- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
OH NO!!! :shock: Just when we thought this stupid idea had been lost in the long grass, it raises its ugly head yet again:
Clocks could move forward one hour as Government considers adopting continental time
Britain has moved a step closer to adopting continental time by putting clocks ahead by an hour after the Government performed a u-turn to back a Bill paving the way for the change.
By David Millward, Transport Editor
6:45AM GMT 03 Jan 2012
Ministers have agreed to support the measure drawn up by Rebecca Harris, Tory MP for Castle Point, which would see a detailed study being carried out by the Government on the impact of the change.
Her Private Member’s Bill comes before the Commons later this month and, given the Government’s support, is expected to proceed unless it is talked out by opponents.
Should the new arrangements be adopted, the clocks would not be put back in October. They would, however, be put forward by one hour the following March, as normal.
Then in October of the following year, the clocks would be put back by one hour.
This would mean that dawn and dusk will take place one hour later than they do at the moment, leading to lighter evenings and darker mornings.
The original version of the Bill, which was opposed by the Government, would have triggered an automatic trial of what is known as Daylight-saving time if a study found that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages
But following negotiations with ministers the revised version has put in additional safeguards before any trial takes place.
Under the amended Bill, any changes would then have to be supported by both Houses of Parliament, should the independent study support pushing the clocks forward.
The devolved Governments in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh would also have to be persuaded to back the change. Until now putting the clocks forward has been opposed in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
David Cameron has in the past been agnostic about whether the clocks should go forward on a permanent basis, arguing that those who supported the change should “make the case” for the reform.
Ed Davey, a business minister told The Daily Telegraph: “This is a step on the way to enable the debate to continue based on evidence from a detailed study,” he said.
In the past strongest support for the proposals has come from the Department for Transport after its road safety strategy showed that the change could cut road deaths by 80 a year.
The study, by the TRL, formerly the Transport Research Laboratory, also estimated that 212 fewer people would be seriously injured.
Even in Scotland, where winter mornings would be darker, it is estimated that there would be a fall in casualties.
The Department for Transport also believed that the switch would also save energy, cut carbon emissions and improve the quality of life.
“There are so many arguments in favour. Successive transport ministers have said that this would have significant road safety benefits,” Rebecca Harris said.
“There are other benefits such as longer evenings enabling people to take more exercise.”
She said lighter evenings would also benefit the tourism industry, which would have the benefits of lighter evenings.
The proposals were backed by Robert Gifford, Executive Director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
"Lighter evenings in winter will lead to fewer road deaths and injuries. This is because more people are killed and injured in the evening in winter than in the morning and because the human eye finds it harder to detect movement as it grows darker.”
However those who oppose the change point out that a previous trial in which the clocks were not put back in October, leaving Britain one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time, was abandoned after three years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... -time.html
If you get more road deaths and injuries during darkness, then they'll occur when it's dark, whichever end of the day that is. Some people just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that winter days are much shorter than summer ones.
Clocks could move forward one hour as Government considers adopting continental time
Britain has moved a step closer to adopting continental time by putting clocks ahead by an hour after the Government performed a u-turn to back a Bill paving the way for the change.
By David Millward, Transport Editor
6:45AM GMT 03 Jan 2012
Ministers have agreed to support the measure drawn up by Rebecca Harris, Tory MP for Castle Point, which would see a detailed study being carried out by the Government on the impact of the change.
Her Private Member’s Bill comes before the Commons later this month and, given the Government’s support, is expected to proceed unless it is talked out by opponents.
Should the new arrangements be adopted, the clocks would not be put back in October. They would, however, be put forward by one hour the following March, as normal.
Then in October of the following year, the clocks would be put back by one hour.
This would mean that dawn and dusk will take place one hour later than they do at the moment, leading to lighter evenings and darker mornings.
The original version of the Bill, which was opposed by the Government, would have triggered an automatic trial of what is known as Daylight-saving time if a study found that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages
But following negotiations with ministers the revised version has put in additional safeguards before any trial takes place.
Under the amended Bill, any changes would then have to be supported by both Houses of Parliament, should the independent study support pushing the clocks forward.
The devolved Governments in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh would also have to be persuaded to back the change. Until now putting the clocks forward has been opposed in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
David Cameron has in the past been agnostic about whether the clocks should go forward on a permanent basis, arguing that those who supported the change should “make the case” for the reform.
Ed Davey, a business minister told The Daily Telegraph: “This is a step on the way to enable the debate to continue based on evidence from a detailed study,” he said.
In the past strongest support for the proposals has come from the Department for Transport after its road safety strategy showed that the change could cut road deaths by 80 a year.
The study, by the TRL, formerly the Transport Research Laboratory, also estimated that 212 fewer people would be seriously injured.
Even in Scotland, where winter mornings would be darker, it is estimated that there would be a fall in casualties.
The Department for Transport also believed that the switch would also save energy, cut carbon emissions and improve the quality of life.
“There are so many arguments in favour. Successive transport ministers have said that this would have significant road safety benefits,” Rebecca Harris said.
“There are other benefits such as longer evenings enabling people to take more exercise.”
She said lighter evenings would also benefit the tourism industry, which would have the benefits of lighter evenings.
The proposals were backed by Robert Gifford, Executive Director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
"Lighter evenings in winter will lead to fewer road deaths and injuries. This is because more people are killed and injured in the evening in winter than in the morning and because the human eye finds it harder to detect movement as it grows darker.”
However those who oppose the change point out that a previous trial in which the clocks were not put back in October, leaving Britain one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time, was abandoned after three years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... -time.html
If you get more road deaths and injuries during darkness, then they'll occur when it's dark, whichever end of the day that is. Some people just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that winter days are much shorter than summer ones.