Your views on altering daylight hours

[Digga]

Extending daylight could boost health and help planet. That's what's being said about propsed changes to daylight hours in northern hemishpere countries.

Article here on Reuters

Personally, I'm all for changing. I think it's pretty absurd that a minority of Scottish farmers have prevented the issue from being organised for the benefit of the greater populace. As I see it, the advantages of having more daylight at the end of the day far outweight the arguments against.

1. Road safety, especially for kids coming home from school.
2. Greater opportunity for sporting activities.
3. So we should (generally be healthier) and less succeptible to depression and illness.
4. More chance of doing well in international and olympic sports.
5. Save energy on lighting.

Can't see any of the above comes at a great cost. Anecdotally, although there are plenty of people up and about - on the roads - early in the day (like me), who might be slightly disadvantaged, there are far more about later on who would benefit.

[Digga]

TuxRacer said:

Altering daylight hours or alterating that we alter daylight hours?

If the clocks changed daily, I think we could make it work.

[Digga]

I'd say there's always more people up and about around 6pm than 6am. I'm pretty certain this is not something I have imagined.

If this is the case, then whatever benefits the former sector of population - even at cost to the latter - is surely 'better all round'?

This means, I'd say, that during hours of darkness at the end, rather than begining of the day there is a greater consumption of electricity for lighting.

As for sport, not just professionals, but amateurs will benefit if/when the daylight is better in evening as opposed to mornings.

[Digga]

JagLover said:

rs1952 said:

JagLover said:

Our natural day, determined by our place on the world's surface is GMT. We should stick with that all year around without BST.

Instead every year when we revert back to it, people whinge about less light in the evenings. What about light in the morning?, when many people need to either work, or get to work.

What our "natural day" is, and what most people call a "natural day," are two different things.

Most of the population are in bed for some, perhaps small, part of the time when it is light out (except in the deepest depths of winter), then stay up well after it gets dark (except perhaps in the hight of summer for a very small few)

I agree that it would appear odd for the "home" of GMT to be permanently on GMT+1, it would better suit the majority of the population.

As for the whingeing Scottish farmers, if they want their own time zone, let 'em go for it. Or alternatively just take no notice of the clock on the wall and more notice of the body clocks of their animals

and what of the body clocks of humans?

The fading light is one of the signals to the body that it is time to go to sleep. Artificially changing the clock to make it more light in the evenings will increase problems with lack of sleep.

We at this time of the year - which I think forms the crux of the argument - it's only light about 0730 and gets dark around 7pm. So we have less than 12 hours of daylight. (And of course from here until midwinter it gets worse.)

Unless you;re planning on doing some sort of 13 hour sleepathon, or your mum puts you to bed at 630pm, I can't really see how shifting things about to give us a bit more light in thje evening is detrimental.

[Digga]

Kermit power said:

I think it's absurd for the country which gave the world its time zones to even contemplate moving to a different one!

You obviously don't talk to forgeigners much. Or if you do they're all 'market's people who know when the FTSE, NYSE etc. start.

Never ceases to amaze me how they never (not even remotely) equate GMT to bing the time in the UK. "What time is it in England then?"

No one gives a fk about the fact that the UK once had an empire.

Edited by Digga on Friday 29th October 16:44

[Digga]

Kermit power said:

Digga said:

Kermit power said:

I think it's absurd for the country which gave the world its time zones to even contemplate moving to a different one!

You obviously don;t talk to forgeigners much.

Never ceases to amaze me how they never (not even remotely) equate GMT to bing the time in the UK. "What time is it in England then?" :banghead"

No one give a fk about the fact that the UK once had an empire.

Apart from living in France for 3 years, Spain for another and spending around 1/3 of my working time in mainland Europe for most of the last 15 years then no, I suppose I don't talk to many foreigners.

That, however, is completely irrelevant, as is the thought that it has anything to do with whether we had an empire. The establishment of GMT, lines of longitude and timezones running from it are down to maritime timekeeping in the first place, and subsequently to the synchronisation of railway timetables.

Mind you, if it makes you feel better to be able to bleat about the fact that we no longer have an empire, you crack on.

Well we don't and neither do any of the UK railways cross timezones for that matter.

And the thing about foreigners not equating GMT to being UK time; come on, admit that's true.

[Digga]

I realise the total number of daylight hours cannot be changed, but I still stand by my original assertion that altering clocks to shove more of those hours later in the day would be broadly beneficial.

I can see that for those dealing closely with people in other markets - mainland Europe, Far East or Americas - there could be other issues at play, but that's not everyone, by a long stretch.