MoneySaving Poll: Do you approve of the clocks going back?

newbs68

Lighter evenings will mean lower electricity bills for most households. It only makes sense!

bigpat

G6JPG wrote: »

Or, better, don't move in a big jerk twice a year: move in 15 or 30 minute increments. This would make better use of the daylight.

And for goodness' sake let different regions pick their own times!

Can you imagine the hassle for businesses trying to contact each other? Someone at work in London for instance, ringing a supplier and having to think "Hang on..it's April, that means we're...let's see, 15 minutes ahead of Wales, so ..er.. it's 16:45 here, so they're closing. Now, what about Penzance?"

Utterly, utterly unworkable. Nearly all of Western Europe manages on one time zone, surely we can do the same!

EricDeeson

webwiz wrote: »

The option I would prefer is no offered. This is to stay on BST this winter then advance another hour next March. In other words go onto Continental European time. For most of the year most of the population are still asleep after it gets light and are still up with electric lights on after it gets dark. This is a simple cost free way of reducing CO2 emissions and saving everyone money. If there are any sectors who prefer a later start they can just start later, eg Scottish schools could start at 10.00 if they preferred.

I think this is called double summer time, which has been used in UK a couple of times, particularly, I believe in war time.

Two benefits -
* even lighter evenings all years round (so reduced energy bills and increased safety)
* parity with mainland Europe

Cheers - Eric

bigpat

Basia02 wrote: »

According to my calculation the clocks go back for only 5 months? - no idea why - we could at least make it 4, so we would get lighter evenings in Feb

I'm afraid your calculation is flawed. Late March - Late October. 6 months!

maajyd

If we moved to European time RoSPA claims it would save 100 lives a year. Buisinesses would be in synch. Tourism would be extended like Spain, West of UK. Most importantly heating and lighting would be switched on an hour later saving up to 25% of the energy used in the evening. The morning won't alter and similarly nothing will stop Shetland from having 22 hours of daylight in the summer & 6 in the winter. We should have permanent Alpha time.

Hedgehog99

bigpat wrote: »

I'm afraid your calculation is flawed. Late March - Late October. 6 months!

Eh? Late Oct > Late March = 5 months, Late March > Late Oct = 7 months.

Odd thing is we change a bit more than a month after the Autumnal Equinox (depending on the Sunday we change) & yet wait until after the Vernal Equinox to change back. We could definitely change back in Feb.

I find the worst bit (other than changing in the first place - I'm for year-round BST) is the slog up to the Winter Solstice. After Christmas, I notice every extra minute of evening daylight as it starts to open out again.

orudge

maajyd wrote: »

If we moved to European time RoSPA claims it would save 100 lives a year. Buisinesses would be in synch. Tourism would be extended like Spain, West of UK. Most importantly heating and lighting would be switched on an hour later saving up to 25% of the energy used in the evening. The morning won't alter and similarly nothing will stop Shetland from having 22 hours of daylight in the summer & 6 in the winter. We should have permanent Alpha time.

Spain, of course, is in the wrong timezone (geographically speaking) and has been for decades. There are moves afoot to move back to GMT. Technically, France should also be in GMT. Any country in red in the following image should technically not be in the timezone it's in. There's a reason CET is called Central European Time - it's for central Europe, not western Europe.

https /tiny url.com/timezoneswinter (redirects to Wikipedia - the smilies mess up the link if I try to post it directly)

Like it or not, the UK should geographically be in GMT. Changing our timezone doesn't create "extra" light - it simply redistributes the light we already have. Using CET/CEST would simply mean people would be going to work/school in the dark in the winter, as opposed to coming home in the dark. There's still not going to be enough light to do anything significant in the early evening. It's perhaps less noticable further south, but certainly in the north of England and in Scotland it would make getting up in the winter especially miserable. In the middle of winter, it'd be dark before you get home anyway - if we were on CET, it'd be dark in both directions! People also seem to forget it was tried before in the 1970s and was deemed a failure then.

If you want somewhere with lighter winters, move to a country on a different latitute.

stevemcol

Orudge

I'm with you completely. I'm N53°44' ish (North West England). Using GMT in winter I travel to work in the light, travel home in the dark. With BST, I'd travel to work in the dark travel home in the dark. I work pretty standard hours. Why does everyone come to the conclusion that BST in winter is the holy grail?

edit, becuase it's a hobby horse of mine.......

Picking the end of November , so not going to the extreme of late December; using BST, Sunrise would be 09:03, well after most core time workers have travelled to work. Sunset 16:55, so dark by 17:20 as most core time workers are driving home. Taking mornings and evenings into account, how is that an improvement over GMT?

mjandar

Why, in the "clock change" debate, is the idea of gaining or loosing an hour of daylight ever part of the discussion. However many hours of backward and/or forward adjustment is decided upon the number of daylight hours will always remain the same for any particular day of the year. The total number of daylight hours will merely be moved a little one way or the other.
Another question: Why change the clocks at all? Why not change them only one more time by, perhaps, one hour, two hours or only half an hour and, for ever after, leave them like that? If those in the more northern reaches of the UK are not happy with the placement of their daylight hours let them adopt their own time zone with their own alterations or, perhaps more practically, leave them as they are but when the standard placement of daylight hours don't suit them they could adjust their working/school hours accordingly - start work or go to school an hour earlier or later as required.

yorkie2

stevemcol wrote: »

I get a bit sentimental about this....
GMT is steeped in history. We set the time for the whole world, so should really make an effort to use it at least half the year, if not all.

The fact that something was the case a long time ago, doesn't mean the views of the vast majority that times should change, should be ignored.

stevemcol wrote: »

In the middle of winter if you work 8 till 6 which is probably about average, realistically, it's going to be dark when you finish whether it's GMT or BST. At least with GMT you get some light on your morning commute.

Most people finish around 4.30pm or 5pm (or 4pm Fridays is common), so this isn't a good example. An extra hour in the evening would benefit far more than having the hours on a morning, and especially at the weekend.