DST (2018)

[kkt]

I don't care if we go to year-round daylight saving time or standard time, as long as they pick one and stick with it. Changing the clock twice a year sucks, and whoever thought it was a good idea should be tarred and feathered.

But you know, lots of people travel outside their home time zone, even for pleasure, and don't seem to mind that so much.

[bugo]

That's completely irrelevant. I shouldn't have to fuck my schedule up twice a year for no good reason. Especially considering that I have severe sleep disorders and it is literally hard on my body and my health for 2 or 3 months after the time change.

[Duke87]

I don't care if we go to year-round daylight saving time or standard time, as long as they pick one and stick with it. Changing the clock twice a year sucks, and whoever thought it was a good idea should be tarred and feathered.

But you know, lots of people travel outside their home time zone, even for pleasure, and don't seem to mind that so much.

But that's different and a lot easier to handle. I've traveled back and forth between eastern and central time zones more times than I can count, and it's never been a big deal because when I move over a time zone, both the clock and the position of the sun change. I go from sunset at 7 PM (or whenever it is) local time to sunset at 7 PM local time. There is minimal apparent change and the adjustment just happens naturally.

When DST begins or ends, only the clock changes - the sun does not move to match it. So it is much more jarring and difficult to adjust to because unlike with moving over a time zone I am fighting the natural tendency to sync my internal clock with the sun rather than going along with it.


Of course, you can also create drama with extreme latitudes if you're not careful. On my recent trip to Alaska I generally was able to close the curtains as soon as I got into a hotel and pretend it was nighttime with some level of effectiveness in spite of the long daylight. But there was one day where, due to circumstances beyond my control, it was after midnight by the time I was checked into my hotel. That night, I suddenly found myself feeling super jetlagged even though I hadn't changed time zones or gone through a DST shift because being outside while the sun was still up at 11 PM was making my brain think it must be several hours earlier than that.

[20160805]

-snip-

Except it doesn't really work that way. If I try to go to bed an hour earlier to prepare, I will simply find myself laying awake in bed for an extra hour because, blasted circadian rhythms, they won't let me go to sleep when I'm not especially tired and they say it's not yet time. So when DST begins I lose an hour of sleep because I pretty much have to. The only way to make the adjustment is to force myself to wake up earlier and then use the resulting fatigue to start getting myself to go to sleep earlier.

As much as I'd prefer it to be different, the unfortunate reality is that forcing myself to be awake when I'm tired is a lot more feasible than forcing myself to sleep when I'm not. And this isn't just me - this is the normal way the human body works.

I realized the exact same thing about myself at about 11 years old.  My bedtime at the time was 20:00 on weeknights and 20:30 on weekends, and any time I went to bed at 19-anything (which now, as someone who has been doing 21:00 every night for years, seems RIDICULOUSLY early) it would be harder for me to fall asleep; one time I didn't actually fall asleep until around 21:30 because of this.  When DST begins, I lose an hour of sleep, and I'm mostly okay with that because, well, it's one hour lost over the course of a year; one-hour sleep losses happen all the time.  My sleep hours are, relative to standard time, 21:00 to 4:00; relative to clock time, 21:00 to 5:00.  When DST ends, I wake up at the same time as usual and get the exact same amount of sleep as any other night.  My sleep hours are, relative to daylight time, 21:00 to 5:00; relative to clock time, 21:00 to 4:00.  I then go to bed at 21:00 standard time that night as though nothing ever happened.

Although lasting effects from DST can last for up to a week or two even in my case, and sometimes I might be doing okay on Monday and Tuesday but then Wednesday and Thursday I feel jet-lagged.  And I truly feel sorry for Bugo:

That's completely irrelevant. I shouldn't have to fuck my schedule up twice a year for no good reason. Especially considering that I have severe sleep disorders and it is literally hard on my body and my health for 2 or 3 months after the time change.

Personally I don't think anyone should have to screw their schedule up twice a year for no good reason.

I'm also with another point mentioned upthread, about dark winter evenings.  I like those too; I've always liked and found interesting dimly lit and dark places, and there's nothing wrong with it being dark at night in the winter as that's how it's supposed to be.  It's just part of what contributes to the fall and winter atmosphere, and it also relates to what I don't like about February: it's just as cold as January, but the days are getting noticeably longer, even being light until past 18:00 by the end of the month, so I think it must be okay weather for me to go outside.  Then I see a foot of snow everywhere and my thermometer staring me in the face with a "5" on it, and this is part of why February and March are worse months than January for me, and I'm saying this as the guy who wants it to be 80+ degrees during the day year round.

[hbelkins]

Concerning DST vs. time zone changes, I'd much rather reset my clock twice a year to give me more usable daylight than to have to deal with a temporary adjustment in the time while still trying to keep my schedule close to what it would be at home.

[vdeane]

But that's different and a lot easier to handle. I've traveled back and forth between eastern and central time zones more times than I can count, and it's never been a big deal because when I move over a time zone, both the clock and the position of the sun change. I go from sunset at 7 PM (or whenever it is) local time to sunset at 7 PM local time. There is minimal apparent change and the adjustment just happens naturally.

True.  When I passed through the Central Time Zone on my way back from Florida, I specifically stayed on Eastern since I was only there one night and I needed to get up early for the long drive the next day (also to minimize Nashville congestion the next morning).  It was hard to resist the temptation to slide myself into Central, though.

That's completely irrelevant. I shouldn't have to fuck my schedule up twice a year for no good reason. Especially considering that I have severe sleep disorders and it is literally hard on my body and my health for 2 or 3 months after the time change.

I think it's interesting how we both have sleep disorders and yet have completely opposite experiences with the time changes.  Then again, you might have better sleep hygiene than I do.  I'm pretty sure my sleep schedule and habit of being on the computer for all hours of the day both go against the recommendations of all doctors.

Right now my biggest issue are allergies making it harder to breath when trying to sleep and the early sunrises making it hard to sleep in on the weekends and catch up.

[hbelkins]

But that's different and a lot easier to handle. I've traveled back and forth between eastern and central time zones more times than I can count, and it's never been a big deal because when I move over a time zone, both the clock and the position of the sun change. I go from sunset at 7 PM (or whenever it is) local time to sunset at 7 PM local time. There is minimal apparent change and the adjustment just happens naturally.

True.  When I passed through the Central Time Zone on my way back from Florida, I specifically stayed on Eastern since I was only there one night and I needed to get up early for the long drive the next day (also to minimize Nashville congestion the next morning).  It was hard to resist the temptation to slide myself into Central, though.

If you're on your own schedule, it helps. But if you're attending something that starts at a specific time, you have to adjust your schedule a bit, particularly if you're traveling on the same day from one time zone to another. For instance, the times I've driven to a Nashville meet that morning, I knew I had an extra hour to play with because if the meet started at noon local time, my watch and my vehicle clock would say 1 p.m. But it's different if you're out in Central Time and planning to arrive at your destination in Eastern Time. And, remember that phone clocks automatically reset for the time zone they're in. So if you would normally get up at 7 a.m., you have to set your phone alarm clock for 6 a.m.

One of my colleagues works in Somerset and lives in Russell Springs. Her drive is about the same length as mine and is on a much better road, so her commute time is probably shorter. But Russell County is on Central Time and Pulaski County is on Eastern Time. So that means she has to get to work at 7 a.m. back home and has to adjust her schedule accordingly. I don't know how she does it. I'll have to ask her sometime.

[webny99]

In the winter, due to limited daylight, it is important that solar noon and actual noon align as closely as possible.
In the summer, due to ample daylight, this is less of an issue. Simultaneously, people tend to want/need/have to get up at about the same time year-round. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that (a) 4:30 AM sunrises don't do anybody any good, while (b) 7:30 sunsets do not allow much time for enjoying the limited number of pleasant summer evenings. Changing the clocks is really not that big of a deal, and solves both (a) and (b).

You can't argue that 8:30 sunrises in the winter would be a good thing, but you can't argue that 4:30 sunrises in the summer are beneficial either. It is sensible to shift the clocks so that sunrises, not sunsets, stay closer to the same time year-round. This is because wake-up times, as opposed to go-to-sleep times, are more dependent on the sun for most people.

Take Rochester, for example.
Our earliest sunrise was Friday, June 15th, at 5:30 AM. Our latest sunrise (aside from the last week of DST, when sunrises get as late as 7:46) is on January 2nd, at 7:42 AM. The total variation year-round is 2h16min.
Our earliest sunset is on December 13th at 4:35 PM, while our latest sunset is tomorrow, June 26th, at 8:54 PM. The total variation, therefore, is 4h19min.

Needless to say, keeping the clocks the same time year-round would get us closer to three hours of variation in both sunrises and sunsets. As someone who has to get up at the same time year-round (on weekdays, that is), and will be awake in the evening hours regardless, equal variation in sunrise and sunset times would be a sub-optimal solution, regardless of which time we adopted year-round. I think that pretty well summarizes the thread, and explains why there is no solution better than the current system.

[kalvado]

In the winter, due to limited daylight, it is important that solar noon and actual noon align as closely as possible.

Why?

[webny99]

In the winter, [cut - see below] it is important that solar noon and actual noon align as closely as possible.

Why?

This clause answers it partially:

due to limited daylight,

In addition, most schools, business etc., have at least somewhat equal hours in the morning and the afternoon; 9 to 3, 8 to 5, 7 to 4, etc, etc. If we had solar noon at 1 PM - or 11 AM - limited daylight would cause the morning - or afternoon - commute/wait for the bus, etc., to be in the dark, which is potentially dangerous and unacceptable. It's logical for daylight to match when people are doing their daily activities, and the only way to do this, with only 9 hours of daylight, is to match solar noon with actual noon. The more daylight you have to work with, the less this matters.

Unless, of course, people start switching their schedules, but that's messy and infeasible.

[J N Winkler]

Frankly, I am unimpressed with daylight arguments for various DST regimes, for two main reasons:  (1) the effects are at the margin, and (2) both pro and con always have at least one argument that relates to daylight.  In the end, the decision to adhere to a particular DST regime amounts to a particular daylight-related argument (or set of arguments) being more politically successful regardless of whether it is more valid.

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?

I took much stick upthread for suggesting that Hamilton Standard regularity in bowel movements was a higher priority over DST, but I still stand by that argument:  avoiding metabolic disease is the real prize while DST is an annoying sideshow.

[tradephoric]

Edison Research conducted a poll in January 2015 that looks at when people wake up on weekdays.  If we went from standard-time in the winter to DST, dawn would shift from around 7AM for most Americans to around 8AM.  According to the poll, 17% of people are still sleeping past 8AM meaning nearly 1 in 5 Americans would be sleeping during daylight even if dawn times were shifted back an hour with winter DST.  Keep in mind this poll is only looking at when people wake up on weekdays, and that percentage would presumably be much higher on the weekends when people are naturally sleeping in longer.   If the average person sleeps in an hour during the weekends, that 17% would turn into 35%.  That's a high percentage of Americans that would wake up in daylight even during the dead of winter.



Looking at it the other way, under current standard time dawn begins at around 7AM during the winter solstice.  According to the poll, about 66% of Americans are already up on weekdays before 7AM.  Point is many Americans are already waking up in pitch darkness during the dead of winter, and it diminishes the argument that people need daylight to wake up and function.  If it's so difficult to wake up when it's dark out, how do millions of Americans already manage to do it?  I'm curious for those who really want to keep standard time during the winter, how many of you already wake up in pitch darkness during the winter?

Finally according to the poll only 18% of people are waking up between 7AM and 8AM.  These are the people who would potentially be most affected by going to DST during the winter, as they would go from waking up in light to waking up in darkness.

[webny99]

In the end, the decision to adhere to a particular DST regime amounts to a particular daylight-related argument (or set of arguments) being more politically successful regardless of whether it is more valid.

I can't bring myself to agree with that. If it is politically successful, doesn't that mean it is supported by a majority of voters, and therefore "valid"; i.e. reflecting the will of the people? How do we prove whether any given solution is valid or invalid, as opposed to politically successful? The two aren't really separable, as far as I can see.

One option is base validity on "asleep in light" and "awake in dark" polls, as tradephoric seems to enjoy doing. I just can't see any way to validate or invalidate a solution without basing it on daylight, when utilization of daylight is the issue!

DST is an annoying sideshow.

Though I have no problems with current DST, I can more or less agree with that!

[english si]

I have heard of wattages of 300 W and even 500 W, but that information dates from about fifteen years ago before CFLs and now LEDs became affordable.  It is now at least technologically possible to have a SAD lamp with high light output and low power consumption.

Indeed, my raising it was more out of annoyance at Tradephoric totally brushing aside the negative effects of dark winter mornings, than it needing seriously large amounts of power.

Though, if it was 300W 15 years ago (note I've taken the lower number) then that is more than the 4*60W that were lighting my living room (the sort of evening light usage that's supposedly significant enough for DST to make decent savings with) 15 years ago. Both sorts of lighting will have gone down proportionately, so the SAD lamps for an hour in the morning would still use more than an hour's regular light in the evening.

Lighting-related arguments at least make more sense at a conceptual level, but even there I think the real effect of DST is effectively buried in statistical noise because schedule creep effects (resulting from the inability of probably a majority of the population to stick to consistent sleeping schedules) over time eclipse the effects of a twice-yearly time change.

Absolutely - as I said in my OP that Tradephoric decided to straw man, any power consumption effect change is within the margin of error and it isn't necessarily even a tiny reduction, given a tiny increase was reported in IN when it moved to having DST in summer.

That's fine if your preferred activity is driving down the street. Not so much if it's playing sports, hiking, skiiing, etc.

I help with two annual Scout hiking competitions - one a day hike in late November (start from 7:30-9am, finish noon-6pm depending on speed, sun roughly 0730-1600), the other a night hike (3pm-midnight, sunset roughly 17:00) in early February. Both are very popular, despite being in winter with short days, though the night hike is the bigger of the two events despite (or rather, because of) the fact that it's nighttime for most of the walking. The big hiking event around here (that I play no part in), the Endurance 80, where you walk for up to 24 hours (along a the 50 mile course), is moving from late April to early March (so day-night shifts from 05:40-20:21-05:38, to 06:46-17:44-06:44), despite the route's scenery, presumably as it's more pleasant to walk in the cooler weather and to emphasis the day-night nature for added fun/challenge.

Sports can have floodlights - I used to play field hockey 7-8pm, whether the sun had set at 4, or would set at 9, on some not-very-good school play ground (so we're not talking posh stuff). My local running club uses my road as a winter track due to mud on the playing field they use in summer. As a young child I did after-school (so 3:15-4:15) soccer without any floodlights whether sunset happened during the session in January, or happened after my bedtime in July.

Now, sure, these outdoor activities are a bit more reasonable to desire to do in winter, and a bit harder to do with artifical light to boot, than merely eating al fresco (the activity Trad absurdly suggested was a reason for DST in winter), but the obstacles are surmountable.

That said yes - moving the daylight later in winter would have the benefit of avoiding time changes twice a year while still keeping later sunsets in summer, but I'm not sure how much it actually helps otherwise.

To be fair to most of the year-round DST proponents here, their main (often sole) reason is just that they dislike changing their clocks twice a year.

Ultimately the real problem is that that, in middle latitudes, the days in winter are just too damn short. And there's no fixing that, all you can do is move closer to the equator... or migrate to the opposite hemisphere.

Indeed!

Point is many Americans are already waking up in pitch darkness during the dead of winter, and it diminishes the argument that people need daylight to wake up and function.

No it doesn't - it makes the point that others have been making that the social clock schedule has been set by larks, not owls. This social jetlack has huge productivity and health effects on those owls who are artificially woken up, not fully rested, before they naturally would.

If it's so difficult to wake up when it's dark out, how do millions of Americans already manage to do it?

Alarms and drugs. Neither are healthy and year-round DST will only exacerbate those negative effects of both winter and a lark-biased schedule.

I'm curious for those who really want to keep standard time during the winter, how many of you already wake up in pitch darkness during the winter?

Yes. And it's not fun, or easy.

And I know the problem is dark mornings, rather than dark evenings, because the week or two before the clocks go back, I'm really bad at waking up and grouchy and miserable. The clocks change and then I have a similar fortnight feeling much better and more rested before the sunrise gets too late once more.

For those denying the science that the sun has an effect - are you finding it easier to wake up before 6 now or in winter? Note I say 'before 6': despite being an owl, I'm currently waking up at 5 naturally, when it would be gone 9 mid-winter - at both times of the year, waking up at 7 and not too long before or after would be difficult!

[webny99]

[quote snipped]
Finally according to the poll only 18% of people are waking up between 7AM and 8AM.  These are the people who would potentially be most affected by going to DST during the winter, as they would go from waking up in light to waking up in darkness.

For what it's worth, I wake up (and for several weeks even start work) before sunrise in the winter.
But keep in mind, waking up is one issue, and commuting is another.

So, you are correct that anyone that wakes up between 7 and 8 AM benefits from standard time in the winter.
But anyone that commutes between 7 and 8 AM also benefits - and I'd venture that includes a majority of those people who get up before 7 AM - and therefore, a majority of the population. Waking up is not the only issue here - execution of day-to-day activities is just as important to consider.

[kalvado]

In the end, the decision to adhere to a particular DST regime amounts to a particular daylight-related argument (or set of arguments) being more politically successful regardless of whether it is more valid.

I can't bring myself to agree with that. If it is politically successful, doesn't that mean it is supported by a majority of voters, and therefore "valid"; i.e. reflecting the will of the people? How do we prove whether any given solution is valid or invalid, as opposed to politically successful? The two aren't really separable, as far as I can see.

Problem is that no elected official did specifically run on a DST-related issues; and their opinion about DST is not necessarily well reflecting opinions of voters.

True to the bone method would be to run a state-by-state referendum with, say, 3 options: no DST, summer DST, year-round DST. I don't expect that to happen, though..

[hotdogPi]

True to the bone method would be to run a state-by-state referendum with, say, 3 options: no DST, summer DST, year-round DST. I don't expect that to happen, though..

That would result in several states being where they shouldn't be, relative to other states. What if New Jersey said no DST, while Pennsylvania said year-round DST?

[kalvado]

Edison Research conducted a poll in January 2015 that looks at when people wake up on weekdays.  If we went from standard-time in the winter to DST, dawn would shift from around 7AM for most Americans to around 8AM.

And just FYI, here is the map. Would you please show where "most Americans" live?

[hotdogPi]

Edison Research conducted a poll in January 2015 that looks at when people wake up on weekdays.  If we went from standard-time in the winter to DST, dawn would shift from around 7AM for most Americans to around 8AM.

And just FYI, here is the map. Would you please show where "most Americans" live?

It seems like more than half live in the dark orange section. This includes the entire Atlantic coast, almost half of California, Illinois, about 80% of Texas (despite being only half of Texas's area), Denver, and Phoenix.

EDIT: Between 52% and 59% live in the dark orange areas.

[Eth]

If it's so difficult to wake up when it's dark out, how do millions of Americans already manage to do it?

Financial incentives. Keeping your job is generally contingent upon being there at the appointed time.

I'm curious for those who really want to keep standard time during the winter, how many of you already wake up in pitch darkness during the winter?

If we define "pitch darkness" as "outside civil twilight", my normal alarm time of 7 AM* is only in pitch darkness for a couple (difficult) weeks in late December and early January. Under permanent DST, that would expand to over three months, from Halloween to early February.

(* For the last few weeks, I've been waking up without assistance usually in the 6:00-6:30 range. This seems to be related to significant quantities of light coming through my east-facing bedroom window. Weird how that works.)

[J N Winkler]

I can't bring myself to agree with that. If it is politically successful, doesn't that mean it is supported by a majority of voters, and therefore "valid"; i.e. reflecting the will of the people?

Support by a majority of the voters is not the only measure of political success and, in the case of DST, it is also the least likely to come into play.  "My drive-in theatres shall not lose money in the summer" is a perfectly adequate political argument for getting rid of DST, for example, if you are the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.  (Yes, Arizona eliminated DST in the 1960's for precisely that reason.)

How do we prove whether any given solution is valid or invalid, as opposed to politically successful? The two aren't really separable, as far as I can see.

They are separable.  It is conceptually possible to accept or reject DST by evaluating the effects of DST against a welfare criterion.  This is basically what economists do when they carry out research into DST:  they try to determine whether the losses to society of DST (from things like increased accidents in the first week after return to DST in the spring, etc.) balance out the benefits.  It is not unreasonable to expect the voters to swing behind a policy option that maximizes welfare, but this does not always happen:  allowances have to be made for myopic choice.

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.

One option is base validity on "asleep in light" and "awake in dark" polls, as tradephoric seems to enjoy doing. I just can't see any way to validate or invalidate a solution without basing it on daylight, when utilization of daylight is the issue!

It is not the only issue in play.  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.

If it's so difficult to wake up when it's dark out, how do millions of Americans already manage to do it?

Alarms and drugs. Neither are healthy and year-round DST will only exacerbate those negative effects of both winter and a lark-biased schedule.

I'm also very resistant to the assumption that "what most Americans do" is the smart choice.  All automobiles sold in the US from model year 1966 onward were legally required to have seat belts, yet seat belt usage in the US did not break the 50% threshold until 25 years later, in 1991.

The stylized fact is that a majority of Americans cannot lay hands on $400 to meet a short-term emergency, have to borrow for major purchases like an automobile, do not have enough money saved for retirement, and (if current trends continue) will become obese and diabetic.

My suspicion is that the reliance on alarm clocks and drugs like caffeine for waking in dark mornings is really a result of anchoring bias.  Alarm clocks and coffee continue in use largely because they are what people are already used to, even though it is arguable (and I would like to see this tested out in practice) that SAD lamps, blackout window screens, and adherence to a consistent sleeping schedule would yield much better results.  Assuming that these methods prove out in a small-scale study, we can then progress to looking at what the implications are of using them to accommodate various DST regimes.



Returning to looking at the DST issue in meta terms, I have a couple of thoughts:

*  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?

*  From an economist's point of view, I suspect DST is a difficult-to-solve problem in much the same way as squaring the circle has been, or as the remaining Hilbert problems are, in mathematics.  (Squaring the circle was recognized as a difficult problem as early as 1800 BC; it was not finally proven to be impossible until 1882.)  It is conceptually possible to determine whether we should have DST entirely on technocratic grounds, but the empirical fact is that DST has been a political decision in every jurisdiction in which it has been either accepted or rejected, and there are an immense number of variables that have to be taken into account in evaluating the welfare implications of DST.

[tradephoric]

Really the only populated states in light green on that map are Michigan and Indiana.  Apart from that the only places with sunrises after 8AM (and thus dawns around ~7:30AM) are North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, and Montana.  Besides that, most states have dawns around 7AM and sunrises about 7:30AM... give or take.  According to the 2015 poll, 53% of Americans are up by 6:30AM.   If you look at the top 20 largest metro regions in America, only Southern California cities have dawn times before 6:30AM... so it's a pretty safe bet that the majority of Americans are waking up in pitch darkness during the winter solstice.  If that's the case why stop at standard time during the winter, we should be proposing reverse-DST during the winter (where we shift an hour the other way).  Of course then we have sunsets at 2:45PM during the winter in some places in the lower 48  .  The idea that we should have the sun rise at nearly identical times throughout the year is just a foolish proposal.

[jeffandnicole]

I wonder how many people on here actually utilized the benefit of DST, or if you just sat on your computer inside with the lights on during that last hour of daylight...

[kalvado]

Edison Research conducted a poll in January 2015 that looks at when people wake up on weekdays.  If we went from standard-time in the winter to DST, dawn would shift from around 7AM for most Americans to around 8AM.

And just FYI, here is the map. Would you please show where "most Americans" live?

It seems like more than half live in the dark orange section. This includes the entire Atlantic coast, almost half of California, Illinois, about 80% of Texas (despite being only half of Texas's area), Denver, and Phoenix.

EDIT: Between 52% and 59% live in the dark orange areas.

And those dark orange areas - MA, FL, CA - are the ones which seem to be unhappy with the deal...

[vdeane]

If you're on your own schedule, it helps. But if you're attending something that starts at a specific time, you have to adjust your schedule a bit, particularly if you're traveling on the same day from one time zone to another. For instance, the times I've driven to a Nashville meet that morning, I knew I had an extra hour to play with because if the meet started at noon local time, my watch and my vehicle clock would say 1 p.m. But it's different if you're out in Central Time and planning to arrive at your destination in Eastern Time. And, remember that phone clocks automatically reset for the time zone they're in. So if you would normally get up at 7 a.m., you have to set your phone alarm clock for 6 a.m.

One of my colleagues works in Somerset and lives in Russell Springs. Her drive is about the same length as mine and is on a much better road, so her commute time is probably shorter. But Russell County is on Central Time and Pulaski County is on Eastern Time. So that means she has to get to work at 7 a.m. back home and has to adjust her schedule accordingly. I don't know how she does it. I'll have to ask her sometime.

I was mentally adjusting the hours the entire time I was in the hotel, since my phone and Chromebook both switched automatically.  My plan had been to do something similar for the Birmingham meet (mentally adjusting the meet time, which I think was early enough that it still wasn't unusual in Eastern), though that ended up not happening due to various reasons (and, as a consequence, it was harder to get up for the drive back; I think in the future I'll just shorten trips that cross time zone boundaries eastbound).  It helps that TV programs broadcast simultaneously for Central and Eastern; trying to do the same with other time zones would result in a needed adjustment to watch the local news.  About the only difference TV-wise between Central and Eastern is local news broadcasts at 7 Eastern/6 Central being ubiquitous in Central but uncommon in Eastern.

Edison Research conducted a poll in January 2015 that looks at when people wake up on weekdays.  If we went from standard-time in the winter to DST, dawn would shift from around 7AM for most Americans to around 8AM.  According to the poll, 17% of people are still sleeping past 8AM meaning nearly 1 in 5 Americans would be sleeping during daylight even if dawn times were shifted back an hour with winter DST.  Keep in mind this poll is only looking at when people wake up on weekdays, and that percentage would presumably be much higher on the weekends when people are naturally sleeping in longer.   If the average person sleeps in an hour during the weekends, that 17% would turn into 35%.  That's a high percentage of Americans that would wake up in daylight even during the dead of winter.



Looking at it the other way, under current standard time dawn begins at around 7AM during the winter solstice.  According to the poll, about 66% of Americans are already up on weekdays before 7AM.  Point is many Americans are already waking up in pitch darkness during the dead of winter, and it diminishes the argument that people need daylight to wake up and function.  If it's so difficult to wake up when it's dark out, how do millions of Americans already manage to do it?  I'm curious for those who really want to keep standard time during the winter, how many of you already wake up in pitch darkness during the winter?

Finally according to the poll only 18% of people are waking up between 7AM and 8AM.  These are the people who would potentially be most affected by going to DST during the winter, as they would go from waking up in light to waking up in darkness.

So the push for year-round DST is to accommodate the 17% of people who have the luxury of an owl schedule even during the work week?  Let's also not forget that the work week is 5 days, and the weekend is only 2.  I'd rather the sun be set up for the 5 than the 2.

And there's a big difference between being able to eat breakfast, get dressed, and drive to work while there's light in the windows vs. it still looking like night even then.  Even though I get up in darkness half the year, those activities are never in darkness for me.

I can't bring myself to agree with that. If it is politically successful, doesn't that mean it is supported by a majority of voters, and therefore "valid"; i.e. reflecting the will of the people?

Support by a majority of the voters is not the only measure of political success and, in the case of DST, it is also the least likely to come into play.  "My drive-in theatres shall not lose money in the summer" is a perfectly adequate political argument for getting rid of DST, for example, if you are the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.  (Yes, Arizona eliminated DST in the 1960's for precisely that reason.)

Heck, given that studies have shown that the will of the voters has a statistically insignificant effect of what ideas become politically successful, I'd question if it should even be considered a measure at all.

If we define "pitch darkness" as "outside civil twilight", my normal alarm time of 7 AM* is only in pitch darkness for a couple (difficult) weeks in late December and early January. Under permanent DST, that would expand to over three months, from Halloween to early February.

That's how I define it, but I think tradephoric defines it as "any time that isn't between sunrise and sunset".