The Economics of Daylight Savings Time

wotsthat

antrobus wrote: »

Only at the Greenwich meridian as far as GMT is concerned. And that was only fixed in 1851, with GMT itself becoming official from 1880.

Otherwise, as the previous poster has noted, the sun is at its highest point at different times depending on how far away you are from the Greenwich meridian. At least in terms of longtitude. I suppose we could go back to local time, but there are good reasons why we abandoned it.

Local time for local people!

EDIT: There's an argument that the government were legislating around the practical issues around when noon is rather than when they thought noon should be.

wotsthat

martinsurrey wrote: »

that sounds awfully political...

An ironic tip of the hat to the majority of the members of this board is all.

beecher2

I think people overestimate the difference it would make, especially in December. Would it make much difference to life in London if it was light between 9am and 5pm, rather than 8am to 4pm?

It annoys me when people talk about an 'extra' hour of light too - where's the extra hour coming from?!

From a selfish point of view, it would mean that it would get light 4 hours after I get up, which would be make winter even harder for me. I work 8 - 4 and am a morning person though.

For whoever said the Scottish parliament could deal with it, time isn't devolved - not sure if the further devolved powers will cover time.

davetrousers

Clocks go back (just less than) 2 months before the shortest day BUT go forwards (just over) 3 months after the shortest day.

The should go forwards at the end of February not March.

stator

I'm sure the NHS would save money on depression prescriptions and sleep disorders if we just stuck with BST all year round. It makes so much sense it would be stupid not to.

chewmylegoff

mayonnaise wrote: »

It's that time of the year again. Clocks go backwards an hour on Sunday morning.

5 reasons to stop turning the clocks back

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11188313/5-reasons-to-keep-Daylight-Savings-Time-all-year-round.html


(more in linked article)

So what do you think?

Wouldn't the £200m saved in reduced accidents in the PM be offset by a similar increase in costs as a result of more accidents in the AM? Or to put it differently, it doesn't matter whether you move the light from the morning rush hour to the evening, those curtains in Queensland are still going to fade by the same amount.

System

Only incredibly stupid people think this nonsense actually produces any more daylight.
Any organisation is free to set whatever working or educational hours it likes if it wants to maximise daylight working.
Does the government really think the entire nation still clocks on and off with a factory hooter at the identical hour all over the country?

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Wouldn't the £200m saved in reduced accidents in the PM be offset by a similar increase in costs as a result of more accidents in the AM? Or to put it differently, it doesn't matter whether you move the light from the morning rush hour to the evening, those curtains in Queensland are still going to fade by the same amount.

Perhaps it's the close proximity of clocks going back followed by bonfire night.

Not only is your evening commute in the dark, you are driving through the smoke from those pesky bonfires

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Wouldn't the £200m saved in reduced accidents in the PM be offset by a similar increase in costs as a result of more accidents in the AM? Or to put it differently, it doesn't matter whether you move the light from the morning rush hour to the evening, those curtains in Queensland are still going to fade by the same amount.

no,
the theory is that in the morning people and especially children go straight to work/school
whereas in the evening people / children shop, hang about , play etc where the poor daylight causes more accidents.

It is claimed that during 1967/71 there were significant reduction in accidents although others argue that there were other changes that may have influenced the result

gazapc

davetrousers wrote: »

Clocks go back (just less than) 2 months before the shortest day BUT go forwards (just over) 3 months after the shortest day.

The should go forwards at the end of February not March.

Glad it's not me that just sees this. It seems a good compromise. That way we help out the Scots and gain a useful evening hour for an additional month rather than having it daylight at 6am during March