Tories to Push Clock Changes

[Sylar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12517762

I wondered how many of you felt about this?

In essence, the Tories are (as they have been for a while) campaigning for the clocks to be pushed onto CET in order to increase the length of daylight. The thinking behind this, is to both boost tourism and outdoor activities, as well as reducing the number of road traffic accidents.

However, increasing these hours by jumping the clocks forward will mean it remains dark for an hour longer north of the border, thus increasing the danger of the morning commute, particularly as this will likely ensure darkness during the school run.

They really don't appear to give one ounce of thought to those in Scotland.

We need a 21st century Guy Fawkes :agree:

[Removed]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12517762

I wondered how many of you felt about this?

In essence, the Tories are (as they have been for a while) campaigning for the clocks to be pushed onto CET in order to increase the length of daylight. The thinking behind this, is to both boost tourism and outdoor activities, as well as reducing the number of road traffic accidents.

However, increasing these hours by jumping the clocks forward will mean it remains dark for an hour longer north of the border, thus increasing the danger of the morning commute, particularly as this will likely ensure darkness during the school run.

They really don't appear to give one ounce of thought to those in Scotland.

We need a 21st century Guy Fawkes :agree:

:agree: Nothing new there then.

We should tell them to gtf. Just have different time zones if they want it that much.

[IWasThere2016]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12517762

I wondered how many of you felt about this?

In essence, the Tories are (as they have been for a while) campaigning for the clocks to be pushed onto CET in order to increase the length of daylight. The thinking behind this, is to both boost tourism and outdoor activities, as well as reducing the number of road traffic accidents.

However, increasing these hours by jumping the clocks forward will mean it remains dark for an hour longer north of the border, thus increasing the danger of the morning commute, particularly as this will likely ensure darkness during the school run.

They really don't appear to give one ounce of thought to those in Scotland.

We need a 21st century Guy Fawkes :agree:

I like the idea personally .. why not do it for a few months of the year? Why does the present arrangement change every 6 months? Why couldnt if change earlier eg now, and later in the winter?

[CropleyWasGod]

It's got sod all to do with tourism. It's all to do with the City doing business with Europe.

They should just get out of their beds earlier.

I was a schoolkid at the the time of the experiment in the 60's, when the clocks didn't change back in winter. Was pretty hellish starting school in the dark. As I recall, the accident rate went up in the mornings.

[Greentinted]

Sould be left at GMT all the time.

[Speedy]

It's got sod all to do with tourism. It's all to do with the City doing business with Europe.

They should just get out of their beds earlier.

I was a schoolkid at the the time of the experiment in the 60's, when the clocks didn't change back in winter. Was pretty hellish starting school in the dark. As I recall, the accident rate went up in the mornings.

Not sure that's true. I was in Rome recently. I asked a guy if he ever fancied visiting the UK. He said no, couldn't be bothered with the hassle of changing his watch :greengrin

[GhostofBolivar]

Guy Fawkes was an evil, evil man. I sincerely doubt that the best way forward for our country is to be inspired by a religiously-motivated nutter who was essentially part of the 17th century's version on al-Qaeda.

[goosano]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12517762

However, increasing these hours by jumping the clocks forward will mean it remains dark for an hour longer north of the border, thus increasing the danger of the morning commute, particularly as this will likely ensure darkness during the school run.

They really don't appear to give one ounce of thought to those in Scotland.

:

You're quite wrong in your assertions. All the evidence from the last time we had this shows it reduces accidents in Scotland. The most dangerous time for kids is in the afternoon and the later pm sunset reduces accidents

[Beefster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12517762

I wondered how many of you felt about this?

In essence, the Tories are (as they have been for a while) campaigning for the clocks to be pushed onto CET in order to increase the length of daylight. The thinking behind this, is to both boost tourism and outdoor activities, as well as reducing the number of road traffic accidents.

However, increasing these hours by jumping the clocks forward will mean it remains dark for an hour longer north of the border, thus increasing the danger of the morning commute, particularly as this will likely ensure darkness during the school run.

They really don't appear to give one ounce of thought to those in Scotland.

We need a 21st century Guy Fawkes :agree:


:agree: Nothing new there then.

We should tell them to gtf. Just have different time zones if they want it that much.

TSSF, you're an expert on road safety?

A Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents spokesman said: "There will be road safety benefits - particularly in Scotland. We know that people in Scotland are concerned that accident rates will increase in dark mornings, but in fact the reduction in accidents in the afternoon/evening will more than offset any morning increase."

Those nasty Tories, um, I mean, Coalition looking to decrease the number of accidents. *******s.

[lapsedhibee]

I like the idea personally .. why not do it for a few months of the year? Why does the present arrangement change every 6 months? Why couldnt if change earlier eg now, and later in the winter?

Whatever the exact arrangement chosen, it should be one where fitba matches start at 3pm on Saturdays.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I just don't see any benefit for us, I don't like going to work in the dark. I don't pick my kid up from nursery until 6pm so this won't help for the dark months, it will still be dark.

The tourist thing is a red herring. the bulk of our tourists come in the summer months because it's warmer and they can walk the streets until 10pm, we are not suddenly going to get an influx in the winter because it gets dark at 5pm rather than 4pm.

The health thing is another red herring, who is going to become healthier because it is light for an extra hour at while you work in the afternoon as compared to an hour when you work in the morning?

I personally do my exercise in the morning before I go to work, as do a lot of other people.

[bighairyfaeleith]

TSSF, you're an expert on road safety?

A Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents spokesman said: "There will be road safety benefits - particularly in Scotland. We know that people in Scotland are concerned that accident rates will increase in dark mornings, but in fact the reduction in accidents in the afternoon/evening will more than offset any morning increase."

Those nasty Tories, um, I mean, Coalition looking to decrease the number of accidents. *******s.

How can they know that?

Seriously what test can they have carried out that can actually tell them that is how it will happen?

I have seen this quote before but have not seen anything meaningful to back it up.

[Beefster]

How can they know that?

Seriously what test can they have carried out that can actually tell them that is how it will happen?

I have seen this quote before but have not seen anything meaningful to back it up.

I'm sure RoSPA can tell you direct what research they are basing their quote on.

http://www.rospa.com/contactus/default.aspx

I'm going to take the word of an expert organisation, at face value, before 'experts' on Hibs.net. I think it's safe to assume that they can back up their statement though.

Is there anyone that you won't trust if it means a chance to have a go at the government? Either way, it's not difficult to find some back-up for their claim. Where's the evidence that it would cause more accidents for the vast majority of the Scottish population?

http://www.westminster.ac.uk/about/news-and-events/news/2010/daylight-saving-report-on-clock-change-concludes-that-scotland-would-benefit

This experiment was abandoned mainly because of a "panic" over the safety of children travelling to school on dark mornings which, argues Harris, turned out to be "a myth". The death toll on the roads continued its upward trend over this period. But analysis for the Department of Transport, taking into account other changes such as drink-driving laws, showed there were 11% fewer fatalities and serious injuries in England and Wales and 17% fewer in Scotland during the hours affected by the clock change. A small rise in morning accidents in northern Scotland was offset by a huge reduction in accidents in the afternoon. As Harris points out, children travel more in the evenings but tend only to be disadvantaged by dark mornings on school days, whereas they benefit from lighter evenings during weekends and school holidays. The 1968-71 experiment also did not introduce double summertime and so failed to record potential additional safety benefits of lighter summer months. Children in Scotland would gain up to 200 hours of useful daylight a year if the clocks were moved forward.

Taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/20/british-summer-time-changing-clocks-accidents-daylight

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm sure RoSPA can tell you direct what research they are basing their quote on.

http://www.rospa.com/contactus/default.aspx

I'm going to take the word of an expert organisation, at face value, before 'experts' on Hibs.net. I think it's safe to assume that they can back up their statement though.

Is there anyone that you won't trust if it means a chance to have a go at the government? Either way, it's not difficult to find some back-up for their claim. Where's the evidence that it would cause more accidents for the vast majority of the Scottish population?

http://www.westminster.ac.uk/about/news-and-events/news/2010/daylight-saving-report-on-clock-change-concludes-that-scotland-would-benefit

This experiment was abandoned mainly because of a "panic" over the safety of children travelling to school on dark mornings which, argues Harris, turned out to be "a myth". The death toll on the roads continued its upward trend over this period. But analysis for the Department of Transport, taking into account other changes such as drink-driving laws, showed there were 11% fewer fatalities and serious injuries in England and Wales and 17% fewer in Scotland during the hours affected by the clock change. A small rise in morning accidents in northern Scotland was offset by a huge reduction in accidents in the afternoon. As Harris points out, children travel more in the evenings but tend only to be disadvantaged by dark mornings on school days, whereas they benefit from lighter evenings during weekends and school holidays. The 1968-71 experiment also did not introduce double summertime and so failed to record potential additional safety benefits of lighter summer months. Children in Scotland would gain up to 200 hours of useful daylight a year if the clocks were moved forward.

Taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/20/british-summer-time-changing-clocks-accidents-daylight

Sorry where did I have a go at the government in any of my posts?

So basically we are basing it upon a trial in the 60's, I think it's safe to assume that roads are substantially different now from then, the volume of traffic has changed immensly. Now I'm not saying that this proves it one way or the other but I don't think we should be taking data from this period as proving the case for doing it now?

If it wasn't a tory idea would you be so behind it:wink:

[Beefster]

I just don't see any benefit for us, I don't like going to work in the dark. I don't pick my kid up from nursery until 6pm so this won't help for the dark months, it will still be dark.

The tourist thing is a red herring. the bulk of our tourists come in the summer months because it's warmer and they can walk the streets until 10pm, we are not suddenly going to get an influx in the winter because it gets dark at 5pm rather than 4pm.

The health thing is another red herring, who is going to become healthier because it is light for an extra hour at while you work in the afternoon as compared to an hour when you work in the morning?

I personally do my exercise in the morning before I go to work, as do a lot of other people.

Kids. None of them go outside and play in the morning before school, irrespective of how light it is, but some of them might in the afternoon. That's ignoring the research that claims that less kids will actually be killed by traffic.

It seems that you don't want it because you, personally, don't like it or won't benefit from it. If it saves one life isn't that a wee bit more important?

[Beefster]

Sorry where did I have a go at the government in any of my posts?

So basically we are basing it upon a trial in the 60's, I think it's safe to assume that roads are substantially different now from then, the volume of traffic has changed immensly. Now I'm not saying that this proves it one way or the other but I don't think we should be taking data from this period as proving the case for doing it now?

If it wasn't a tory idea would you be so behind it:wink:

Yup. Nothing to do with politics at all. I've always thought that it was barmy - especially when one of the main arguments is about farmers in the North of Scotland.

As for the 60's thing, there was research done in 1998 and 2010 - both concluded that it would be safer. There will have been more research carried out though. Have you found any research to the contrary?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Kids. None of them go outside and play in the morning before school, irrespective of how light it is, but some of them might in the afternoon. That's ignoring the research that claims that less kids will actually be killed by traffic.

It seems that you don't want it because you, personally, don't like it or won't benefit from it. If it saves one life isn't that a wee bit more important?

aye but how many kids won't be able to do PE outside in the morning before 11am in parts of scotland?

Not sure I like the idea of my kid standing in a dark playground waiting to be taken into the school. Might have changed since my day but do they not wait outside till the bell goes?

Your right, if it truly will save lives then yes I would be for it, but so far the evidence is woolly at best.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Yup. Nothing to do with politics at all. I've always thought that it was barmy - especially when one of the main arguments is about farmers in the North of Scotland.

As for the 60's thing, there was research done in 1998 and 2010 - both concluded that it would be safer. There will have been more research carried out though. Have you found any research to the contrary?

I haven't found any research to back it up, you gave me a link to a contact form and a summary of a report which just repeats the same bullet points in the op's link. Not exactly detailed info, all the news reports I have read seem to mention the same stats and figures with nothing about how they have came to get these figures.

They say things like we will get an extra 200 hours of daylight a year. But how is this made up, In the summer I don't need an extra hour at night, if it gets dark at 10pm or 11pm it really doesn't matter.

This is the problem I have, if they want us to support it then I want to see meaningful facts that show it will be better for people in scotland.

[Beefster]

aye but how many kids won't be able to do PE outside in the morning before 11am in parts of scotland?

Not sure I like the idea of my kid standing in a dark playground waiting to be taken into the school. Might have changed since my day but do they not wait outside till the bell goes?

Your right, if it truly will save lives then yes I would be for it, but so far the evidence is woolly at best.

Woolly how? Genuine question.


I haven't found any research to back it up, you gave me a link to a contact form and a summary of a report which just repeats the same bullet points in the op's link. Not exactly detailed info, all the news reports I have read seem to mention the same stats and figures with nothing about how they have came to get these figures.

They say things like we will get an extra 200 hours of daylight a year. But how is this made up, In the summer I don't need an extra hour at night, if it gets dark at 10pm or 11pm it really doesn't matter.

This is the problem I have, if they want us to support it then I want to see meaningful facts that show it will be better for people in scotland.

If it saves lives, it's better IMHO.

You're not going to get more meaningful facts than 'it saved more lived overall' (which presumably they can quantify) unless they do another trial.

[Sylar]

Guy Fawkes was an evil, evil man. I sincerely doubt that the best way forward for our country is to be inspired by a religiously-motivated nutter who was essentially part of the 17th century's version on al-Qaeda.

It was a hyperbolic statement of discontent with our current "politicians", not a sincere suggestion.


TSSF, you're an expert on road safety?

A Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents spokesman said: "There will be road safety benefits - particularly in Scotland. We know that people in Scotland are concerned that accident rates will increase in dark mornings, but in fact the reduction in accidents in the afternoon/evening will more than offset any morning increase."

Those nasty Tories, um, I mean, Coalition looking to decrease the number of accidents. *******s.

Perhaps the thread title is indeed misleading - I don't mean this as a Tory bashing session, more of a snipe at politicians in Westminster in general. I'm pretty sure the revision of this idea was initially put forward by Gordon Brown and Labour if I recall. The use of Tories in the title is because our current government is lead by a mostly Tory cabinet.


I'm sure RoSPA can tell you direct what research they are basing their quote on.

http://www.rospa.com/contactus/default.aspx

I'm going to take the word of an expert organisation, at face value, before 'experts' on Hibs.net. I think it's safe to assume that they can back up their statement though.

Is there anyone that you won't trust if it means a chance to have a go at the government? Either way, it's not difficult to find some back-up for their claim. Where's the evidence that it would cause more accidents for the vast majority of the Scottish population?

http://www.westminster.ac.uk/about/news-and-events/news/2010/daylight-saving-report-on-clock-change-concludes-that-scotland-would-benefit

This experiment was abandoned mainly because of a "panic" over the safety of children travelling to school on dark mornings which, argues Harris, turned out to be "a myth". The death toll on the roads continued its upward trend over this period. But analysis for the Department of Transport, taking into account other changes such as drink-driving laws, showed there were 11% fewer fatalities and serious injuries in England and Wales and 17% fewer in Scotland during the hours affected by the clock change. A small rise in morning accidents in northern Scotland was offset by a huge reduction in accidents in the afternoon. As Harris points out, children travel more in the evenings but tend only to be disadvantaged by dark mornings on school days, whereas they benefit from lighter evenings during weekends and school holidays. The 1968-71 experiment also did not introduce double summertime and so failed to record potential additional safety benefits of lighter summer months. Children in Scotland would gain up to 200 hours of useful daylight a year if the clocks were moved forward.

Taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/20/british-summer-time-changing-clocks-accidents-daylight

OK, so we're citing a study done over 40 years ago.

I can't find figures for 1968-71, but the number of people who own a car exceeds 34 million people in the UK. As a result, there are many more potential threats to children when this "study" was conducted back in the late 60's/70's.

I see the benefits of arriving home from work in the provincial seasons and being able to do things outdoors for a period, instead of being limited on account of light conditions.

However, it surely stands to reason that the safety of children going to school would be compromised in Scotland by such a move? Common sense would suggest that a lot of schools (I can't think of many contrary examples around here) begin at 9am, meaning the school run coincides (and causes further congestion) with people rushing to get to work. This means kids are walking to school in the dark, as well as being on public transport or being dropped off by parents. However, most kids finish at 3.30pm, so are walking home in the light at any time of the year, so obviously the afternoon's won't be affected by such a change, as there is less traffic on the road then, prior to rush-hour kicking in around 4.30-5.30pm.

On the shortest day in Aberdeen this year, the sun didn't come up until 8.42am in the morning. These plans would see it being nearly 10am in the morning before the sun rises in the depths of winter. That's an extreme example, I know, but on the best of times this winter, I've arrived in Aberdeen around quarter to 8 and it's just been getting light. These plans would see it remain dark until nearly 9am, even as we move into Spring.

I don't deny that the plan will have benefits, but to disregard the Scottish opinion or wave off safety concerns based on a study conducted over 40 years ago with incomparable population or transport statistics is imbecilic.

[Beefster]

It was a hyperbolic statement of discontent with our current "politicians", not a sincere suggestion.



Perhaps the thread title is indeed misleading - I don't mean this as a Tory bashing session, more of a snipe at politicians in Westminster in general. I'm pretty sure the revision of this idea was initially put forward by Gordon Brown and Labour if I recall. The use of Tories in the title is because our current government is lead by a mostly Tory cabinet.



OK, so we're citing a study done over 40 years ago.

I can't find figures for 1968-71, but the number of people who own a car exceeds 34 million people in the UK. As a result, there are many more potential threats to children when this "study" was conducted back in the late 60's/70's.

I see the benefits of arriving home from work in the provincial seasons and being able to do things outdoors for a period, instead of being limited on account of light conditions.

However, it surely stands to reason that the safety of children going to school would be compromised in Scotland by such a move? Common sense would suggest that a lot of schools (I can't think of many contrary examples around here) begin at 9am, meaning the school run coincides (and causes further congestion) with people rushing to get to work. This means kids are walking to school in the dark, as well as being on public transport or being dropped off by parents. However, most kids finish at 3.30pm, so are walking home in the light at any time of the year, so obviously the afternoon's won't be affected by such a change, as there is less traffic on the road then, prior to rush-hour kicking in around 4.30-5.30pm.

On the shortest day in Aberdeen this year, the sun didn't come up until 8.42am in the morning. These plans would see it being nearly 10am in the morning before the sun rises in the depths of winter. That's an extreme example, I know, but on the best of times this winter, I've arrived in Aberdeen around quarter to 8 and it's just been getting light. These plans would see it remain dark until nearly 9am, even as we move into Spring.

I don't deny that the plan will have benefits, but to disregard the Scottish opinion or wave off safety concerns based on a study conducted over 40 years ago with incomparable population or transport statistics is imbecilic.

There has been research done since and I can't believe that none of it took into account changes in conditions since the late 60's/early 70's. The only way to prove the theories one way or another is presumably to have a trial.

At the moment, the objections seem to be based on ignorance (in the nicest possible sense) of the research that the proposals are based on, anecdotal evidence or on an individual's preferences.

Here is some of the RoSPA's justification for backing the proposals. Whether you agree with their stance or not, you can guarantee the RoSPA don't take risks where the lives of the population, and particularly kids, are involved.

http://rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/lighter-evenings/default.aspx?nf=99

[Sylar]

There has been research done since and I can't believe that none of it took into account changes in conditions since the late 60's/early 70's. The only way to prove the theories one way or another is presumably to have a trial.

At the moment, the objections seem to be based on ignorance (in the nicest possible sense) of the research that the proposals are based on, anecdotal evidence or on an individual's preferences.

Here is some of the RoSPA's justification for backing the proposals. Whether you agree with their stance or not, you can guarantee the RoSPA don't take risks where the lives of the population, and particularly kids, are involved.

http://rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/lighter-evenings/default.aspx?nf=99

Every paper I can see appears to utilise transport and population data from the time, with no correction used to current data. Even the RoSPA continually cite the latter analyses from the earlier study, backing this up with surveys of public opinion on the matter.

A "trial" is a good idea in theory, but if said trial ends up with increased deaths in the North on account of reduced light conditions during the morning school run, do parents have some recourse to take action in the event of serious injury or death because of a government-led initiative?

I agree that my "opinions" aren't fully grounded in scientific data, but then, from what I can see of the published material, neither are the campaigns in favour. They make vague assertions about how these conditions would improve road safety and reduce accidents, even predicting the magnitude of reduction, but from the papers I've read, none of them cite a source for their data or a method of statistical analysis via which they've come to their conclusions. One paper, published in 1989 tries to use the data from 1968-71, identify a regression factor from the 3 years and then extrapolate that to arrive at current day "lives saved". A basic check before publishing this paper would note that the same regression factor predicts a population in 2008 of 83 million people. Sadly, many of the campaigners continue to cite this paper as a reason for changing (though the RoSPA do seem to distance themselves from it).

The link provides nothing but more opinion and assertions, with no basis for some of their points. An example:

Extra evening daylight protects vulnerable road users like children, the elderly, cyclists and motorcyclists, making them more visible to motorists. Motorists are more tired after a day’s work and concentration levels are lower. Children tend to go straight to school in the morning but often do other things on their way home, increasing their exposure to road dangers. Social trips are generally made in the afternoon and evening.

Taking out the wider argument, just look at the language they use in trying to justify this - they could be right in many cases, but it's supposition. Some school children do engage in extra-curricular activities, but a large number don't and I'd be fairly confident predicting (guessing, whatever) that more children than not return home once school finishes, in moderately light conditions.

They also fail to address the impact of shifting accident peaks with their articles - why is it reasonable for them to say that increased light will reduce accidents in the evening, but fail to address the fact that by reducing light in the morning (especially when many people are tired when commuting to work (speculation to an extent, I know)) you increase the risk of accidents happening then?

I agree with some of the arguments (lighter evenings means more time do engage in outdoor activity, reduction in energy demands) but the argument against it from Scotland is pretty compelling. It doesn't really matter if that argument is based on genuine safety concern or opinion. The last time I checked, MP's were able to express concerns of their constituents without the need for them to provide a scientific briefing in advance.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Did i read somwhere that the drink driving laws where introduced during the time of the last trial as well, surely this would have had an impact on accidents on the road therefore skewing any figures??

[Beefster]

Every paper I can see appears to utilise transport and population data from the time, with no correction used to current data. Even the RoSPA continually cite the latter analyses from the earlier study, backing this up with surveys of public opinion on the matter.

A "trial" is a good idea in theory, but if said trial ends up with increased deaths in the North on account of reduced light conditions during the morning school run, do parents have some recourse to take action in the event of serious injury or death because of a government-led initiative?

I agree that my "opinions" aren't fully grounded in scientific data, but then, from what I can see of the published material, neither are the campaigns in favour. They make vague assertions about how these conditions would improve road safety and reduce accidents, even predicting the magnitude of reduction, but from the papers I've read, none of them cite a source for their data or a method of statistical analysis via which they've come to their conclusions. One paper, published in 1989 tries to use the data from 1968-71, identify a regression factor from the 3 years and then extrapolate that to arrive at current day "lives saved". A basic check before publishing this paper would note that the same regression factor predicts a population in 2008 of 83 million people. Sadly, many of the campaigners continue to cite this paper as a reason for changing (though the RoSPA do seem to distance themselves from it).

The link provides nothing but more opinion and assertions, with no basis for some of their points. An example:

Extra evening daylight protects vulnerable road users like children, the elderly, cyclists and motorcyclists, making them more visible to motorists. Motorists are more tired after a day’s work and concentration levels are lower. Children tend to go straight to school in the morning but often do other things on their way home, increasing their exposure to road dangers. Social trips are generally made in the afternoon and evening.

Taking out the wider argument, just look at the language they use in trying to justify this - they could be right in many cases, but it's supposition. Some school children do engage in extra-curricular activities, but a large number don't and I'd be fairly confident predicting (guessing, whatever) that more children than not return home once school finishes, in moderately light conditions.

They also fail to address the impact of shifting accident peaks with their articles - why is it reasonable for them to say that increased light will reduce accidents in the evening, but fail to address the fact that by reducing light in the morning (especially when many people are tired when commuting to work (speculation to an extent, I know)) you increase the risk of accidents happening then?

I agree with some of the arguments (lighter evenings means more time do engage in outdoor activity, reduction in energy demands) but the argument against it from Scotland is pretty compelling. It doesn't really matter if that argument is based on genuine safety concern or opinion. The last time I checked, MP's were able to express concerns of their constituents without the need for them to provide a scientific briefing in advance.

I don't want to go round in circles but I don't think the argument for the whole of Scotland is compelling. It may be for places like Aberdeen, Inverness, the Shetlands and Orkney but the vast majority of the population lives in the central belt.

The bit in bold - the theory (and I think this was confirmed in the last trial) is that people are more alert in the morning so less likely to walk out in front of a car, lose concentration on the roads and so on.

If folk want to oppose it, I'm not going to convince them otherwise when organisations that dedicate their existence to safety can't. I've yet to hear a coherent argument against the change, backed by any sort of evidence, though.

[Beefster]

Did i read somwhere that the drink driving laws where introduced during the time of the last trial as well, surely this would have had an impact on accidents on the road therefore skewing any figures??

If it wasn't taken into account at the time, it certainly was eventually.

[Phil D. Rolls]

As a Daily Mail reader, I have only one question. Will changing BST affect the value of my house? :confused:

[Peevemor]

As a Daily Mail reader, I have only one question. Will changing BST affect the value of my house? :confused:

Given your user name, I'd have thought BLT would be more your thing.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Given your user name, I'd have thought BLT would be more your thing.

:greengrin I actually prefer tuna mayonnaise though.

[IWasThere2016]

There I was at 07.20 this morning leaving the hoose for work, and it was daylight. So, with a change it would be 08.20 and daylight .. I am assuming the majority of kids will leave home after this for school so what's the issue.

They could then use the extra hour post school for some exercise and battle the issue of obesity .. eg a bigger risk/danger than a small % of RTAs :cool2:

Seemples! :aok:

[steakbake]

I reckon we should put the Western Isles into a different time zone, if that's their problem. An extra hour a day makes no difference when you are decades behind anyway :wink:

[steakbake]

:greengrin I actually prefer tuna mayonnaise though.

With or without sweetcorn?

[Phil D. Rolls]

With or without sweetcorn?

Anyway it comes, probably without if there is a choice.

[bawheid]

Anyway it comes, probably without if there is a choice.

Is this how you get to 17,000-odd posts?? :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is this how you get to 17,000-odd posts?? :greengrin

Oh no, I will talk nonsense on any subject. Sandwiches is just one of the many topics I use to fill space. :aok:

[steakbake]

Anyway it comes, probably without if there is a choice.

Where do you stand on the idea of mixed peppers with the tuna mayo? I used to like this but increasingly, it gets on my nerves.

I am partial to a bit of curry in an egg mayonnaise mix.

Any other suggestions for sandwich flavours?

[Marabou Stork]

As a Daily Mail reader, I have only one question. Will changing BST affect the value of my house? :confused:

No. However, studies have shown increased rates of several cancers due to being in the GMT+1 timezone.

[Posh Swanny]

Interested to know what "the school run" was like in terms of traffic in 1968-1971? Was it just as chaotic as it is today? I struggle to believe that the scenario played out daily at Flora Stevenson primary school (and probably many others across Scotland) would be anything other than disastrous should it take place under cover of darkness for four months every year.

[CropleyWasGod]

Interested to know what "the school run" was like in terms of traffic in 1968-1971? Was it just as chaotic as it is today? I struggle to believe that the scenario played out daily at Flora Stevenson primary school (and probably many others across Scotland) would be anything other than disastrous should it take place under cover of darkness for four months every year.

It was nothing like it. Car ownership was nowhere near as much as it is now. Kids generally walked to school, or got the bus. That is why it is daft to try and use the lessons of 40 years ago and apply them to today.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Where do you stand on the idea of mixed peppers with the tuna mayo? I used to like this but increasingly, it gets on my nerves.

I am partial to a bit of curry in an egg mayonnaise mix.

Any other suggestions for sandwich flavours?

Peanut butter and jam.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No. However, studies have shown increased rates of several cancers due to being in the GMT+1 timezone.

Is the Duke of Edinburgh involved?

[Leicester Fan]

This is not a party political thing, people have been talking about this for years.

Personally I'm against it (as is the Daily Mail).

[bighairyfaeleith]

This is not a party political thing, people have been talking about this for years.

Personally I'm against it (as is the Daily Mail).

:agree:

[New Corrie]

What is the English Haters stance on all this? I know they are very busy emptying our prisons and being the criminal's friend, but I would be interested to hear their position on this issue.

[CropleyWasGod]

What is the English Haters stance on all this? I know they are very busy emptying our prisons and being the criminal's friend, but I would be interested to hear their position on this issue.

If you mean the SNP, they had a spokesman on Newsnight the other night. Quite clear that they want proper studies carried out.

[New Corrie]

If you mean the SNP, they had a spokesman on Newsnight the other night. Quite clear that they want proper studies carried out.


Thank you