DST (2018)

[english si]

I also think that insisting on a particular DST regime to address sleep-related problems often amounts to demanding a second-best solution to a personal problem ("all of society should change to make life easier for me") before first-best solutions are adequately explored.  If it is hard to get up in winter mornings, why not try a SAD lamp on a timer?  If it is hard to get to sleep when it is still light outside, why not try blackout screens on windows?

True (to some extent at least) that the problems raised are manageable.

However pushing for a change to the status quo, then the 'winners' need to show that their benefits are clear and genuine, in order to justify the negative effects that the 'losers' will suffer. I've yet to hear anything that justifies an increase of a health problem (no matter how treatable it is) that would be caused by being on DST all year.

A couple of days inconvenience with the clocks changing - yes, that isn't great, but it's not as bad as three months of problems. Needing some form of artificial light to do leisure activities - again, suck it up that its winter and there's not enough light for your preferred lifestyle - your problems are less (and the solutions easier) than needing some form of special artificial light to do basic functions due to health issues.

Most of us talking about sleep related issues are not requesting a change (OK, perhaps a minor one in the fall, changing the date DST does), but opposing people saying "all of society should change to make life easier for me", where the make life easier for me is not having to faff about with a few clocks twice a year (OK, that's annoying) and (in extreme cases of selfishness and denial of the concept of 'winter') eating outside in the evening in mid-December without needing artificial light, rather than 'so my problems do not get so bad that I need treat them in order to function normally'.

[GaryV]

The 3 western counties of the UP adjacent to Wisconsin appear to be in the wrong time zone on the NOAA map (they should be in Central).  Any other time zone boundaries incorrect?

[kalvado]

However pushing for a change to the status quo, then the 'winners' need to show that their benefits are clear and genuine, in order to justify the negative effects that the 'losers' will suffer. I've yet to hear anything that justifies an increase of a health problem (no matter how treatable it is) that would be caused by being on DST all year.

You know, this is a  really good point. Society is drifting towards technological conservatism, and existing way is always the preferred one until there is a very strong benefit. If history played a bit differently and status quo was on the other side, it would be an uphill battle for the different approach as well. We have another interesting thread on that..

[J N Winkler]

However pushing for a change to the status quo, then the 'winners' need to show that their benefits are clear and genuine, in order to justify the negative effects that the 'losers' will suffer. I've yet to hear anything that justifies an increase of a health problem (no matter how treatable it is) that would be caused by being on DST all year.

I see a couple of points in play here:

*  If a steep burden of proof is required to change the status quo, then this amounts to rewarding incumbency, with inconsistent results and some risk of forgone net benefit.  It would result in Japan never going on DST while areas in the US at similar latitude and longitudinal offsets stay on DST.  (The Japanese DST debate is interesting, BTW, and has roamed over territory that, almost unbelievably given its length, this thread has not covered.  The Japanese have considered implementing a "soft DST" involving a nationwide coordinated change of schedules to one hour earlier in the spring while keeping the same clock time.)

*  Accommodations for a DST change raise questions of joint cost and joint benefit.  For example, if you find a SAD lamp improves your health in winter no matter whether there is DST and what the schedule is, then this partly offsets this specialty provision as a counterargument against DST (an argument from individual experience that factors into the wider DST debate when aggregated over all similarly positioned persons in the population).  A similar consideration applies to blackout screens and other technical measures for overcoming sleep disorders, disagreement between circadian rhythms and external schedules, and so on.

Most of us talking about sleep related issues are not requesting a change (OK, perhaps a minor one in the fall, changing the date DST does), but opposing people saying "all of society should change to make life easier for me", where the make life easier for me is not having to faff about with a few clocks twice a year (OK, that's annoying) and (in extreme cases of selfishness and denial of the concept of 'winter') eating outside in the evening in mid-December without needing artificial light, rather than 'so my problems do not get so bad that I need treat them in order to function normally'.

I see your point.

My personal perspective--and it is only that--is that arranging one's own life to minimize the long-term likelihood of metabolic disease while maintaining good quality of life is basically a struggle against multiple centrifugal tendencies.  Eight hours of sleep on a consistent schedule opposes the natural 25-hour circadian rhythm; regular meals, regular exercise, at least five servings daily from at least three vegetables, 35 g of fiber every day, etc. all require conquering "don't wanna" laziness on a daily basis.  Keeping the balance is an ongoing tension, so the spring DST change looms as a potentially destabilizing perturbation, well out of proportion to the one hour involved.

[Duke87]

https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg

My head is turning at the fact that apparently 53% of Americans wake up at 6:30 or earlier. If you had asked me to guess I would have figured the median to be at more like 7:30.

But then I guess it makes sense when you think about it - anyone who is in high school or has a child in high school will need to be waking up that early because of the absurd schedules high schools have. As will anyone who works at a high school. Or whose job involves serving commuters, or being in a retail establishment that opens before 9. Or who works in construction, which for whatever reason likes to start at 7 AM. Or who likes to go to the gym before work, or otherwise takes forever to get ready in the morning.

[jp the roadgeek]

But then Boston is also bragging about AST,,

Yep, and the Massachusetts legislator has cited early winter sunsets as a rational for wanting to move to Atlantic time.  Early Boston sunsets in the winter is solved with permanent DST, and you would no longer have Massachusetts and Maine keep talking about wanting to switch to Atlantic Time.  The worst thing that could happen is keeping the status quo, and the Atlantic states actually moving forward with a time-zone change to Atlantic time.  Then the lower 48 states would be separated by 5 time-zones as opposed to only 4.  People living in Connecticut commuting to NYC could someday be crossing a time-zone on their way to work in NYC.  Unnecessary confusion.  Going to permanent DST ensures that the lower 48 remains on only 4 time-zones, even if some states decide to switch from observing DST to observing standard time (potentially Indiana, Michigan, etc.).

I would think most would want the Northeast Corridor to remain on the same time.  Too much confusion if Boston is an hour ahead of the New York-DC portion.  Why FL thinks it has to go to AST equivalent makes no sense, since it is as far west as western PA and Ohio.  I could see a time zone division in NY state and PA somewhere along a line west of Syracuse and Harrisburg, that curves around south and west of the DC metro and eventually follows the NC/VA border to the coast.  That would be AST equivalent.  The rest of the area east of the Mississippi including metro areas that straddle the river like New Orleans, Memphis, St. Louis, and the Twin Cities, would be EST equivalent.

[20160805]

https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg

My head is turning at the fact that apparently 53% of Americans wake up at 6:30 or earlier. If you had asked me to guess I would have figured the median to be at more like 7:30.

But then I guess it makes sense when you think about it - anyone who is in high school or has a child in high school will need to be waking up that early because of the absurd schedules high schools have. As will anyone who works at a high school. Or whose job involves serving commuters, or being in a retail establishment that opens before 9. Or who works in construction, which for whatever reason likes to start at 7 AM. Or who likes to go to the gym before work, or otherwise takes forever to get ready in the morning.

Come on now.  High school schedules are not "absurd" - mine ran from 07:25 to 14:56 and made no dent to my sleep schedule whatsoever.  I liked going in and getting out at those times because, well, it wasn't nighttime when I got home and I could still do anything else I wanted to; even now my preferred working hours would be 07:00-15:00.

In elementary school from 3rd-5th grade my mom also worked the Before School program, which meant I had to be there at 06:30 every morning (sometimes 06:00 if her boss decided to play a little hooky, but this only happened a couple of times per year).  I got used to that time, but man, it was early!  I actually liked the luxury in middle and high school of not having to go in until 7-something and having some actual free time in the morning (because I was definitely not allowed to wake the whole house up at 04:00).

I started typing this post before 06:00 local time (I'm on Central).  Sue me.

I just refuse to wake up and go to work in darkness half the year, and have problems sleeping because it's too light out at night the other half.  It also amazes me that 17% of people sleep in until 08:00 or later on weekdays - sounds like either very much a night owl or delayed sleep phase syndrome to me.

So would y'all be okay with this set of sunrise/set times (assuming 35*N latitude)?

Edit: found a typo a month later

[7/8]

https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg

My head is turning at the fact that apparently 53% of Americans wake up at 6:30 or earlier. If you had asked me to guess I would have figured the median to be at more like 7:30.

But then I guess it makes sense when you think about it - anyone who is in high school or has a child in high school will need to be waking up that early because of the absurd schedules high schools have. As will anyone who works at a high school. Or whose job involves serving commuters, or being in a retail establishment that opens before 9. Or who works in construction, which for whatever reason likes to start at 7 AM. Or who likes to go to the gym before work, or otherwise takes forever to get ready in the morning.

Come on now.  High school schedules are not "absurd" - mine ran from 07:25 to 14:56 and made in dent to my sleep schedule whatsoever.  I liked going in and getting out at those times because, well, it wasn't nighttime when I got home and I could still do anything else I wanted to; even now my preferred working hours would be 07:00-15:00.

Well you should consider yourself lucky because many studies show that the majority of teenagers would do better starting at 9 or even later (here's just one article of many on the subject). Most teenagers have delayed circadian rhythms which makes it hard to go to bed early enough to achieve sufficient sleep.

My elementary school (JK to Grade 8) started at 8:45 and my high school (Grade 9 to Grade 12) started at 9:05. I didn't realize that these times we're considered late for Canada, but even then, teenagers are stil a bit tired at that hour. I think a 7:25 start time would be hell for most teenagers and it would affect their academic performance.

Kids who prefer to wake up earlier could still do so and just chill at home before school starts. To me that's a win-win.

[tradephoric]

Why FL thinks it has to go to AST equivalent makes no sense, since it is as far west as western PA and Ohio.

Florida passed the Sunshine Protection Act which would move the state to permanent DST, but it's contingent on a similar bill being passed through the US Congress that would push the entire nation to permanent DST.  This ensures that Florida will not be out of sync with any Northeastern states.
 
California isn't quite as far as Florida in their push for permanent DST, but bill AB 807 is currently sitting on Jerry Brown's desk that if approved would ask California voters in a November ballot measure whether to end the biannual practice of moving their clocks ahead and back to comply with the Daylight Saving Time Act.  Before AB 807 was passed through the California State Assembly by a 63-4 vote, sponsor Kansen Chu told his colleagues that "This bill creates a pathway for California to stay on daylight saving time year-round" .   Governor Brown has till June 28 to either approve or veto AB 807, so we will know very soon.  From there it will be in California voters hands if they want to get rid of the biannual time changes in their state.

[jeffandnicole]

https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg

My head is turning at the fact that apparently 53% of Americans wake up at 6:30 or earlier. If you had asked me to guess I would have figured the median to be at more like 7:30.

But then I guess it makes sense when you think about it - anyone who is in high school or has a child in high school will need to be waking up that early because of the absurd schedules high schools have. As will anyone who works at a high school. Or whose job involves serving commuters, or being in a retail establishment that opens before 9. Or who works in construction, which for whatever reason likes to start at 7 AM. Or who likes to go to the gym before work, or otherwise takes forever to get ready in the morning.

Come on now.  High school schedules are not "absurd" - mine ran from 07:25 to 14:56 and made in dent to my sleep schedule whatsoever.  I liked going in and getting out at those times because, well, it wasn't nighttime when I got home and I could still do anything else I wanted to; even now my preferred working hours would be 07:00-15:00.

Well you should consider yourself lucky because many studies show that the majority of teenagers would do better starting at 9 or even later (here's just one article of many on the subject). Most teenagers have delayed circadian rhythms which makes it hard to go to bed early enough to achieve sufficient sleep.

My elementary school (JK to Grade 8) started at 8:45 and my high school (Grade 9 to Grade 12) started at 9:05. I didn't realize that these times we're considered late for Canada, but even then, teenagers are stil a bit tired at that hour. I think a 7:25 start time would be hell for most teenagers and it would affect their academic performance.

Kids who prefer to wake up earlier could still do so and just chill at home before school starts. To me that's a win-win.

Which, if anything, proves that some teens are tired regardless of when school starts.

7:25-ish is quite average for American schools, and you're rarely hearing complaints from most teenagers.  You still have to factor in that they have after school sports and jobs, so moving schedules back will just have them participating in sports later, and probably couldn't even hold a job during the week.

As far as academic performance goes...the smartest kids when school begins at 7:25 will still be the smartest kids when school begins at 9:00.  And the kids that screw around and aren't that great are still going to screw around and not be all that great, regardless of the time school begins.

[20160805]

https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg

My head is turning at the fact that apparently 53% of Americans wake up at 6:30 or earlier. If you had asked me to guess I would have figured the median to be at more like 7:30.

But then I guess it makes sense when you think about it - anyone who is in high school or has a child in high school will need to be waking up that early because of the absurd schedules high schools have. As will anyone who works at a high school. Or whose job involves serving commuters, or being in a retail establishment that opens before 9. Or who works in construction, which for whatever reason likes to start at 7 AM. Or who likes to go to the gym before work, or otherwise takes forever to get ready in the morning.

Come on now.  High school schedules are not "absurd" - mine ran from 07:25 to 14:56 and made in dent to my sleep schedule whatsoever.  I liked going in and getting out at those times because, well, it wasn't nighttime when I got home and I could still do anything else I wanted to; even now my preferred working hours would be 07:00-15:00.

Well you should consider yourself lucky because many studies show that the majority of teenagers would do better starting at 9 or even later (here's just one article of many on the subject). Most teenagers have delayed circadian rhythms which makes it hard to go to bed early enough to achieve sufficient sleep.

My elementary school (JK to Grade 8) started at 8:45 and my high school (Grade 9 to Grade 12) started at 9:05. I didn't realize that these times we're considered late for Canada, but even then, teenagers are stil a bit tired at that hour. I think a 7:25 start time would be hell for most teenagers and it would affect their academic performance.

Kids who prefer to wake up earlier could still do so and just chill at home before school starts. To me that's a win-win.

Which, if anything, proves that some teens are tired regardless of when school starts.

7:25-ish is quite average for American schools, and you're rarely hearing complaints from most teenagers.  You still have to factor in that they have after school sports and jobs, so moving schedules back will just have them participating in sports later, and probably couldn't even hold a job during the week.

As far as academic performance goes...the smartest kids when school begins at 7:25 will still be the smartest kids when school begins at 9:00.  And the kids that screw around and aren't that great are still going to screw around and not be all that great, regardless of the time school begins.

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell these people on this topic for years.  Thank you very much. 

[webny99]

Why FL thinks it has to go to AST equivalent makes no sense, since it is as far west as western PA and Ohio.

Florida is at a similar longitude to Western PA and Ohio. However, it's latitude that's the more important factor here.

Take Orlando as an example: it receives 10h20min of daylight (from 7:13 to 5:33) on December 21st, the winter solstice.
Now take Pittsburgh: it receives 9h17min of daylight (from 7:39 to 4:56) on the winter solstice.
Now go even further north, to Sudbury, ON: it receives just 8h34min of daylight (from 8:05 to 4:39) on the winter solstice.

All that is to say that Florida has the most daylight to work with, so shifting the clocks by an hour would have far less of an impact than it would further north. They'd still have sunrise at a similar time to Sudbury, ON, and yet get two more hours of daylight in the evening. Same goes for any other southern state.

[tradephoric]

There has been movement in the US Congress regarding permanent DST.  Bill H.R.6202, which would allow States to elect to observe year-round daylight saving time, was introduced on the floor of the US House of Representatives on 6/22/18 and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  We will see if it gets out of committee.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6202/titles

[hotdogPi]

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot let every state decide for itself. If NJ says "none" and PA says "year-round", NJ will be one hour behind PA despite being due east. Many pairs of states could have this same problem.

[english si]

Which, if anything, proves that some teens are tired regardless of when school starts.

No it doesn't! It proves that some teens are tired even when school starts at 9:05 rather than earlier. It doesn't address if school starts at 9:45 or another time later in the day. Perhaps it was a little early for you? 

One can equally argue the following:
1) Studies prove that teens need to start later to not be tired.
2) School starts at 9:05 and teens are still not quite fully awake
3) Therefore 9:05 is still too early.

Which seems to be what 7/8 is saying. And certainly trials have suggested that this is the case - eg Monkseaton High School.

7:25-ish is quite average for American schools, and you're rarely hearing complaints from most teenagers.

Because any small complaint is so quickly and firmly dismissed that if you can't get up you're some sort of moral failure that kids don't push against it as they are too tired to go in for a big fight against a toxic culture firmly biased towards larks?

You still have to factor in that they have after school sports and jobs, so moving schedules back will just have them participating in sports later, and probably couldn't even hold a job during the week.

Integrate School Sports into the curriculum (my PE/Games lessons - an hour each week - were integrated. I even had one year with an hour of PE first period, so 9:10-10:10)? Do what British private schools (and the posher other schools) and dedicate Wednesday afternoon to Sports and matches and stuff?

As for jobs, in the UK, the law is that the school has to give permission for weekday after-/before-school jobs and there's statutory limits on hours school children can work on school days because of the negative effect on academic performance. The most common weekday job for teenagers is a morning paper round, so late starts to the school day give them more time to do it. I do know (older, with study periods where they can do at least some of their out-of-class work during school hours) teenagers with after-school jobs, working 4-8pm or 5-9pm (school doesn't finish until after 3) a couple of days a week. But mostly its weekends when teenagers work.

As far as academic performance goes...the smartest kids when school begins at 7:25 will still be the smartest kids when school begins at 9:00.

Sure, but the smartest kids might not be able to act as smart if they are half asleep, sleep deprived, etc. And certainly I'm very unalert from about 7 to 9 (and I can't do stuff pre-7 about once a month as a special thing), even if I'm not actually tired - my brain has a lull.

So while the people who are the smartest won't change, their appearance of smartness (including in grades) would change if they were given a level playing field wrt owl/lark issues. And is academic performance about the smartest kids showing off, or is it about not leaving kids to not reach their potential?

And the kids that screw around and aren't that great are still going to screw around and not be all that great, regardless of the time school begins.

Except they muck around less when less grouchy due to lack of sleep... They are able to focus more when they aren't tired...

[webny99]

The long and short of it is that what is in the law does not necessarily correspond to welfare maximization or the preference of a majority of the voters.

This I can agree with. I'm not of the belief that just because something is politically successful, it is necessarily invalid, but there is a lot of potential for inexact alignment.

The disruption associated with the twice-yearly DST change is a big issue, and it is also one that corresponds to losses (e.g. the spring blip in accidents) that are easy to document.

The increase in accidents is definitely an issue, but how much responsibility can be assigned solely to the lost hour itself?
The lack of morning daylight is also inherent in the issue - causing darker morning commutes, making it harder to see, more likely that nocturnal wildlife will be active, and so forth.

*  How many of those still participating in this thread are continuing to do so because it keeps popping up in "Unread replies"?  If a moderator locked this thread for, say, two weeks, and then unlocked it, would discussion resume?

At one point, Scott referred to this as the bi-annual DST thread, citing similar threads popping up in the spring and fall of years past. I've therefore had in mind to keep this thread active (at least intermittently) until fall, to remind users of its existence and therefore prevent another thread from popping up.

To answer your question, it seems reasonable to expect discussion of DST to continue at some point in the future. Whether users would be anxiously awaiting a theoretical unlock is another matter, but sometime between now and the November time change, I'd expect to see "DST (2018) 'NEW!'" at the forefront of the Off-Topic Board once again.

The post I made yesterday is an example of one which I had intended to make for some weeks, and so probably would have made regardless of whether the thread was active or not. Granted, because the thread was active, I did read the recent discussion, so it wasn't too far removed from my thoughts!

[kalvado]

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot let every state decide for itself. If NJ says "none" and PA says "year-round", NJ will be one hour behind PA despite being due east. Many pairs of states could have this same problem.

Why is that a problem - any more of a problem than IN being 1 hour different from IL despite being right next to it?

[hotdogPi]

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot let every state decide for itself. If NJ says "none" and PA says "year-round", NJ will be one hour behind PA despite being due east. Many pairs of states could have this same problem.

Why is that a problem - any more of a problem than IN being 1 hour different from IL despite being right next to it?

IL is west of IN, so being an hour behind is not that unusual. However, NJ is east of PA. Going back an hour while traveling east would be a bit strange.

[tradephoric]

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot let every state decide for itself. If NJ says "none" and PA says "year-round", NJ will be one hour behind PA despite being due east. Many pairs of states could have this same problem.

Daylight Saving Time is optional under the Uniform Time Code Act of 1966.  States aren't forced to observe DST, and Arizona and Hawaii don't observe it.  Extending DST to be year-round would still allow states to opt out of DST just like today, so nothing would really change (there is nothing stopping NJ from running standard time and PA from running DST today... besides the fact that it would be a horrible idea). 

As I stated previously, if the nation went to permanent DST i could see some states like Indiana and Michigan wanting to opt out of DST and go to standard time.  For those states maybe 8:30AM sunrises in the winter would be too late, and they would prefer to run standard time year-round.  But these states already border neighboring timezone (unlike NJ), so it wouldn't be a huge deal.

[J N Winkler]

The disruption associated with the twice-yearly DST change is a big issue, and it is also one that corresponds to losses (e.g. the spring blip in accidents) that are easy to document.

The increase in accidents is definitely an issue, but how much responsibility can be assigned solely to the lost hour itself?

The lack of morning daylight is also inherent in the issue - causing darker morning commutes, making it harder to see, more likely that nocturnal wildlife will be active, and so forth.

I believe one of the DST studies cited upthread attempts to address this issue by showing that the accident bulge is still present in areas where the morning commute is in daylight both before and after the spring DST change, and that there is no reduction in accidents around the autumn DST change when commutes go (briefly) from darkness to light.

*  How many of those still participating in this thread are continuing to do so because it keeps popping up in "Unread replies"?  If a moderator locked this thread for, say, two weeks, and then unlocked it, would discussion resume?

At one point, Scott referred to this as the bi-annual DST thread, citing similar threads popping up in the spring and fall of years past. I've therefore had in mind to keep this thread active (at least intermittently) until fall, to remind users of its existence and therefore prevent another thread from popping up.

I can't speak for them, of course, but from the moderators' point of view I would think "separate biannual threads for DST changes" is less of a problem than "never-ending spring 2018 DST thread keeps popping up in participants' Unread Replies listings long after they are prepared to let go of the topic."

I have personally never participated in the thread on roundabouts that has gone on for over 3000 posts because I know that if I so much as make a single post, it will be clogging my Unread Replies until the heat death of the universe.

I don't think the moderators should be doing things like hiding forum statistics pages, but I would be totally supportive of rejiggering Unread Replies so that people have the freedom to unsubscribe from threads that are no longer of interest to them.

[hotdogPi]

I don't think the moderators should be doing things like hiding forum statistics pages, but I would be totally supportive of rejiggering Unread Replies so that people have the freedom to unsubscribe from threads that are no longer of interest to them.

I don't think the mods are able to change that.

[kalvado]

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot let every state decide for itself. If NJ says "none" and PA says "year-round", NJ will be one hour behind PA despite being due east. Many pairs of states could have this same problem.

Why is that a problem - any more of a problem than IN being 1 hour different from IL despite being right next to it?

IL is west of IN, so being an hour behind is not that unusual. However, NJ is east of PA. Going back an hour while traveling east would be a bit strange.

OK, feel free to add to this thread once that materializes: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16931.0. However I still fail to see a problem.

[J N Winkler]

As for jobs, in the UK, the law is that the school has to give permission for weekday after-/before-school jobs and there's statutory limits on hours school children can work on school days because of the negative effect on academic performance. The most common weekday job for teenagers is a morning paper round, so late starts to the school day give them more time to do it. I do know (older, with study periods where they can do at least some of their out-of-class work during school hours) teenagers with after-school jobs, working 4-8pm or 5-9pm (school doesn't finish until after 3) a couple of days a week. But mostly it's weekends when teenagers work.

The UK has traditionally had some rather large advantages over the US in terms of work-life balance, though these have seriously eroded over the past twenty years.  Typical start times in many occupations are later in the UK than in the US.  Until 1998, there were no tuition fees for university, so until comparatively recently it was not normal for students to have to undertake paid work alongside university studies.  Even with graduated licensing in the US, it is still possible to obtain at least a driver's permit beginning at age 14 in many states, so many teenagers work after school to afford a car; in the UK it is not possible to get behind the wheel legally until age 17.  In the US there is a culture of "teenagers should get a job so they learn how to be responsible, how to get along with co-workers, and how to take direction from a boss" that doesn't really exist in the UK.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think the moderators should be doing things like hiding forum statistics pages, but I would be totally supportive of rejiggering Unread Replies so that people have the freedom to unsubscribe from threads that are no longer of interest to them.

I don't think the mods are able to change that.

It would not surprise me if that were the case.  I see two paths to achieving this functionality:  installing a mod, or waiting for an upgrade to the forum software that incorporates it.  The latter is a much better option than the former since if a mod is not already available, it will have to be written, and once installed it becomes an ongoing maintenance liability.

[kalvado]

I don't think the moderators should be doing things like hiding forum statistics pages, but I would be totally supportive of rejiggering Unread Replies so that people have the freedom to unsubscribe from threads that are no longer of interest to them.

I don't think the mods are able to change that.

It would not surprise me if that were the case.  I see two paths to achieving this functionality:  installing a mod, or waiting for an upgrade to the forum software that incorporates it.  The latter is a much better option than the former since if a mod is not already available, it will have to be written, and once installed it becomes an ongoing maintenance liability.

Comment from the mods was that "my posts" are integrated too deep into the engine of this forum to tweak it. I don't understand why is that, but I remember comment very well.