Oh No! - Not this bag of tired old sh ite again !

RE: eh!

So - you finally accept that we WILL be two hours ahead, not one.</p>

Interesting.</p>

The positives then?</p>

 

RE: eh!

i knew all along the plan would be to go from GMT +1 to GMT +2 in summer, a one hour change, i was mislead by this post:

"The plan is to put the clocks forward one hour this March, and then another hour next March. That's two hours by my calculations."

that insinuates 2 hours forward thats all.

positives? look at that poll result.

the negatives suggested are these:

more road accidents - all the people in know can give the stats to say it will mean less deaths/accidents, therefore this is a pointless option.

job more difficult - a few farmers/posties only, majority wouldnt be bothered.

harder to travel - i cant understand how it could affect this at all.

harder to get up in the mornings - how ridiculous. ever heard of an alarm.

dislike change - conservative twits, without change you get nowhere.

harder for farmers - if they all just went one year without their new 30 grand land rover and gave it back to the government i would love it.

no good for scots/north - an extra 10 mins of semi darkness to save even one childs life in the evening is worth it in my opinion.

do not like dark mornings - fair enough thats their opinion, but most people wont give a toss and that is reflected in the poll.

would make no difference - well thats not a reason to disapprove is it!!!

loss of english identity - haha once again, how ridiculous! its the bloody time ffs. "oh, we must have different time to those frogs and krauts how horrible to be on the same time zone as them"

confusing to change clocks - people that thick should be sent to doncaster.

dont know - dont vote then, how stupid.

concerned about children going to school - well its already pitch black in winter when they leave school....

the dark alters peoples moods - theres still going to be the same amount of light, just more of it when the majority are awake, surely leading to less depression.

increase in crime - oh yes, of course, by having lighter evenings those muggers and burglars would of course rob people more (hint: sarcasm). once again - ridiculous.

 

RE: Its been done before 1968 -71

I remember walking to school in the dark as well

 

And the strongest argument against doing it

and the only one needed.

IT WOULD PUT US IN THE WRONG TIME ZONE!

We are where we are on the globe.

 

RE: A poll on the subject

Surely the worst times for road safety are dusk and dawn....perhaps they should be trying to persuade more people to use their headlights more often.....at the moment I rarely drive without them on, not only when it's dark, but also at 4 in the afternoon and 7 in the morning when it's light but still gloomy - unbelievable the number of people that don't bother though.

 

So that arbitrary psuedo fact is worth those likely additional deaths then

Adapt and survive.</p>

 

RE: So that arbitrary psuedo fact is worth those likely additional deaths then

As I've already said - concentrate on getting people to put their bloody lights on when it's gloomy.

 

Read the RoSPA case

then get to grips with the argument that impact of the measure is likely a reduction in carbon emmissions and given the current focus on this particular issue then I think that, like no smoking in pubs, the outcome is innevitable.</p>

 

RE: Read the RoSPA case

It really is one of the most ridiculous proposals.


"Road casualty rates increase with the arrival of darker evenings and worsening weather conditions." Worsening weather conditions being the key here, so if you take these proposals and make it darker, later, in the mornings you are thereby more likely driving in a deeper frost than you would normally so you'd be more likely to have accidents then.

"Most European countries follow Central European Time" - Yes, that's because most countries are, naturally, in a different longitude and thereby a different timezone!

 

I dont bother

unless I feel that visibility is poor. If it is a little dull but I can still see for 5 miles then I dont see the point</p>

 

The longditude of spain, france, belgium, holland, norway?

Not to mention western germany, denmark &amp; western Italy.</p>

I suspect more accidents happen on winter evenings when folks are driving home, in the dark, after after a day at work.</p>

I hate driving in the dark on a night.</p>

Driving on Dark mornings is much easier as I feel more alert.</p>

Don't know if statistics support this or not.</p>

I think resistance to this is merely a manifestation of conservatism.</p>

Bring inches, feet, pounds &amp; shillings back!</p>

 

RE: I dont bother

Well it's not about seeing the road, it's about seeing other road users easier...check out how easily you spot a car with lights on as opposed to one without

 

RE: A poll on the subject

Never mind the arguments about daylight. Why the chuff would we want a statue of a South African in Trafalgar Square??? What on earth was the significance of that question in the poll?

 

Well, according to those tripey little statistics

The overall feeling is still a resounding NO in both London AND Scotland.</p>

Next!</p>

 

The poll results say NO anyway

 

RE: The poll results say NO anyway

Fair enough, but what was the point in asking the question anyway??

 

said yes

to being on gmt+1 all the time didnt it? that would so something at least

 

38% for GMT +2 and 47% For GMT +1

I make that a minority on both counts.</p>

 

wrong

as shown, france spain and algeria are on +1/+2

 

you fail to mention

that there are just 42% against the GMT+1.

and that when people are told that moving the times will reduce road deaths 74% of people agree.