Abstract
I AGREE with Mr. W. T. Lynn that the article in NATURE of May 11 (p. 349) leaves “little to be said with regard to the so-called Daylight Saving Bill”; but there is one remark in it to which exception may be taken. This is the statement (p. 350) that it is “easy” to alter one's watch when travelling into a zone where different time is kept, if by “easy” is meant “not inconvenient”. All travellers must have found the inconvenience of the change of time, even when reduced to a minimum through the change being an exact hour. Some inconvenience is unavoidable in travelling, but it is, of course, absurd to cause this inconvenience unnecessarily as the “Daylight Saving Bill” proposes. The inconvenience is such that in a journey to India I found it best never to alter my watch at all, it being simplest to keep to Greenwich time, and mentally make the allowance for local time.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BACKHOUSE, T. Daylight and Darkness. Nature 86, 484 (1911). https://doi.org/10.1038/086484d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/086484d0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.