FEW SITUATIONS can be more daunting than to find yourself suddenly propelled to Parliament, only to find that your name has been selected, by ballot, to research, prepare, and present a Private Members Bill on behalf of the Nation’s voters. Even more daunting when it falls upon you to choose a suitable cause; when you have only limited political experience; when the country finds itself on the brink of financial ruin – and you have just fought a tiring, blood-thirsty, political battle with a morally corrupt sitting MP.
Having just defeated Bob Spink in last May’s General Election – in a contest which few thought she could win, our new MP, Rebecca Harris, chose not to select a soft option; but finally come to grips with an issue that has polarised the British public ever since Railway Time was introduced in 1840. She proposed that the new Coalition Government seriously investigate the pros and cons regarding Britain’s Daylight Saving Time – including the option of dispensing with GMT and adopting Central European Time instead.
Rebecca’s choice of Bill had been prompted from the time she was answering her young baby’s calls each morning. ‘Why is it so light this early, when everyone else is in bed?’ she had asked herself. ‘Why can’t we put the clocks forward an extra hour and have the benefit of all this daylight in the evening – when everyone can enjoy it?’
It seemed to be a simple solution, to which there would be increasing benefits all round. An ageing population would enjoy more sun in the evenings; children would have more light in which to play after school; families would have more time to enjoy their gardens – and everyone’s health would surely benefit.
Why had it not already been done?
But, as Rebecca was soon to find out, it is not as clear cut as that. Her research showed that there had been numerous attempts to arrive at a utopian solution to maximising the UK’s daylight issue; but modifying the ancient, world-wide method of establishing the time (by dividing the day equally into morning and afternoon periods given the greatest height of the sun) had always been resorted to after tampering with nature’s golden clock.
Central European Time had been adopted by Britain during the Second World War; but had returned to GMT in 1945. Similarly, a trial to remain on British Summer Time (BST) all year round was conducted under Harold Wilson’s government during the period 1968-1971; but again it was dismissed in favour of the established method.
Rebecca’s virgin Bill immediately drew strong support from powerful lobbying groups: the Lighter Later campaign – sponsored by 10:10; English tourism, which argued that the industry would benefit by billions of pounds; and, interestingly, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) threw its weight behind a 1998 report, commissioned by the then Government, which concluded that adopting Single Double Summer Time (in which the clocks would remain on BST; but still spring forward and fall back) would save lives on Britain’s roads.
That report concluded that:-
- Overall, there would be around 450 fewer deaths and serious injuries, including between 104 to 138 fewer deaths (depending on which methodology is used).
- In Scotland, the casualty reductions would be slightly lower, proportionately, than for Great Britain as a whole. Nevertheless, it was estimated that SDST would result in 41 fewer deaths and serious injuries and 57 fewer casualties in total. (The smaller numbers in the Scottish data reduced the reliability of the estimate).
- The effects of darkness were found to be greater for pedestrians than for vehicle occupants, in both Winter and Summer
- The effects were found to be greater for fatalities than for non-fatal casualties.
RoSPA’s support immediately forced Rebecca’s Bill onto the front page of many national newspapers – and thrust our new, fledgling MP into the limelight. Daily articles ensued in the press as a move to SDST attracted vociferous support from businesses, the leisure industry (in particular), and other politicians alike.
Amidst the ensuing storm it seems that most of the Daylight Bill’s supporters, and opponents, have forgotten just what our MP is proposing. That is: that the Coalition should look at all the claims being made and, if (and only if) they find the arguments convincing, to conduct a nation-wide trial of their considered response.
There is a great deal of scepticism over RoSPA’s claims, drawn from the 1998 report. Particularly since those conclusions were reached in 2005 and were only a small part of a much more lengthy, balanced report, which RoSPA published that year. It is by no means a one sided argument for adopting SDST and, although the organisation comes down on the side of backing the case: most of the jury is still out.
The problem is that, all the statistics that are available to us on previous trials and implementations of Britain’s clock changes are corrupted by other political measures, being taken at the time, that, on their own, would have probably reduced road casualty rates significantly.
During the adoption of ‘Berlin Time,’ during WWII, the above histogram shows that there was a marked increase in road deaths accompanying the change for the first two years – and then a significant drop. But those other years, of reduced incidents, also coincide with there being far fewer drivers on the roads to cause accidents. Most were abroad fighting for their country (and there are no resident population figures, from that time, which would allow us to compare percentages).
Similarly, the 1968-1971 trial of year-round BST is inconclusive because 1972, when the clocks were changed back, continues to show a steep rise in deaths since the change was imposed (even though there is a steep decline thereafter). Furthermore, in 1967, the year before the trial, the UK introduced a raft of legislation imposing a 70mph speed limit; introducing breathalysers; and enforcing regulation of HGV drivers.
And, during all this time, car safety has been improving year upon year, which must also be factored into the figures.
But what is evident, from the graph, is that fatal road accidents do peak when changes to GMT are introduced. It is evident in the 1940 and 1941 figures; and staggeringly obvious in the numbers recorded for 1969, 1970 and 1971.
And, what is also evident is the fact that RoSPA’s position does not seek to explain the total road deaths. It only seeks to compare those occurring during 7am to 10am in the mornings and 4pm to 7pm at night. They do not compare only the dark hours – or investigate those composing our leisure time.
Therefore, if what RoSPA says is true about the last trial (that there was a significant reduction in evening deaths, for only a small increase in morning casualties, which was more than compensated by the former) we have to conclude that those large increases, shown above, all occurred during daylight hours, when the vast majority were at work – or between 7pm and 7am, when most accidents occur from drink-driving.
Logic dictates that the period between 7pm and 7am is the culprit here – and that is what no one seems to be taking into consideration - at the moment…
Naturally, introducing SDST would improve people’s daylight hours. And perhaps, given a parliamentary investigation, it can be shown that less accidents do occur during the morning rush hour than the evening, under GMT. But might that have nothing to do with lighter nights and darker mornings; but more to do with the fact that, in general, morning drivers are sober? If that is the case, making the mornings darker would indeed save less lives than making the evenings lighter.
But, remember, only the period between 4pm and 7pm is in any way improved.
Of course the Leisure and Tourism Industry is strongly supporting our MP’s Bill. They have a great deal to gain. Just as they did with the relaxation of the UK’s Licensing Hours. And, is it not surprising that their claims of billions of pounds in increased revenue from SDST should be so much more than the: ‘Additional annual earnings of £150 million for the leisure industry as a result of the increase in leisure activity,’ projected by the 1998 report?
They may well be telling the truth. They have far longer opening times now, and introducing an extra hour of daylight into the evening would certainly attract more customers into their local pubs and clubs. More people would be tempted to drink to excess; more fights would ensue; more people would be tempted to drive while intoxicated – and more road deaths would occur between 7pm and 7am.
That is precisely the situation as reflected in the above histogram’s two sets of figures.
Whatever your interpretation of the figures, this country needs more politicians, like Rebecca, prepared to ask the question: ‘Why?’ And it also needs less powerful lobbyists and pressure groups trying to pressurise and control individuals, like her, as a means to secure even more profits - no matter what the cost.
But, more than anything else, we need a press that is free of the garbage dispensed by some reporters, like the Sunday Mail’s Peter Hitchens, whose words force a wedge between intelligent discussion of a very important issue. As Rebecca put it:-
‘[Peter Hitchens] has given a master class in today's mail on Sunday on not letting the evidence get in the way of a good story!’
I’d treat her with more respect, if I were you Peter. She is not Bandwagon Bob in a frock!..
… Read RoSPA’s full position statement here
… (16/11/2010, Ted Pugh) – Statistics, Correlation – And Stupidity
No comments:
Post a Comment