You are Here: Home

# B922 - State Calendar Bill 2016 watch

Announcements
1. (Original post by Andy98)
JD, we're only supposed to agree when at least one of us are drunk.... What's happening?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Aph? And why do you assume that I am not drunk?
2. (Original post by Jammy Duel)
Aph? And why do you assume that I am not drunk?
Oh yeah, I forgot how experienced you are at drunk typing

Posted from TSR Mobile
3. (Original post by Jammy Duel)
And only to you, and it doesn't make any more sense than the current system, if anything it makes less.
The current system:

It's a leap year every 4 years, unless it's also a year divisible by 100 in which case it actually isn't a leap year, unless it's also divisible 400 in which case the second rule doesn't apply.

That confuses people.

My system:

It's a leap year every 8 years, unless the year is divisible by 200 in which case it isn't quite a leap year, also if it is divisible by 400 it is a normal year.
4. (Original post by Aph)
The current system:

It's a leap year every 4 years, unless it's also a year divisible by 100 in which case it actually isn't a leap year, unless it's also divisible 400 in which case the second rule doesn't apply.

That confuses people.

My system:

It's a leap year every 8 years, unless the year is divisible by 200 in which case it isn't quite a leap year, also if it is divisible by 400 it is a normal year.
Which will confuse people just as much given there is seemingly arbitrary exceptions, but with losses of accuracy
5. (Original post by Jammy Duel)
Which will confuse people just as much given there is seemingly arbitrary exceptions, but with losses of accuracy
They aren't arbitrary, and there isn't a loss of accuracy. We covered this.
6. (Original post by Aph)
The current system:

It's a leap year every 4 years, unless it's also a year divisible by 100 in which case it actually isn't a leap year, unless it's also divisible 400 in which case the second rule doesn't apply.

That confuses people.

My system:

It's a leap year every 8 years, unless the year is divisible by 200 in which case it isn't quite a leap year, also if it is divisible by 400 it is a normal year.
The current system is simpler.

Do you actually advocate this or is it a joke?
7. (Original post by Aph)
They aren't arbitrary, and there isn't a loss of accuracy. We covered this.
Except there is a greater inaccuracy, and saying they are arbitrary and that people might see them as arbitrary is not the same, but let's consider the inaccuracy, and for the sake of simplicity ignore the 3 days every 4 centuries bit

Currently

0 mod 4: 0 error
1 mod 4: -0.25 days
2 mod 4: -0.5 days
3 mod 4: -0.75 days

mean error: 0.375 days

0 mod 8: 0 error
1 mod 8 -0.25 days
2 mod 8 -0.5 days
3 mod 8 -0.75 days
4 mod 8 -1 days
5 mod 8 -1.25 days
6 mod 8 -1.5 days
7 mod 8 -1.75 days

mean error: 0.875 days
8. (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
The current system is simpler.

Do you actually advocate this or is it a joke?
IT is a joke, but I do think my leap year system is easier to understand.
9. The calendar we have at the moment is perfectly fine - there is no need to change it and replace it with some random one that no one understands. If you insist on changing something, stop the clocks from changing - keep them fixed on British Summertime.
10. (Original post by Quamquam123)
The calendar we have at the moment is perfectly fine - there is no need to change it and replace it with some random one that no one understands. If you insist on changing something, stop the clocks from changing - keep them fixed on British Summertime.
Which was trailed in the past and decided to be a bad idea.
11. (Original post by Jammy Duel)
Which was trailed in the past and decided to be a bad idea.
Why was it a bad idea? Also, do you truly support this move for a different calendar?
12. (Original post by Quamquam123)
Why was it a bad idea? Also, do you truly support this move for a different calendar?
Because it makes the roads more dangerous when you factor in the estimated effect of the introduction of drink driving legislation at the same time as the trial, and of course I don't, why do you think I've been saying it's an absurd idea?
13. (Original post by Jammy Duel)
Because it makes the roads more dangerous when you factor in the estimated effect of the introduction of drink driving legislation at the same time as the trial, and of course I don't, why do you think I've been saying it's an absurd idea?
Hang On. With British Summertime, it would be lighter so the risk of road accidents decreases.
14. (Original post by Quamquam123)
Hang On. With British Summertime, it would be lighter so the risk of road accidents decreases.
It makes it lighter in the evening, darker in the morning, morning casualties increase whilst evening casualties decrease, including the effect of drink driving legislation fatalities and serious injuries on the roads decreased by about 2500 over the first two winters of the experiment, however this is with a daily average of 2500 a day. As said, it also coincided with drink driving legislation that brings the estimated decrease due to British Standard Time down significantly.
15. (Original post by Jammy Duel)
It makes it lighter in the evening, darker in the morning, morning casualties increase whilst evening casualties decrease, including the effect of drink driving legislation fatalities and serious injuries on the roads decreased by about 2500 over the first two winters of the experiment, however this is with a daily average of 2500 a day. As said, it also coincided with drink driving legislation that brings the estimated decrease due to British Standard Time down significantly.
So you're saying there's no proven link between having BST all year round and road casualties in the evening. Great. That doesn't explain why BST all year round is a bad idea.
16. (Original post by cBay)
So you're saying there's no proven link between having BST all year round and road casualties in the evening. Great. That doesn't explain why BST all year round is a bad idea.
If estimating the effect of other variables to compensate for them makes the conclusions invalid I would suggest you should stop accepting a hell of a lot of conclusions you take for granted.

Posted from TSR Mobile
17. (Original post by Jammy Duel)
If estimating the effect of other variables to compensate for them makes the conclusions invalid I would suggest you should stop accepting a hell of a lot of conclusions you take for granted.

Posted from TSR Mobile
The conclusion reached by those estimations is that (mathematically) it wouldn't really make any difference to the number of fatalities while driving in the long run. That doesn't say it's a bad idea, it just blows the "oooh there'll be less deaths" rubbish out the water.

Posted from TSR Mobile
18. (Original post by Andy98)
The conclusion reached by those estimations is that (mathematically) it wouldn't really make any difference to the number of fatalities while driving in the long run. That doesn't say it's a bad idea, it just blows the "oooh there'll be less deaths" rubbish out the water.

Posted from TSR Mobile
So why bother, if it ain't broke and all that

Posted from TSR Mobile
19. (Original post by Jammy Duel)
So why bother, if it ain't broke and all that

Posted from TSR Mobile
Because it makes it brighter in the evening, allowing children to play with their friends

Posted from TSR Mobile
20. (Original post by Andy98)
Because it makes it brighter in the evening, allowing children to play with their friends

Posted from TSR Mobile
It also makes it darker in the morning, and I thought I was the one that lived in the past...

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: January 21, 2016
Today on TSR

### Exam Jam 2018

Join thousands of students this half term

### Solo - A Star Wars Story

Poll

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE