only have the same amount of daylight hours in December this year as they did in December 100 yrs ago.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for schools, companies etc to alter their start and finish times? Say in winter school could start at 9:45am instead of 8:45am and finish an hour later Shift workers could start the day shift at 7:00am instead of 6:00am and so on.

Saves making er indoors stay up till 2:00am and put the clocks back. (actually did that one year with my first wife to see if she'd fall for it,,,, and she did )

 

[ABCwarrior]

Yeah that would work, think of the easing of peak demand on things like electricity, quieter public transport etc if work/school times were more flexible. In my youth it would have worked we walked to school and to get a "lift" you would have had the p*ss ripped out of you for being a ****** if mummy dropped you off- that was from P1 to leaving.
Now all these paranoid gimps drop their kids off in the SUV to stop the queues of predatory paedos they imagine are on every corner, so they'd complain that their working hours would be out of sync if the kids started an hour later etc...

 

[Paul_C]

Exactly the same trial took place during the 1968-1971 period, when the clocks were left at GMT+1 hr. throughout the winters, i.e. the clocks were put forward an hour in the spring of 1968 as usual, then did not change again until being put back an hour in the autumn of 1971. It was not a popular move.

There's simply no escaping the fact that at the latitudes at which Great Britain lies we have significantly shorter hours of sunlight per day in winter than in summer, the more so as one moves farther northward, and no amount of tampering with the clocks can change that. I've never lived in Scotland, but it seems to me that adopting a time which means that in the middle of December the sun doesn't rise over Inverness until 10 a.m. is ridiculous. Even here in Norfolk it would result in sunrise not being until around 9 a.m. at that time of year.

Far from advocating adopting GMT+1 hr. as the country's official time, I would suggest that we should simply scrap BST and use GMT year round.

 

[joe-90]

I only realised the other day that summer time lasts 7 months and wintertime 5 months. Did everyone else know that?

 

[Paul_C]

The split was more even sometimes in the past, with BST starting later in April and finishing at the end of September. But the situation is very complex, with certain acts of parliament setting a default which was overridden explicitly for some years but not others.

For about the last 16 or 17 years the dates in Britain have been tied to EU-stipulated start and end dates, even when the date for the start of BST happens to fall on the Easter weekend (in the past, that never happened).

There's enough detailed history here to keep you busy for at least an hour or two:
http://www.polyomino.org.uk/british-time/

 

[Alarm]

Nothing wrong as it stands.
Tough on Scotland? Then fook off and keep devoloution and we`ll keep our taxes.

As for EU fook off.

 

[gasbanni]

Exactly the same trial took place during the 1968-1971 period, when the clocks were left at GMT+1 hr. throughout the winters, i.e. the clocks were put forward an hour in the spring of 1968 as usual, then did not change again until being put back an hour in the autumn of 1971. It was not a popular move.

There's simply no escaping the fact that at the latitudes at which Great Britain lies we have significantly shorter hours of sunlight per day in winter than in summer, the more so as one moves farther northward, and no amount of tampering with the clocks can change that. I've never lived in Scotland, but it seems to me that adopting a time which means that in the middle of December the sun doesn't rise over Inverness until 10 a.m. is ridiculous. Even here in Norfolk it would result in sunrise not being until around 9 a.m. at that time of year.

Far from advocating adopting GMT+1 hr. as the country's official time, I would suggest that we should simply scrap BST and use GMT year round.

Thank you at least someone else remembers this was tried before and didnt work !

 

[RedHerring2]

Thank you at least someone else remembers this was tried before and didnt work !

1. I think the definition of "It didn't work before" is very debateable.

2. If it didn't work forty years ago, does not mean it will not have benefits now.

 

[cantaloup63]

I've never really understood the need to change clocks. Would it not just be easier to change the work time to suit? Thus instead of a day being from 8 to 4.30, change it to 9 to 5.30 at agreed dates. And vice versa.

 

[RedHerring2]

I've never really understood the need to change clocks. Would it not just be easier to change the work time to suit? Thus instead of a day being from 8 to 4.30, change it to 9 to 5.30 at agreed dates. And vice versa.

It's not just about safety. It's also about doing business with our European trading partners. Changing working times would make a two hour loss of business time.

Living approximately half the year in UK and the other half in France I much prefer CET. The mornings make little difference but the evenings, on CET, leaves much more open-air time for relaxing/BBQs/outdoor activities, etc.

 

[Paul_C]

Along with the idea of remaining on GMT+1 hr. year round, we also keep getting proposals every so often to adopt CET/CEST (i.e. still go forward an hour for summer time, so it would be GMT+1 in winter and GMT+2 in summer). The arguments almost always come from the pro-EU camp and seem to be for no better reason than the usual excuse of "harmonization with western Europe" (which should actually be "most of western Europe" anyway, since we're not the only country an hour behind CET/CEST).

Look at what would happen with that move: In addition to the late sunrise times in the winter months already mentioned above, there would then be ridiculously late sunset times in the summer. On June 21st, sunset here in Norfolk wouldn't be until about 10:25 p.m., and in Inverness it would be almost an hour later, so it wouldn't actually get completely dark until around midnight. Double summer time (GMT+2 hrs.) was enacted in Britain during World War II, but was soon scrapped afterward. Portugal tried an experiment with moving to CET/CEST during the 1990's and soon abandoned it.

The idea that the present 1-hour difference between the U.K. and the bulk of western Europe somehow affects trade to any measurable extent really holds little weight. In the U.S., for example, New York manages to trade quite successfully with California despite a 3-hour time difference. Besides, even if there was any significant effect, adjusting Britain's time zone an hour ahead would move us closer (or identical) to the time of some places and further away from others, e.g. we'd end up 9 hours ahead of the American West Coast instead of the present 8, so any advantage gained would be offset by a corresponding disadvantage elsewhere.

Moving a little closer to home, how about considering how it would affect our relationship with Ireland? If the whole of Ireland (Northern & Republic) also adopted CET/CEST, there would be the same issues of late sunrise times in the depths of winter and ridiculously late sunset times in summer. Even in Wexford sunset on the longest day wouldn't be until around 10:45 p.m., and in Donegal it would be around the same time as the Scottish Western Isles (later than Inverness, the more westerly location offsetting the fact that it isn't so far north).

If the Irish Republic did not make the change but the whole of the U.K. did, then there would be a 1-hour difference crossing the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, which would introduce an extra complexity for those living on one side and working on the other. If Northern Ireland opted out to remain on the same time as the Republic, then we'd have a 1-hour difference Northern Ireland and Britain.

Dealing with such differences isn't difficult; people quite successfully manage to live in eastern Alabama and work in western Georgia despite the 1-hour time difference, for example. But if there is any sort of validity in the argument that having a 1-hr. difference between Britain and France somehow has a negative effect on trade, then the argument must be equally valid for introducing a similar difference between Britain and any part of Ireland. Or indeed of introducing a difference between England and Scotland if the latter decided to remain on GMT/BST while England & Wales moved to CET/CEST.

 

[RedHerring2]

I appreciate your arguments, Paul. I have experienced the problems brought about by the difference in time zones. For example, sometimes just a telephone call for insurance, etc may be delayed by a day because the time difference has not been considered. It's not just start/finish times, but also lunch times that have an effect.

My personal interest is simply that I prefer the longer evenings and the later sunset.
I also am aware of the net decrease in accidents that was a result of previous experiments. Granted there were more morning accidents but this was more than offset by fewer evening accidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Time
2,500 deaths and serious injuries, per year, avoided, must be motivation enough, don't you think? (Although recent estimates say about 450 per year fewer.)

Anyone who resists an analysis of the proposals simply on forty year old data and gossip is surely prejudiced against the outcome.

Incidentally, is it only UK, Ireland and Portugal not on CET?

In addition, is it fair to say that most European countries have adopted CEST since the earlier experiment in the UK?

An excellent web site explaining some of the advantages:
http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=The Benefits of Moving to Single/Double Summertime
It lists the following organisations in support of S/DST:
RoSPA, Age Concern, Vist Britain, Tourism Alliance, Heathrow Association for Noise Concern, Brake (Road Safety Charity), Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
I'm sure there are others, and the reduction if energy consumption has not really been mentioned.
The Farmers Union are now neutral on the subject.

 

[Paul_C]

For example, sometimes just a telephone call for insurance, etc may be delayed by a day because the time difference has not been considered. It's not just start/finish times, but also lunch times that have an effect.

Lunch times vary anyway, between places where it's a quick half hour or staggered lunches so that businesses remain open and those where it's a three-course lunch for all followed by a siesta, so that the lunch "hour" becomes at least 2 hours, if not 3. Unless the next step is then to try and push for "harmonized" mandatory lunch times as well, I don't see a way around that. But what need is there? What's wrong with people simply taking into account any difference in the time zones, plus appropriate lunch breaks, and doing business accordingly?

To go back to the American example, many California establishments which transact a lot of telephone business with the rest of the nation have simply adopted an earlier start to their business day, opening at, say, 7 a.m. so that they're available by the time it's 9 a.m. in much of the Midwest and by 10 a.m. in the East.

What's wrong with adopting the same sort of principle here where there's only one hour difference? If one hour is really that much of an issue, then a British company which deals with Continental Europe extensively could simply start its business day an hour earlier. Although frankly I don't see one hour as being a big deal anyway - Just deal with domestic issues for the first hour until the Continentals are opening their doors for the day.

My personal interest is simply that I prefer the longer evenings and the later sunset.

I think there are bound to be cases where any particular individual has a preference. Those who get up at 8:00 a.m. and work a 9-to-5 day may well like the daylight shifted to the evening hours (in southern England, anyway); those who rise at 6 a.m. to make an early start and are heading for bed by 10 p.m. are bound to see it rather differently.

"You can't please all of the people all of the time," in other words. So why not just leave the clocks alone and let people adjust their hours to best suit their particular lifestyle?

I also am aware of the net decrease in accidents that was a result of previous experiments. Granted there were more morning accidents but this was more than offset by fewer evening accidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Time
2,500 deaths and serious injuries, per year, avoided, must be motivation enough, don't you think?

Anyone who resists an analysis of the proposals simply on forty year old data and gossip is surely prejudiced against the outcome.

Well, if you're questioning anyone being critical of the proposal now because of the experiment of 40 years ago, shouldn't the same principle apply and result in a question being asked about whether any such reduction of accidents 40 years ago would be equally applicable today?

Incidentally, is it only UK, Ireland and Portugal not on CET?

The Canary Islands are also on same time, making them an hour different from mainland Spain. The Faroe Islands are on the same time as well, and Iceland is on GMT year round, with no summer-time adjustment.

And, of course, moving eastward to places like Finland and Romania they're into the next time zone which is an hour ahead of CET.

In addition, is it fair to say that most European countries have adopted CEST since the earlier experiment in the UK?

I think the majority of the major European countries adopted it long before the British experiment of 1968-1971. Daylight savings adjustments were adopted mostly around the time of World War I.

 

[RedHerring2]

Just deal with domestic issues for the first hour until the Continentals are opening their doors for the day.

T'is the other way round, they've been open for one hour before us.

"You can't please all of the people all of the time," in other words. So why not just leave the clocks alone and let people adjust their hours to best suit their particular lifestyle?

But it would make sense to adjust to suit the majority, not maintain the status quo to suit the minority.
http://wwp.britishsummertime.co.uk/poll/central-european-time.htm

Well, if you're questioning anyone being critical of the proposal now because of the experiment of 40 years ago, shouldn't the same principle apply and result in a question being asked about whether any such reduction of accidents 40 years ago would be equally applicable today?

There have been a number of studies into the impact of SDST on road safety and estimates have been debated. The most recent and in-depth study was commissioned by the Government in 1998 to resolve the arguments about the likely impact of SDST. The study found that overall:

•there would be 450 fewer deaths and serious injuries on UK roads each year
•in Scotland, the casualty reductions would be slightly lower proportionally than for Great Britain as a whole, but nevertheless there would be an overall reduction
•the reductions are greater for fatalities than for non-fatal casualties. [29]

http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=The Benefits of Moving to Single/Double Summertime

The Canary Islands are also on same time, making them an hour different from mainland Spain. The Faroe Islands are on the same time as well, and Iceland is on GMT year round, with no summer-time adjustment.

The Canaries are only in Europe because of their political affilliation with Spain. I suspect if it were not for that affilliation they would not be classed as in Europe. Iceland and The Faroes are considerably further north so a different time zone would be understandable.
Interestingly, when jersey held a referendum on moving to CET, they voted to remain on GMT/BST. I suspect that was more a statement of being British and avoiding any movement to ally closer to Europe.

I think the majority of the major European countries adopted it long before the British experiment of 1968-1971. Daylight savings adjustments were adopted mostly around the time of World War I.

I'm not convinced of the accuracy of your statement. According to Wikipedia, the majority of European contries adopted CET before or around the time of the First World War, but it was only in the 60's, 70's and 80's that they adopted CEST.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Time