I'd totally forgotten saying it, but you didn't respond to what I said last year? *thinks*
Option A: Have GMT all year round. Problem: in summer we sleep during the light in the morning and then wander around in the dark in the evening, and it'd be nicer to have more light.
Option B: Have BST (or BST+1, or 2) all year round. Problem: in winter, we get up in the dark, and people don't like that much.
Option C: What we have now. Problem, some of those above, plus we have to keep changing.
Option D: Fix sunrise to be 8am. Problem: confusion of doom, all clocks have to change every day. Though we'd get used to it. But I think bad.
When you imply what we're doing is stupid, do you mean one of the other options is less stupid? If so, which, or one I hadn't thought of?
I guess you're thinking of B (or maybe A?), but you should really say so :) Do you think the problems don't matter, or are just better than changing the clocks?
The only time of the year when shortage of daylight is going to be an issue is the winter - hence changing to GMT seems sensible at that time. However, GMT is the standard timezone and BST is an alteration from that, which seems the wrong way round somehow...
In the summer the evenings are light until very late so why is there an issue here?
It just seems bizarre that we should use a system of changing the clocks twice a year for such a minor problem.
Sorry, that post was a bit hasty. You're right, no-one's really sure it's worth it, I'm not sure how much the less artificial light matters.
OTOH, I think I do find it weird to go to work in the dark! And it's light in the evening in summer, yes, but I'm up till gone midnight, and midnight light is nicer than midnight dark, even with a lightish ngiht.
The rationale is supposed to be more efficient use of daylight.
It's stupid to think that one size fits all, which is an assumption you have to make to support the current policy (or really any clock-changing policy). But even if it did it would be more efficient for everyone to change their alarm clock twice a year than all of their clocks twice a year. (Well, excepting those that change themselves, which I think are the majority in this household now.)
The rationale is supposed to be more efficient use of daylight.
Surely though that doesn't fit with it being light when most people get up in the winter. This means a vast majority of people are wasting an hour or so of light first thing every morning.
it would be more efficient for everyone to change their alarm clock twice a year than all of their clocks twice a year.
Is that so? It'll be a near-impossible task to make a culture where everyone does get up ealier/later. And you'll have to reschedule lots of lots of things.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 12:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 01:37 pm (UTC)Option A: Have GMT all year round. Problem: in summer we sleep during the light in the morning and then wander around in the dark in the evening, and it'd be nicer to have more light.
Option B: Have BST (or BST+1, or 2) all year round. Problem: in winter, we get up in the dark, and people don't like that much.
Option C: What we have now. Problem, some of those above, plus we have to keep changing.
Option D: Fix sunrise to be 8am. Problem: confusion of doom, all clocks have to change every day. Though we'd get used to it. But I think bad.
When you imply what we're doing is stupid, do you mean one of the other options is less stupid? If so, which, or one I hadn't thought of?
I guess you're thinking of B (or maybe A?), but you should really say so :) Do you think the problems don't matter, or are just better than changing the clocks?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 04:10 pm (UTC)The only time of the year when shortage of daylight is going to be an issue is the winter - hence changing to GMT seems sensible at that time. However, GMT is the standard timezone and BST is an alteration from that, which seems the wrong way round somehow...
In the summer the evenings are light until very late so why is there an issue here?
It just seems bizarre that we should use a system of changing the clocks twice a year for such a minor problem.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 01:52 pm (UTC)OTOH, I think I do find it weird to go to work in the dark! And it's light in the evening in summer, yes, but I'm up till gone midnight, and midnight light is nicer than midnight dark, even with a lightish ngiht.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 04:11 pm (UTC)Yes, but in the winter the evenings then get dark an hour earlier too, which people don't like that much either.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 08:11 pm (UTC)The rationale is supposed to be more efficient use of daylight.
It's stupid to think that one size fits all, which is an assumption you have to make to support the current policy (or really any clock-changing policy). But even if it did it would be more efficient for everyone to change their alarm clock twice a year than all of their clocks twice a year. (Well, excepting those that change themselves, which I think are the majority in this household now.)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 01:05 pm (UTC)Surely though that doesn't fit with it being light when most people get up in the winter. This means a vast majority of people are wasting an hour or so of light first thing every morning.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 02:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 01:56 pm (UTC)Is that so? It'll be a near-impossible task to make a culture where everyone does get up ealier/later. And you'll have to reschedule lots of lots of things.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 03:34 pm (UTC)