It may be a month or so early to start this thread but there is good news out of Brussels.
The EU is starting a study to determine whether DST should be continued. There is a groundswell forming in northern European countries to end DST. So the study will determine if any "benefits" of DST are worth its inconvenience and risks to health and safety.
You seem to be anti-DST, but you don't give a reason. Can you explain? (I don't have an opinion either way.)
It starts here on March 11th. I feel it should go back to the schedule of early April/later October like it was until 2006. One other change I would make? Put Indianapolis on central time.
The second Sunday in March is too early, although I'll acknowledge the practical benefit of the time change never falling on Easter Sunday (under the prior system, this year the clocks would have gone ahead on Easter). The older system prior to the mid-1980s where they went ahead on the last Sunday in April was too late to start it.
I think we should end DST, moving the DST times forwards by half an hour, and non-DST times backwards by half an hour.
No time change, and it works out nicely to split the difference, giving us a bit more daylight on winter evenings and summer mornings.
Quote from: webny99 on February 08, 2018, 10:35:09 PM
I think we should end DST, moving the DST times forwards by half an hour, and non-DST times backwards by half an hour.
No time change, and it works out nicely to split the difference, giving us a bit more daylight on winter evenings and summer mornings.
I've been promoting that very thought for years. With the exception that there has to be 100% compliance...no time zone "islands".
Oh man, the tenth biannual AARoads DST discussion!
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 09, 2018, 12:34:58 AM
Oh man, the tenth biannual AARoads DST discussion!
You should hear the Utah Legislature. Every single year there is a proposal to eliminate it, and every year it gets shot down in committee.
I’m all for DST myself, but it begins too early in the year and ends too late, IMO.
Quote from: DaBigE on February 08, 2018, 11:25:55 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 08, 2018, 10:35:09 PM
I think we should end DST, moving the DST times forwards by half an hour, and non-DST times backwards by half an hour.
No time change, and it works out nicely to split the difference, giving us a bit more daylight on winter evenings and summer mornings.
I've been promoting that very thought for years. With the exception that there has to be 100% compliance...no time zone "islands".
I must be understanding this incorrectly.
Wouldn't moving the non-DST times back by half an hour
permanently make it so, for example, the west coast was always GMT-07:30? That seems rather messy.
The cost-benefit ratio for jumping back and fourth one hour each year isn't there. The energy saving is miniscule, there is an increase in accidents around the time switch, etc, etc
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 08, 2018, 07:03:10 PM
It may be a month or so early to start this thread but there is good news out of Brussels.
The EU is starting a study to determine whether DST should be continued. There is a groundswell forming in northern European countries to end DST. So the study will determine if any "benefits" of DST are worth its inconvenience and risks to health and safety.
Yup, they are questioning the use of DST (which in Europe runs from late March to late October, sightly shorter than in the USA, it used to be the other way round). Anyway I believe Spain should move out of permanent DST, I always think elsewhere the sun sets too early when actually it sets too late here. But this should be accompanied by all schedules moving forward one hour, as we adapted them to our f*cked up time zone.
Anyway, I decided to spicy up my forum time, so I moved out of Eastern and sync with Big Rig Steve, so I'll be anywhere from Eastern to Pacific now. However I retain Euro DST instead of switching to American one, thus for most of March my forum time will be one hour behind his local time, so if he goes to the West Coast I'll be setting my time to Alaska :sombrero:.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2018, 03:36:22 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on February 08, 2018, 11:25:55 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 08, 2018, 10:35:09 PM
I think we should end DST, moving the DST times forwards by half an hour, and non-DST times backwards by half an hour.
No time change, and it works out nicely to split the difference, giving us a bit more daylight on winter evenings and summer mornings.
I've been promoting that very thought for years. With the exception that there has to be 100% compliance...no time zone "islands".
I must be understanding this incorrectly.
Wouldn't moving the non-DST times back by half an hour permanently make it so, for example, the west coast was always GMT-07:30? That seems rather messy.
Yes, but if it applied around the globe, GMT -07:30 would actually
become GMT -08:00. Even if it didn't, I don't see a problem with a permanent -07:30. It's not like there's a frequent need to relate local time to an arbitrary base time.
1) DST lasts too long. End of March to end of September is fine.
2) DST is really bad in areas that are already one time zone farther east than they belong. A lot of areas are already 45+ minutes ahead of their natural time and adding another hour really distorts the day. Those areas really need to either ditch DST or move to the correct time zone.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 09, 2018, 08:44:14 AM
1) DST lasts too long. End of March to end of September is fine.
In March and October, I'd much rather the sunlight in the evening than the morning.
Quote2) DST is really bad in areas that are already one time zone farther east than they belong. A lot of areas are already 45+ minutes ahead of their natural time and adding another hour really distorts the day. Those areas really need to either ditch DST or move to the correct time zone.
Indiana is without a doubt the most controversial state in the US when it comes to this. If they go back to CST, the sun would set at like 4 pm or earlier in the winter. Staying on EST, the sun doesn't set until close to 10 pm in the summer. There's no win-win situation for Indiana that I can think of.
The relative locations of the time zones to where they "should" be. (https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/#!cities=1440) (for whatever it's worth)
I just want more light when I get home from work so I can ride my bicycle safely.
I'm not opposed to staying on the same time the entire year, but speaking for a country on a latitude like Netherlands and Germany, moving permanently into summer time would be more beneficial than staying in winter time all year. The longer daylight in the evening allows for many outdoor activities after dinner.
School vacations also do not coincide with the summer solstice, but are later in summer, from mid-July to late August or early September. That means that by late August, the sun would set around 7:30 p.m. if on winter time the entire year, which would be really detrimental for events and other outdoor activities associated with the warm summer evenings.
I think it would also seriously impact late summer vacations in September if it would be dark by 7 p.m. Many people who do not have school-aged children go on vacation in the late summer / low season in the first half of September. I usually go on vacation during that time and the early darkness and chilly temperatures after sunset are already inhibiting activities in the evening, not to mention if it would be shortened by another hour.
Quote from: webny99 on February 09, 2018, 08:53:46 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 09, 2018, 08:44:14 AM
1) DST lasts too long. End of March to end of September is fine.
In March and October, I'd much rather the sunlight in the evening than the morning.
Quote2) DST is really bad in areas that are already one time zone farther east than they belong. A lot of areas are already 45+ minutes ahead of their natural time and adding another hour really distorts the day. Those areas really need to either ditch DST or move to the correct time zone.
Indiana is without a doubt the most controversial state in the US when it comes to this. If they go back to CST, the sun would set at like 4 pm or earlier in the winter. Staying on EST, the sun doesn't set until close to 10 pm in the summer. There's no win-win situation for Indiana that I can think of.
So split the state in half like Tennessee; the western half goes on CT and the eastern half goes on ET. Or bring back the little cutout in Northwest IN that was CT.
Another stupid European idea.
I myself am glad that DST starts earlier, but really wish it would be extended year-round. It really stinks to leave work and it be dark. I prefer my daylight in the evenings, thank you very much.
Quote from: webny99 on February 09, 2018, 08:53:46 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 09, 2018, 08:44:14 AM
1) DST lasts too long. End of March to end of September is fine.
In March and October, I'd much rather the sunlight in the evening than the morning.
Quote2) DST is really bad in areas that are already one time zone farther east than they belong. A lot of areas are already 45+ minutes ahead of their natural time and adding another hour really distorts the day. Those areas really need to either ditch DST or move to the correct time zone.
Indiana is without a doubt the most controversial state in the US when it comes to this. If they go back to CST, the sun would set at like 4 pm or earlier in the winter. Staying on EST, the sun doesn't set until close to 10 pm in the summer. There's no win-win situation for Indiana that I can think of.
Well, there is EST with no DST, that avoids both the 4pm sunsets in the winter and the 10pm sunsets in the summer.
However, I lived in the EST part of Indiana for most of my life and just moved to the CST part, and I like it much better. I don't mind the early winter sunsets, and I like that the sunrise isn't so ridiculously late. I also really like TV shows starting an hour earlier.
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate Central Time?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 12:51:57 PM
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate Central Time?
You mean Normal Time?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 12:51:57 PM
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate Central Time?
Yes, and Eastern is even worse! and I don't even want to mention pacific...
Quote from: webny99 on February 09, 2018, 08:53:46 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 09, 2018, 08:44:14 AM
1) DST lasts too long. End of March to end of September is fine.
In March and October, I'd much rather the sunlight in the evening than the morning.
Quote2) DST is really bad in areas that are already one time zone farther east than they belong. A lot of areas are already 45+ minutes ahead of their natural time and adding another hour really distorts the day. Those areas really need to either ditch DST or move to the correct time zone.
Indiana is without a doubt the most controversial state in the US when it comes to this. If they go back to CST, the sun would set at like 4 pm or earlier in the winter. Staying on EST, the sun doesn't set until close to 10 pm in the summer. There's no win-win situation for Indiana that I can think of.
I live in the Central Time Zone part of Indiana (SW). I used to think that they were crazy trying to go to eastern time, but the older I get, the more I like to have the sun set later. I was glad to see the DST extended to early Nov and early March. I despise the sun setting at 4:30 in December. Don't mind getting up and starting work in the dark, but I had finishing it in the dark. Also appear to have that light sensitivity that I get grumpy when with lesser sunlight. (Perhaps I need to move further south)
Quote from: webny99 on February 09, 2018, 08:42:39 AM
Yes, but if it applied around the globe, GMT -07:30 would actually become GMT -08:00. Even if it didn't, I don't see a problem with a permanent -07:30. It's not like there's a frequent need to relate local time to an arbitrary base time.
My day job very, very strongly disagrees with you on that. Converting database and server log timestamps from UTC to Eastern (for me) and Central (for my boss) is messy enough already without throwing a half-hour offset in there.
Anyway, I'd support pushing the beginning of DST back to around the time it used to be. Currently, when DST kicks in, it's already reaching the point where it's light until about 7pm anyway here. Making it light until 8pm is nice, sure, but is outweighed by shifting sunrise back to almost 8am and making it hell to wake up in the morning.
Quote from: inkyatari on February 09, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
I just want more light when I get home from work so I can ride my bicycle safely.
You'd think it'd be simpler to just shift your hours earlier to make this possible, rather than requiring everyone to change their clocks.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on February 09, 2018, 01:04:17 PM
I live in the Central Time Zone part of Indiana (SW). I used to think that they were crazy trying to go to eastern time, but the older I get, the more I like to have the sun set later. I was glad to see the DST extended to early Nov and early March. I despise the sun setting at 4:30 in December. Don't mind getting up and starting work in the dark, but I had finishing it in the dark. Also appear to have that light sensitivity that I get grumpy when with lesser sunlight. (Perhaps I need to move further south)
I've found that I'm going the opposite: the older I get, the more I prefer morning daylight. This is probably because my circadian rhythm is naturally that of a night owl, and unlike college, the working world does not afford me the luxury of sleeping according to my natural cycle (or anything remotely resembling it; if I had my way, I'd sleep 2 or 3-11; instead, I'm forced to try to make 10 or 11-6 work). Having it dark when I'm getting ready only makes me slower and more groggy than I already would by by virtue of the hour being before noon. Around here, the latest sunrise is around 7:30, which means my entire commute would be before sunrise if we adopted permanent DST. I can only imagine how much worst it is in the more western parts of the time zone (even the 15 minute offset between Albany and Rochester throws me sometimes when I travel).
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Another stupid European idea.
I myself am glad that DST starts earlier, but really wish it would be extended year-round. It really stinks to leave work and it be dark. I prefer my daylight in the evenings, thank you very much.
My problem with year-round DST is that it would be dark in both the morning and the evening, at least here in the DC area. On the winter solstice this year, sunrise here will be at 7:23 and sunset at 16:49. So it's mostly dark when you get up and it gets light during the commute. It's dark when you leave work. Push those times an hour later and it's still dark when you get up, it's darker during the morning commute, it's pretty dark when you leave work and it gets dark during the evening commute, and it's dark by the time you get home. I don't see the benefit. It's already hard enough to get up in the morning during the winter without making it darker.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 09, 2018, 02:01:49 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on February 09, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
I just want more light when I get home from work so I can ride my bicycle safely.
You'd think it'd be simpler to just shift your hours earlier to make this possible, rather than requiring everyone to change their clocks.
But how many people are in the same situation? Really, the whole point of DST was to make light levels more appropriate for certain times of year.
Quote from: Chris on February 09, 2018, 11:10:33 AMI'm not opposed to staying on the same time the entire year, but speaking for a country on a latitude ike Netherlands and Germany, moving permanently into summer time would be more beneficial than staying in winter time all year.
The Netherlands is already on year-round DST, with double DST in the Summer. OK, it's near the eastern edge of WET and was +00:20 before the invasion, so its not as extreme as France's change and definitely not Spain's.
What is odd is how, when Spain overthrew Franco, they then took about 20 years to go "why are we still on Berlin time which we only did out of our leader's solidarity with the Nazi cause? Do we want to stay on CET or move to WET?". Of course, they didn't particularly shift their days, just the numbers on the clock - so if they got up at 6am before the change, they got up at 7am instead - thus they didn't really start pretending to be an hour (or more) west of where they are in their lifestyles until they started having to get up an hour earlier so that their office hours in Barcelona are the same as those of offices in Brussels and Bonn.
As for northerly latitudes, when the UK Parliament last discussed the idea of moving to CET, Scotland demanded an exemption from even trialling it, and one MP demanded Somerset would be moved back to GMT -00:15, as it was pre-railway (though the latter was a motion to tank the bill). When the UK trialled CET ('Double Summer Time') in the 70s, MPs from Ipswich (about as close as one can get to Amsterdam in the UK) were as vocal about not continuing it as those from Inverness. It was overwhelmingly opposed continuing the trial - none of the promised energy and leisure/tourism benefits came about in a tangible way and more statistically significant (but still not definitive either way) were the rise in vehicle accidents, depression cases and suicides.
QuoteThe longer daylight in the evening allows for many outdoor activities after dinner.
<snip>
I think it would also seriously impact late summer vacations in September if it would be dark by 7 p.m. Many people who do not have school-aged children go on vacation in the late summer / low season in the first half of September. I usually go on vacation during that time and the early darkness and chilly temperatures after sunset are already inhibiting activities in the evening, not to mention if it would be shortened by another hour.
7pm or 8pm doesn't make much difference - there's no light left after dinner (especially on vacation where you aren't just wolfing down stuff for sustenance) either way! If you want to do something after dinner, eat with the old people at 5! Or just do that something before it gets dark and eat afterwards! Or just vacation the other side of the school holidays - in June, not September...
And 'dark by 7' in early September is a reason to not drop DST, but definitely not a reason to move to St Petersburg time.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 09, 2018, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Another stupid European idea.
I myself am glad that DST starts earlier, but really wish it would be extended year-round. It really stinks to leave work and it be dark. I prefer my daylight in the evenings, thank you very much.
My problem with year-round DST is that it would be dark in both the morning and the evening, at least here in the DC area. On the winter solstice this year, sunrise here will be at 7:23 and sunset at 16:49. So it's mostly dark when you get up and it gets light during the commute. It's dark when you leave work. Push those times an hour later and it's still dark when you get up, it's darker during the morning commute, it's pretty dark when you leave work and it gets dark during the evening commute, and it's dark by the time you get home. I don't see the benefit. It's already hard enough to get up in the morning during the winter without making it darker.
Since local sunrise and sunset vary by an hour within the time zone, it is pretty safe to assume that for anyone saying "I want have sun during commute/when I wake up/leave work" there will be someone who would answer "I already have (one of other conditions), and I don't want to loose it!"
And things get worse as you move north...
So it is pretty difficult to find solution which would fit everyone, DST or not...
I like DST in the summer and standard time in the winter. It puts the extra light in the summer in the evening when there are more interesting things to do with it. However, I wish the US shifted to and from DST at the same time the EU does, both because they're more reasonable dates and for the simplicity of the time difference being the same year-round.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2018, 03:29:49 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 09, 2018, 02:01:49 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on February 09, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
I just want more light when I get home from work so I can ride my bicycle safely.
You'd think it'd be simpler to just shift your hours earlier to make this possible, rather than requiring everyone to change their clocks.
But how many people are in the same situation? Really, the whole point of DST was to make light levels more appropriate for certain times of year.
I think of it more in terms of: we've rescheduled sunrise and sunset to correspond to some notion of when on the clock certain things should occur.
Once upon a time, when lighting was a major part of our energy consumption, this had the advantage of conservation. However, now that we have more electronic gizmos which remain on continuously, the advantage is lost.
Modern society is not as wedded to the notion of "9 to 5" business hours as we once were, for various reasons. Various schemes like staggered start/stop hours, flex time, and telework are all being promoted partly for work-life balance, and partly for energy conservation and to address capacity constraints of urban infrastructure.
So, if there's a desire to have an extra hour of daylight at the end of the day, perhaps it would be less disruptive for the folks with such a desire to simply get up and go to work an hour earlier, to achieve the same result. Similarly, for those who complain about the possibility of students walking to school in the dark in the mornings, perhaps local school start times should be shifted to account for that consideration.
How realistic is the "go to work at a different time" option for most people, though? Many white-collar office workers may be able to do that, though many of them also aren't limited to a 40-hour work week and might wind up going in earlier but not leaving much earlier. But many blue-collar or retail workers have no control over their work hours short of changing jobs (often easier said than done).
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 09, 2018, 04:16:26 PM
How realistic is the "go to work at a different time" option for most people, though? Many white-collar office workers may be able to do that, though many of them also aren't limited to a 40-hour work week and might wind up going in earlier but not leaving much earlier. But many blue-collar or retail workers have no control over their work hours short of changing jobs (often easier said than done).
If there's enough demand for working hours to be altered, they will be altered. Especially during periods of time (such as now) when there's more demand for labor than not. It may be the case that the working hours would be altered for "everybody" at the company, rather than the randomness that can be sometimes tolerated in white collar environments, but the net effect would be the same.
Also, don't most retail workers today already have somewhat irregular hours? I'd think that the only large group of workers who are probably stuck are workers at 3-shift factories (not many of those these days) and farm workers (who tend to work on solar time regardless of whether DST is or isn't in effect).
A lot of retail workers are expected to show up at opening time, not an hour early and certainly not an hour later.
Living in a relatively northern area of the country myself, I'm interested in how many others here ever have to commute in the dark, and when?
Here, a standard 8-to-5 job would involve the following commutes in the dark:
Morning: mid to late October (until DST ends), and again mid December to late January, and again very briefly in March when DST starts
Afternoon: beginning of DST in November, until mid January
Once February hits, there's enough light at both ends of the day to encompass all the peak hours.
My afternoon at this particular time of year begins with the sun still up (5:30), but it's dark by the time I get home (and indeed by the time the subway emerges from the tunnel at the airport about halfway home).
(Looking outside now, it's not pitch black, but it's dark at 6:00.)
Quote from: webny99 on February 09, 2018, 05:18:04 PM
Living in a relatively northern area of the country myself, I'm interested in how many others here ever have to commute in the dark, and when?
Here, a standard 8-to-5 job would involve the following commutes in the dark:
Morning: mid to late October (until DST ends), and again mid December to late January, and again very briefly in March when DST starts
Afternoon: beginning of DST in November, until mid January
Once February hits, there's enough light at both ends of the day to encompass all the peak hours.
Most days my commute is about 5 feet. Whether I do it in the dark or not depends on when I get up, and whether I bother to turn on the light to cross the room. :D
Once a month, my commute is roughly 5 hours long (depending on traffic queues at the border and bridge traffic). Some night driving is generally involved.
I'll concede that my arrangement is not normal. :)
Why don't we just cancel the dark?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 01:57:25 PM
Why don't we just cancel the dark?
If it's constantly light, the temperature will be significantly higher than it is now.
Then the obvious solution is to cancel time instead.
Now with all the technology avalaible I'd just cancel time zones and stick to local mean time. UTC would be retained for synchronizing purposes.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 10, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Now with all the technology avalaible I'd just cancel time zones and stick to local mean time. UTC would be retained for synchronizing purposes.
no way. synchronizing simple business interactions - like meeting (and long distance conference call!) times, appointments etc. It is already bad the way it is.
If anything, same time across the globe may be an easier one. Would you actually care that you have to get to work at 2 AM (2.00), if sun goes up at 11.30 PM (23.30)? scheduling
dates may be an issue.
Once upon a time I've seen someone show up for 00.10 departure - only to find out that their ticket was for 00.10
the day before... Yep, date starts at midnight....
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 01:57:25 PM
Why don't we just cancel the dark?
If you migrated between the North and South poles, you could do it for about half the year. The other half would be interesting. Perhaps you could keep taking flights to the west and it would work for a while.
Quote from: webny99 on February 10, 2018, 05:47:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 01:57:25 PM
Why don't we just cancel the dark?
If you migrated between the North and South poles, you could do it for about half the year. The other half would be interesting. Perhaps you could keep taking flights to the west and it would work for a while.
Actually, you get half just by staying at one pole. If you migrate between them, it will be light the entire time except when traveling from one to the other.
^ Do you mean there is never a day at the poles that has both light and darkness? :hmmm:
Quote from: webny99 on February 10, 2018, 05:59:38 PM
^ Do you mean there is never a day at the poles that has both light and darkness? :hmmm:
It's light for six months, then dark for six months, then repeat.
Near the boundaries of light/darkness, the Sun will be circling on the horizon for a few days, meaning it will be mostly but not completely light (the same way that it is mostly light just as the Sun is rising or setting where you are).
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2018, 06:03:09 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 10, 2018, 05:59:38 PM
^ Do you mean there is never a day at the poles that has both light and darkness? :hmmm:
It's light for six months, then dark for six months, then repeat.
Near the boundaries of light/darkness, the Sun will be circling on the horizon for a few days, meaning it will be mostly but not completely light (the same way that it is mostly light just as the Sun is rising or setting where you are).
I did a Google search in the interim and realized exactly that. That's extremely awesome, and I can't believe I didn't know that. That's good news for Scott5114, as long as he's OK with the cold, and a bit of darkness while he's in transit :-D
I do think canceling time would be quite a bit easier. That way my work schedule could be "when I damn well feel like showing up" to "when I'm sick of being here".
Well, then we should cancel space as well. With no universe left, we could explode a new big bang and model that new universe to our likenesses.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 12, 2018, 02:10:08 AM
I do think canceling time would be quite a bit easier. That way my work schedule could be "when I damn well feel like showing up" to "when I'm sick of being here".
In some cases, that translates to "never" :D
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2018, 04:04:34 PM
I like DST in the summer and standard time in the winter. It puts the extra light in the summer in the evening when there are more interesting things to do with it. However, I wish the US shifted to and from DST at the same time the EU does, both because they're more reasonable dates and for the simplicity of the time difference being the same year-round.
I agree with every word you just said. I really like DST. Going to standard time year round would suck here. Going to summer time year round is not realistic for multiple reasons. DST is the best compromise. But I do think the somewhat recently expanded DST dates in the US take it too far, it was a bit more sensible before.
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2018, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 01:57:25 PM
Why don't we just cancel the dark?
If it's constantly light, the temperature will be significantly higher than it is now.
Yup, Antarctica and the Arctic become quite tropical in their summers.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 12, 2018, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2018, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 01:57:25 PM
Why don't we just cancel the dark?
If it's constantly light, the temperature will be significantly higher than it is now.
Yup, Antarctica and the Arctic become quite tropical in their summers.
Sun is quite low above horizon, 23 degrees if I remember correctly. So irradiation in not very high...
Quote from: inkyatari on February 09, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
I just want more light when I get home from work so I can ride my bicycle safely.
And I want more light in the morning so I can start my work safely.
The problem with the daylight savings time conversation is, it always comes down to a stalemate between people who have one dislike and people with another. If we all just realized there's no solution to please everybody, we could skip a lot of this.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2018, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on February 09, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
I just want more light when I get home from work so I can ride my bicycle safely.
And I want more light in the morning so I can start my work safely.
The problem with the daylight savings time conversation is, it always comes down to a stalemate between people who have one dislike and people with another. If we all just realized there's no solution to please everybody, we could skip a lot of this.
We might as well do what pleases the most people possible. Many people prefer the extra hour of light in the evening - it goes without saying that there's a lot more activity after standard working hours than before.
Also, the variation between time zones can be well over an hour - in Indianapolis they could go off of DST and
still have a later sunset than Boston. If the time zones were actually lined up properly, it would solve a number of the issues, including Indiana.
Quote from: webny99 on February 12, 2018, 08:17:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2018, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on February 09, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
I just want more light when I get home from work so I can ride my bicycle safely.
And I want more light in the morning so I can start my work safely.
The problem with the daylight savings time conversation is, it always comes down to a stalemate between people who have one dislike and people with another. If we all just realized there's no solution to please everybody, we could skip a lot of this.
We might as well do what pleases the most people possible. Many people prefer the extra hour of light in the evening - it goes without saying that there's a lot more activity after standard working hours than before.
Also, the variation between time zones can be well over an hour - in Indianapolis they could go off of DST and still have a later sunset than Boston. If the time zones were actually lined up properly, it would solve a number of the issues, including Indiana.
Then we need to have a national poll on what people want, I guess. Except that nobody believes polls anymore.
People in the east will lose it if you try to make their sunrise 8:30 a.m., no matter what they say now. If you think people don't like getting home in the dark, wait until the majority gets to join those of us that go to work in the dark. The behavior and skill of half-awake motorists in the daylight is abysmal enough.
Less trouble arises out of leaving this alone than attempting to fix it. After decades of watching this conversation play out that is the one thing I feel fairly certain about it.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2018, 11:01:56 PM
People in the east will lose it if you try to make their sunrise 8:30 a.m., no matter what they say now. If you think people don't like getting home in the dark, wait until the majority gets to join those of us that go to work in the dark. The behavior and skill of half-awake motorists in the daylight is abysmal enough.
Less trouble arises out of leaving this alone than attempting to fix it. After decades of watching this conversation play out that is the one thing I feel fairly certain about it.
If you live in the eastern part of a time zone and still travel to work in the dark, that is far from an average case.
I don't
disagree that attempting a fix would be complicated, I'm just saying it is
possible to please a larger portion of the population - by aligning the time zones properly and having a year-round time that is halfway between DST and standard time.
Quote from: webny99 on February 13, 2018, 08:25:17 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2018, 11:01:56 PM
People in the east will lose it if you try to make their sunrise 8:30 a.m., no matter what they say now. If you think people don't like getting home in the dark, wait until the majority gets to join those of us that go to work in the dark. The behavior and skill of half-awake motorists in the daylight is abysmal enough.
Less trouble arises out of leaving this alone than attempting to fix it. After decades of watching this conversation play out that is the one thing I feel fairly certain about it.
If you live in the eastern part of a time zone and still travel to work in the dark, that is far from an average case.
I don't disagree that attempting a fix would be complicated, I'm just saying it is possible to please a larger portion of the population - by aligning the time zones properly and having a year-round time that is halfway between DST and standard time.
Currently I do. Most people don't. I'm saying if we adjusted to give people an extra hour of light in the afternoon, most people would be going to work in the dark. And then you would have an uproar in a voting bloc of 50,000,000 people. Politicians don't want to go meddling around to piss off any large part of that many people. In the end, that's all that really is going to make the determination.
And yes, it is theoretically possible, but when you think of all the constituencies that would be upended along the way, I just don't see it happening. It's a "devil you know" situation. Moreover, in today's political climate, Congress can't get anything done anyway.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 13, 2018, 08:51:00 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 13, 2018, 08:25:17 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2018, 11:01:56 PM
People in the east will lose it if you try to make their sunrise 8:30 a.m., no matter what they say now. If you think people don't like getting home in the dark, wait until the majority gets to join those of us that go to work in the dark. The behavior and skill of half-awake motorists in the daylight is abysmal enough.
Less trouble arises out of leaving this alone than attempting to fix it. After decades of watching this conversation play out that is the one thing I feel fairly certain about it.
If you live in the eastern part of a time zone and still travel to work in the dark, that is far from an average case.
I don't disagree that attempting a fix would be complicated, I'm just saying it is possible to please a larger portion of the population - by aligning the time zones properly and having a year-round time that is halfway between DST and standard time.
Currently I do. Most people don't. I'm saying if we adjusted to give people an extra hour of light in the afternoon, most people would be going to work in the dark. And then you would have an uproar in a voting bloc of 50,000,000 people. Politicians don't want to go meddling around to piss off any large part of that many people. In the end, that's all that really is going to make the determination.
And yes, it is theoretically possible, but when you think of all the constituencies that would be upended along the way, I just don't see it happening. It's a "devil you know" situation. Moreover, in today's political climate, Congress can't get anything done anyway.
Guys, I really enjoy your conversation. I'm not sure if you realize that or not - but while you both live in the same timezone, sunrise and sunset are 30 minutes earlier for Pete than for webny. Looks like that gives you somewhat different view on what is good and what is bad...
Quote from: kalvado on February 13, 2018, 09:06:09 AM
Guys, I really enjoy your conversation. I'm not sure if you realize that or not - but while you both live in the same timezone, sunrise and sunset are 30 minutes earlier for Pete than for webny. Looks like that gives you somewhat different view on what is good and what is bad...
I am definitely aware of that - I posted this above:
Quote from: webny99 on February 12, 2018, 08:17:08 PM
Also, the variation between time zones can be well over an hour - in Indianapolis they could go off of DST and still have a later sunset than Boston. If the time zones were actually lined up properly, it would solve a number of the issues, including Indiana.
I guess those from Boston (and the East Coast in general) have an early sunset anyways. So a loss of morning light would be more noticed. Whereas in Indiana, it's the loss of evening light that would be more noticed, since their mornings are already so dark.
Rochester's position near the center of the time zone gives me very little to complain about, really. I'd find both Indy and Boston challenging to adapt to in the winter - so I'm just tossing ideas around more than complaining that I'm hard done by.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2018, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on February 09, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
I just want more light when I get home from work so I can ride my bicycle safely.
And I want more light in the morning so I can start my work safely.
The problem with the daylight savings time conversation is, it always comes down to a stalemate between people who have one dislike and people with another. If we all just realized there's no solution to please everybody, we could skip a lot of this.
I prefer sunrise NLT 7:00, but I understand that at a northern latitude, that makes for a very early sunset for a couple months and that others don't like that. There just isn't enough sun in the winter for everyone to have it light when they would prefer.
As I stated earlier, my biggest problem is places (like most of Inidana) where DST is piled on top of already being one time zone too far east. That makes for very distorted days, especially in March and October. Growing up I was in the part of Indiana where it was Eastern but didn't do DST and that was OK, for the last 12 years I lived in the part of Indiana where it was Eastern and did do DST and absolutely hated it, and recently moved to a part of Indiana that is in Central and does DST and that's OK. I do think DST should start at least a week later. As it stands now, sunrise/sunset for my location on the first day of DST is 7:08/6:52 and I'd rather see it wait until it doesn't push sunrise past 7:00. Same with having it end in early-mid October instead of November.
Some of you might enjoy this web site:
https://www.timeanddate.com/
Under "sun calculator" it shows sunrise and sunset times for every date at a location you chose.
However cloud patterns matter too. If it's clear you can have a pretty bright twilight for an hour before sunrise or after sunset, but if it's a typical Seattle day in the winter and we have 100% overcast with thick clouds and drizzle, it'll still seem dark when the sun is above the horizon.
Quote from: kkt on February 13, 2018, 02:54:54 PMHowever cloud patterns matter too. If it's clear you can have a pretty bright twilight for an hour before sunrise or after sunset, but if it's a typical Seattle day in the winter and we have 100% overcast with thick clouds and drizzle, it'll still seem dark when the sun is above the horizon.
Also works the other way (usually in summer) with white clouds being able to reflect the sun below the horizon and make the light stay longer.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 09, 2018, 08:36:06 AMAnyway, I decided to spicy up my forum time, so I moved out of Eastern and sync with Big Rig Steve, so I'll be anywhere from Eastern to Pacific now. However I retain Euro DST instead of switching to American one, thus for most of March my forum time will be one hour behind his local time, so if he goes to the West Coast I'll be setting my time to Alaska :sombrero:.
Due to this, this morning (afternoon Central Europe) I changed my forum time from Central to Mountain time :sombrero:. When his current trip reaches its destination we'll be in Pacific time.
I wonder what percentage of the populace actually works banker's hours these days. Among my generation, I don't know anyone who actually goes into work in the morning–about the earliest schedule I know of that someone works is a business owner that goes in at 11am sometimes. My wife and I both go to work at 2:30pm, and I have a lot of friends with start times at 4:30pm. Quitting time is anywhere between 11pm and 1am.
None of us have Saturday or Sunday off. The big social day is Tuesday.
I work 8:30-5:30, M-F.
Quote from: kkt on February 13, 2018, 07:43:14 PM
I work 8:30-5:30, M-F.
Pretty standard. But going back to my earlier question, how often is it dark on your commute?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 13, 2018, 06:15:33 PM
I wonder what percentage of the populace actually works banker's hours these days. Among my generation, I don't know anyone who actually goes into work in the morning–about the earliest schedule I know of that someone works is a business owner that goes in at 11am sometimes. My wife and I both go to work at 2:30pm, and I have a lot of friends with start times at 4:30pm. Quitting time is anywhere between 11pm and 1am.
There's definitely plenty of people I know in your age group working standard hours. I'll spare the specifics and demographic details, and just say I personally know about 15-20 people in their late 20's who have a fairly regular work schedule - starting anywhere from 6 to 8 am and ending anywhere from 4 to 6 pm.
Maybe I'm just naive, but it seems like working hours and rush hours haven't done a whole lot of shifting around here, even as new age groups enter the workforce. There's only so many jobs that have hours like those you refer to.
To respond directly to your wonderment, I'd reckon around 70%, if not more, of the (full time) working population is at work between 9 and 3.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 13, 2018, 06:15:33 PM
I wonder what percentage of the populace actually works banker's hours these days. Among my generation, I don't know anyone who actually goes into work in the morning–about the earliest schedule I know of that someone works is a business owner that goes in at 11am sometimes. My wife and I both go to work at 2:30pm, and I have a lot of friends with start times at 4:30pm. Quitting time is anywhere between 11pm and 1am.
None of us have Saturday or Sunday off. The big social day is Tuesday.
I work 8:30 to 4:30. The other major start times at NYSDOT are 8 and 7:30, though some come in at 7 or earlier (usually because they work a compressed work week), with the occasional person coming in at 9.
At my previous job, I usually came in around 9-9:30, though most people started closer to 10 (I had flex time at that one, though "core hours" were 10-3). My internship (different company), in contrast, was 8 to 5.
I don't think I've ever had a job other than college work study that wasn't standard office hours Monday to Friday.
As for how dark it is, it isn't on the commute (though it would be if we were on permanent DST... latest sunrise here is 7:30), but it definitely is at 6 the majority of the year when I have to get up. Since I'm a natural night owl, that makes it quite hard to get out of bed and it seems to get harder every year.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 13, 2018, 06:15:33 PM
I wonder what percentage of the populace actually works banker's hours these days. Among my generation, I don't know anyone who actually goes into work in the morning–about the earliest schedule I know of that someone works is a business owner that goes in at 11am sometimes. My wife and I both go to work at 2:30pm, and I have a lot of friends with start times at 4:30pm. Quitting time is anywhere between 11pm and 1am.
None of us have Saturday or Sunday off. The big social day is Tuesday.
I have the pretty standard 8-5 Monday-Friday, similar to most people I know, though darkness on my commute isn't an issue at all because I work from home three days a week and on the days I do go in to the office (Tuesday/Thursday) I'm only actually there from 10-3 (I start and end the day at home).
If I'm working the early shift at my hotel, I have to be clocking in around 0445. This is usually after having one day off, after having worked until midnight the prior evening. Needless to say, I never get much sleep before that shift.
My friend's father works for Sysco as a truck driver. He's out the door about 0200. I have no idea how he does it.
Quote from: webny99 on February 13, 2018, 07:51:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 13, 2018, 07:43:14 PM
I work 8:30-5:30, M-F.
Pretty standard. But going back to my earlier question, how often is it dark on your commute?
Well, like I posted above, how dark it is depends on both sunrise and sunset times and how heavy the cloud cover is. But it's dark for the morning commute roughly late November to mid-January, and dark for the evening commute from the end of DST in early November until mid-February.
It'll be the exact middle of February at midnight (ALREADY!). Sunrise and sunset for Hartford, CT today is 6:48 AM and 5:23 PM. The day is 10 hours 35 minutes long. Our sunset was as early as about 4:19 or 4:20 PM a couple days before the winter solstice. I feel DST should go back to early April to mid-October where it was through 2006. I still feel Indianapolis should be on central time. I definitely thought it was jarring when I visited that city in August of 2010. They're nearly exactly as far west as Nashville is (and the Music City is indeed central time).
Quote from: kkt on February 14, 2018, 01:56:31 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 13, 2018, 07:51:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 13, 2018, 07:43:14 PM
I work 8:30-5:30, M-F.
Pretty standard. But going back to my earlier question, how often is it dark on your commute?
Well, like I posted above, how dark it is depends on both sunrise and sunset times and how heavy the cloud cover is. But it's dark for the morning commute roughly late November to mid-January, and dark for the evening commute from the end of DST in early November until mid-February.
What about October and March, near the bounds of DST? Several weeks during those time frames when mornings are pretty dark.
7:30 to 3:30, and these are both very busy hours on local roads. Not as busy as 8:30 (9 is actually post-peak) or 5, but no joke. 3-3:30 is in the thick of school traffic, too.
The Florida legislature is pushing forward with a bill to move the entire state to DST all year long:
Florida House approves push for Daylight Saving Time (http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/02/15florida-house-approves-push-daylight-saving-time/340178002/)
QuoteThe Florida House on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a proposal aimed at observing daylight-saving time year-round in the state. House members voted 103-11 to support the measure (HB 1013), filed by Rep. Jeanette Nunez, R-Miami, and Rep. Heather Fitzenhagen, R-Fort Myers.
Fitzenhagen said moving to daylight-saving time could help the tourism industry, as people would be able to stay out later in the sunlight. A similar bill (SB 858) also is moving through the Senate.
If approved by the Legislature, the proposal to shift to year-round daylight-saving time would depend on congressional approval. Daylight-saving time will start March 11 this year and end Nov. 4.
So let's get this straight: A state which has no area roughly east of maybe Pittsburgh, would be an hour ahead from November to March? Got it. Makes no sense at all!
What about the Central time part of the state, "under" and east of southern Alabama?
Quote from: Alex on February 18, 2018, 08:54:01 AM
The Florida legislature is pushing forward with a bill to move the entire state to DST all year long:
Florida House approves push for Daylight Saving Time (http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/02/15florida-house-approves-push-daylight-saving-time/340178002/)
QuoteThe Florida House on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a proposal aimed at observing daylight-saving time year-round in the state. House members voted 103-11 to support the measure (HB 1013), filed by Rep. Jeanette Nunez, R-Miami, and Rep. Heather Fitzenhagen, R-Fort Myers.
Fitzenhagen said moving to daylight-saving time could help the tourism industry, as people would be able to stay out later in the sunlight. A similar bill (SB 858) also is moving through the Senate.
If approved by the Legislature, the proposal to shift to year-round daylight-saving time would depend on congressional approval. Daylight-saving time will start March 11 this year and end Nov. 4.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 18, 2018, 10:41:44 AM
So let's get this straight: A state which has no area roughly east of maybe Pittsburgh, would be an hour ahead from November to March? Got it. Makes no sense at all!
Tourism: A powerful lobby in the Sunshine State.
It's nicer to have that extra hour after work when you might not need it in the morning...but in the grand scheme of things, Florida has almost no reason at all for any time changes; rarely affected by snow or ice for morning commutes, their earliest sunsets are 5:45pm-6:00pm in winter, combined with 8:30pm-9:00pm sundowns in the summer. Not a huge swing, I suppose this just even it out a little.
Curious to see how amicable lawmakers in the Panhandle will be towards the idea? The areas directly north of Florida's northern border aren't heavily populated (there's not a lot of "twin cities" around that part of the state). Pensacola-Mobile might be the only one, and even that's a 45-minute distance apart.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 18, 2018, 10:41:44 AM
So let's get this straight: A state which has no area roughly east of maybe Pittsburgh, would be an hour ahead from November to March? Got it. Makes no sense at all!
What about the Central time part of the state, "under" and east of southern Alabama?
Being south means longer day in winter (but shorter in summer). Latest sunrise in Miami in current time zone is 7.12 with pretty long 10.33 day... Unlike more northern areas, FL does have some wiggle room in terms of timing things.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 18, 2018, 10:41:44 AMSo let's get this straight: A state which has no area roughly east of maybe Pittsburgh, would be an hour ahead from November to March? Got it. Makes no sense at all!
Though they are so far south that the loss of light in morning and evening due to winter is not so strong that it matters much that mornings are getting darker.
Florida has just about enough light in winter to be able to lose it from the morning without making mornings too dark - especially where the population is towards the south/west of the state, and enough in the afternoon that adding an hour of evening light (stolen from the morning) would give enough after work to be able to do something with it.
Quote from: kalvado on February 18, 2018, 11:36:28 AMLatest sunrise in Miami in current time zone is 7.12
Actually it's 0730 - on the last day of DST.
Quote from: english si on February 18, 2018, 11:49:49 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 18, 2018, 11:36:28 AMLatest sunrise in Miami in current time zone is 7.12
Actually it's 0730 - on the last day of DST.
good catch!
but still proves that moving clock makes only that much sense for the area.
While I am an advocate of DST, I've decided that I do wish it was for a shorter time frame.
We'll be getting an extra hour of light in the evening next week, which is great, but the transition is too rushed. I want time to appreciate 6 pm sunsets before we rush ahead and make them 7 pm. Besides, the darker mornings are going to be pretty rugged for a few weeks.
Better do the European way. Currently I have set my forum preferences to Central Europe with American DST (as I don't bother to change the offset only to revert a couple weeks later) while I quote times here in "where Big Rig Steve is now" (until December 31 last year I used Eastern) with Euro DST. As a result, the range of the latter will change from Eastern-Central-Mountain-Pacific to Central-Mountain-Pacific-Alaska for two weeks. As always, I consider Arizona (except the Navajo nation) to switch from Mountain to Pacific once DST starts, and in my system it won't revert from Pacific to Mountain once Europe advances that hour, but stay in Pacific.
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
Actually people are much happier when their waking and sleeping times align to the solar clock, and small inexperienced people are quite a bit safer walking to school when it's light out. I feel your comments are a strawman, because it's so easy to disprove them with a sunrise/sunset chart.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
Actually my feeling is that high school starting time is deliberately set up so that kids get used to waking up in a dark all the year round...
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
Actually my feeling is that high school starting time is deliberately set up so that kids get used to waking up in a dark all the year round...
School bus and parental pick-up schedules, that's why.
Quote from: kkt on March 06, 2018, 07:03:14 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
Actually people are much happier when their waking and sleeping times align to the solar clock, and small inexperienced people are quite a bit safer walking to school when it's light out. I feel your comments are a strawman, because it's so easy to disprove them with a sunrise/sunset chart.
Saying DST aligns you with the solar clock doesn't hold water. It might elsewhere, but here, we have sunny mornings and then when DST kicks in, it is back to dark.
DST interferes with one portion of business at work. Our restaurant POS is set to run its daily closure routines at 2:45 a.m. every night. On the night that the time changes in the spring, the clock jumps from 1:59:59 directly to 3:00:00, and the server doesn't close that Saturday's business because 2:45 doesn't happen. Last year, I figured out the correct order to manually run the processes. This year, we're changing the time to 3:15 temporarily.
If anything, FL should remain on EST year round, not EDT, which is the equivalent of AST. Miami is as far west as Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville as far west as Cleveland, and yet they would be an hour ahead of Boston, which is about 8 degrees of longitude east of Miami, in the winter. If the time zone lines were to be redrawn and standard time observed year round, I would redraw them like this:
ET (UTC-4): Anything north and east of a line that would start in northern Quebec, pass west of Ottawa and Kingston, cut between Syracuse and Rochester, then pass west of Williamsport and between I-81 and I-99, passing just west of Hagerstown, clipping the WV panhandle counties that are part of the DC exurbs, then bending east just south of the I-81/I-64 junction, passing diagonally southeast down to the NC border just west of I-95, then following the NC/VA border to the coast.
CT (UTC-5): Basically anything not mentioned above that is east of the Mississippi, with the western line bending west around the major metropolitan areas along the river (Twin Cities, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans).
MT (UTC-6): Anything between the Mississippi and the Continental Divide, with some adjustments for metro areas
PT (UTC-7): Anything west of the Continental Divide to the Pacific.
Quote from: formulanone on March 06, 2018, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
Actually my feeling is that high school starting time is deliberately set up so that kids get used to waking up in a dark all the year round...
School bus and parental pick-up schedules, that's why.
Yep, and damn those spoiled brats - they deserve 5 AM alarm clock! But god forbids poor babies walk 50 feet in the dark...
It is really one way or the other, you cannot have that cake and eat it too.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 06, 2018, 07:58:31 PM
If anything, FL should remain on EST year round, not EDT, which is the equivalent of AST. Miami is as far west as Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville as far west as Cleveland, and yet they would be an hour ahead of Boston, which is about 8 degrees of longitude east of Miami, in the winter. If the time zone lines were to be redrawn and standard time observed year round, I would redraw them like this:
ET (UTC-4): Anything north and east of a line that would start in northern Quebec, pass west of Ottawa and Kingston, cut between Syracuse and Rochester, then pass west of Williamsport and between I-81 and I-99, passing just west of Hagerstown, clipping the WV panhandle counties that are part of the DC exurbs, then bending east just south of the I-81/I-64 junction, passing diagonally southeast down to the NC border just west of I-95, then following the NC/VA border to the coast.
CT (UTC-5): Basically anything not mentioned above that is east of the Mississippi, with the western line bending west around the major metropolitan areas along the river (Twin Cities, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans).
MT (UTC-6): Anything between the Mississippi and the Continental Divide, with some adjustments for metro areas
PT (UTC-7): Anything west of the Continental Divide to the Pacific.
If standard time was year round, it would be -5, -6, -7, and -8. Your numbers (-4, -5, -6, and -7) are for daylight savings time.
Quote from: 1 on March 06, 2018, 08:01:57 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 06, 2018, 07:58:31 PM
If anything, FL should remain on EST year round, not EDT, which is the equivalent of AST. Miami is as far west as Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville as far west as Cleveland, and yet they would be an hour ahead of Boston, which is about 8 degrees of longitude east of Miami, in the winter. If the time zone lines were to be redrawn and standard time observed year round, I would redraw them like this:
ET (UTC-4): Anything north and east of a line that would start in northern Quebec, pass west of Ottawa and Kingston, cut between Syracuse and Rochester, then pass west of Williamsport and between I-81 and I-99, passing just west of Hagerstown, clipping the WV panhandle counties that are part of the DC exurbs, then bending east just south of the I-81/I-64 junction, passing diagonally southeast down to the NC border just west of I-95, then following the NC/VA border to the coast.
CT (UTC-5): Basically anything not mentioned above that is east of the Mississippi, with the western line bending west around the major metropolitan areas along the river (Twin Cities, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans).
MT (UTC-6): Anything between the Mississippi and the Continental Divide, with some adjustments for metro areas
PT (UTC-7): Anything west of the Continental Divide to the Pacific.
If standard time was year round, it would be -5, -6, -7, and -8. Your numbers (-4, -5, -6, and -7) are for daylight savings time.
I renamed the time zones. ET is AST equivalent, CT is EST equivalent, MT is CST equivalent, and PT is MST equivalent. There is NO way I would keep the northeast on EST year round; a 4:15 AM sunrise in my area on 6/21 is ridiculous, while a 5:20 sunset in December is certainly more desireable.
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 06, 2018, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)—one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
Actually my feeling is that high school starting time is deliberately set up so that kids get used to waking up in a dark all the year round...
School bus and parental pick-up schedules, that's why.
Yep, and damn those spoiled brats - they deserve 5 AM alarm clock! But god forbids poor babies walk 50 feet in the dark...
It is really one way or the other, you cannot have that cake and eat it too.
Do you actually have any children, or are you just looking for attention?
You're the only one dragging out the "think of the children" chestnut, and I really don't care one way or another about time changes.
Quote from: kkt on March 06, 2018, 07:03:14 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
Actually people are much happier when their waking and sleeping times align to the solar clock, and small inexperienced people are quite a bit safer walking to school when it's light out. I feel your comments are a strawman, because it's so easy to disprove them with a sunrise/sunset chart.
Between the two of you, a more general problem has been identified: Whatever a sunrise/sunset chart proves in Boston, it will prove something
completely different in Indianapolis.
Year-round DST would really only affect the western half of all the time zones, as it would be dark well past school start time. And the reciprocal, of course, is that having no DST at all primarily impacts areas east in their respective time zones - they'd theoretically wake up at 4am and never get to experience a long summer evening.
I also question what better aligns to people's natural clocks - DST or no DST? It's a very subjective matter - by my standards, the sun should rise at 10am and set at midnight :-P
Quote from: formulanone on March 06, 2018, 08:50:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 06, 2018, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
Actually my feeling is that high school starting time is deliberately set up so that kids get used to waking up in a dark all the year round...
School bus and parental pick-up schedules, that's why.
Yep, and damn those spoiled brats - they deserve 5 AM alarm clock! But god forbids poor babies walk 50 feet in the dark...
It is really one way or the other, you cannot have that cake and eat it too.
Do you actually have any children, or are you just looking for attention?
You're the only one dragging out the "think of the children" chestnut, and I really don't care one way or another about time changes.
Actually I am laughing at that argument. Ever heard of
sarcasm?
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 06, 2018, 08:50:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 06, 2018, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)—one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
Actually my feeling is that high school starting time is deliberately set up so that kids get used to waking up in a dark all the year round...
School bus and parental pick-up schedules, that's why.
Yep, and damn those spoiled brats - they deserve 5 AM alarm clock! But god forbids poor babies walk 50 feet in the dark...
It is really one way or the other, you cannot have that cake and eat it too.
Do you actually have any children, or are you just looking for attention?
You're the only one dragging out the "think of the children" chestnut, and I really don't care one way or another about time changes.
Actually I am laughing at that argument. Ever heard of sarcasm?
Oh, the invisible sarcasm flag...how did I miss that one?
It's much less worse than the adults who swear by the inherent dangers of missing an hour's rest.
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 09:25:18 PM
Actually I am laughing at that argument. Ever heard of sarcasm?
I sure have–sarcasm extraordinaire here–but if there's one thing that just doesn't convey over the Internet, it's sarcasm. At least not without marking it explicitly, which is self-defeating in purpose...
Quote from: kkt on March 06, 2018, 07:03:14 PM
Actually people are much happier when their waking and sleeping times align to the solar clock, and small inexperienced people are quite a bit safer walking to school when it's light out. I feel your comments are a strawman, because it's so easy to disprove them with a sunrise/sunset chart.
As someone who works third shift and doesn't give a shit about what time actual sunrise/sunset occurs, I can very much do without the arbitrary loss and gain of an hour twice a year.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
I remember the winter of 1973-'74, when we had winter DST. That actually was a big issue then. A
lot of parents really were seriously upset.
It's easy to sit there and say how much simpler year-round DST would be, but if you actually implemented it, you would be roasted alive in December and January by today's more
paranoid safety-conscious parents. And if you had year-round Standard Time, most people in July and August would wonder why we're wasting daylight on pre-waking hours rather than evening-activity hours.
Maybe tweak the dates if you want, but the current Daylight Saving Time system is the worst – except for all the others.
Quote from: GenExpwy on March 07, 2018, 02:27:01 AM
It's easy to sit there and say how much simpler year-round DST would be, but if you actually implemented it, you would be roasted alive in December and January by today's more paranoid safety-conscious parents.
Except I don't care about what parents think. If they can't reasonably either A) teach their children to be responsible and handle themselves, and/or B) help their children reasonably deal with the situation, then there's a problem with parenting and/or the school system. My entire point is, while there might be a problem, the antiquated DST solution isn't the answer. Later school start times are a far more reasonable and effective solution to the (IMO, scare-mongering) problem of kids walking to school "in the dark."
Never mind that DST wasn't exactly created with the children in mind...
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 07, 2018, 01:04:36 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 09:25:18 PM
Actually I am laughing at that argument. Ever heard of sarcasm?
I sure have–sarcasm extraordinaire here–but if there's one thing that just doesn't convey over the Internet, it's sarcasm. At least not without marking it explicitly, which is self-defeating in purpose...
I tried to make it obvious. Spoiled brats and poor babies referring to same kids in same paragraph... But oh,well.
Quote from: GenExpwy on March 07, 2018, 02:27:01 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
I remember the winter of 1973-'74, when we had winter DST. That actually was a big issue then. A lot of parents really were seriously upset.
It's easy to sit there and say how much simpler year-round DST would be, but if you actually implemented it, you would be roasted alive in December and January by today's more paranoid safety-conscious parents. And if you had year-round Standard Time, most people in July and August would wonder why we're wasting daylight on pre-waking hours rather than evening-activity hours.
Maybe tweak the dates if you want, but the current Daylight Saving Time system is the worst – except for all the others.
Problem is that the argument is quite regional. One hour difference across time zone means something intolerable for Boston is what Cleveland actually gets even with clock adjustment. Someone in Florida wouldn't understand the issue at all.
As for me, I grew up further north; and there were periods when school day was actually longer than solar day. So whatever they did with the clock, at least one trip would be in the dark, with possibility of kid travelling both ways with sun below horizon. And you know what? Our entire class survived that!
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 07, 2018, 01:04:36 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 09:25:18 PM
Actually I am laughing at that argument. Ever heard of sarcasm?
I sure have—sarcasm extraordinaire here—but if there's one thing that just doesn't convey over the Internet, it's sarcasm. At least not without marking it explicitly, which is self-defeating in purpose…
Quote from: kkt on March 06, 2018, 07:03:14 PM
Actually people are much happier when their waking and sleeping times align to the solar clock, and small inexperienced people are quite a bit safer walking to school when it's light out. I feel your comments are a strawman, because it's so easy to disprove them with a sunrise/sunset chart.
As someone who works third shift and doesn't give a shit about what time actual sunrise/sunset occurs, I can very much do without the arbitrary loss and gain of an hour twice a year.
Here's a tip: Sarcasm works once, but after the third go-round, it's indistinguishable from ignorance. (This is a forum where 80% of the members have a white-hot rage and froth over I-238.)
Where I live, it's nice to have the chance for the sun to melt away - or at least, visually spot - potential ice from the roads before driving off. If you live north of the Sun Belt, too bad for you...there's no effect. I also like the additional hour of sunlight after work, so I look forward to that benefit as well.
So yeah, this is one of those rare things where I'm a happy little robot to comply. I'm under no illusion that this is magically creating time or more hours in a day.
The local sunrise and sunset for New Britain, CT today, March 7th, is 6:16 AM and 5:48 PM. Total length of daylight is 11 hours 32 minutes. I'm guessing our sunset on Sunday will be around 6:53 PM or so. Nothing is stranger than the sun setting near 7 PM and several inches of snow are on the ground. I sincerely wish they'd put it back to the 2006 and earlier setup of early April to late October. Oh...and put Indianapolis on Central Time where they belong!
Florida legislature voted yesterday to go to DST year-round. Needs signature from the Governor, and approval from US Congress. According to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article203781769.html, sunrise on winter solstice would be 8A and sunset 6:30P; writer of article apparently believes Florida is a point, not an area. Sponsoring Senator reportedly got idea after hearing his barber complain that his kids had trouble waking up the day after the time change (but apparently it's OK for them to walk to school in the dark).
Quote from: davewiecking on March 07, 2018, 09:35:16 AM
According to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article203781769.html, sunrise on winter solstice would be 8A and sunset 6:30P; writer of article apparently believes Florida is a point, not an area.
Also forgetting the Florida panhandle areas, like Pensacola, that are in a different time zone from Miami's.
Quote from: davewiecking on March 07, 2018, 09:35:16 AM
Florida legislature voted yesterday to go to DST year-round. Needs signature from the Governor, and approval from US Congress. According to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article203781769.html, sunrise on winter solstice would be 8A and sunset 6:30P; writer of article apparently believes Florida is a point, not an area. Sponsoring Senator reportedly got idea after hearing his barber complain that his kids had trouble waking up the day after the time change (but apparently it's OK for them to walk to school in the dark).
How did they handle the panhandle (no pun intended)? Is the panhandle on EST, while the rest is on AST?
Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2018, 09:49:14 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on March 07, 2018, 09:35:16 AM
Florida legislature voted yesterday to go to DST year-round. Needs signature from the Governor, and approval from US Congress. According to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article203781769.html, sunrise on winter solstice would be 8A and sunset 6:30P; writer of article apparently believes Florida is a point, not an area. Sponsoring Senator reportedly got idea after hearing his barber complain that his kids had trouble waking up the day after the time change (but apparently it's OK for them to walk to school in the dark).
How did they handle the panhandle (no pun intended)? Is the panhandle on EST, while the rest is on AST?
The original proposal was for the entire state to be in Eastern Time zone.. but the panhandle legislators want to stay on Central.
At one point in the past all of Florida and Georgia were Central Time
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on March 07, 2018, 10:02:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2018, 09:49:14 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on March 07, 2018, 09:35:16 AM
Florida legislature voted yesterday to go to DST year-round. Needs signature from the Governor, and approval from US Congress. According to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article203781769.html, sunrise on winter solstice would be 8A and sunset 6:30P; writer of article apparently believes Florida is a point, not an area. Sponsoring Senator reportedly got idea after hearing his barber complain that his kids had trouble waking up the day after the time change (but apparently it's OK for them to walk to school in the dark).
How did they handle the panhandle (no pun intended)? Is the panhandle on EST, while the rest is on AST?
The original proposal was for the entire state to be in Eastern Time zone.. but the panhandle legislators want to stay on Central.
At one point in the past all of Florida and Georgia were Central Time
Z981
It would be ridiculous for the Panhandle to switch to Atlantic Standard Time (which is what this proposal really is). That would create a
two-hour difference between Alabama and Florida.
Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2018, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 07, 2018, 10:02:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2018, 09:49:14 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on March 07, 2018, 09:35:16 AM
Florida legislature voted yesterday to go to DST year-round. Needs signature from the Governor, and approval from US Congress. According to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article203781769.html, sunrise on winter solstice would be 8A and sunset 6:30P; writer of article apparently believes Florida is a point, not an area. Sponsoring Senator reportedly got idea after hearing his barber complain that his kids had trouble waking up the day after the time change (but apparently it's OK for them to walk to school in the dark).
How did they handle the panhandle (no pun intended)? Is the panhandle on EST, while the rest is on AST?
The original proposal was for the entire state to be in Eastern Time zone.. but the panhandle legislators want to stay on Central.
At one point in the past all of Florida and Georgia were Central Time
Z981
It would be ridiculous for the Panhandle to switch to Atlantic Standard Time (which is what this proposal really is). That would create a two-hour difference between Alabama and Florida.
I agree.. I like daylight savings time.. I like having daylight after work in the evening.. but I also understand not having it all year.
People adapt to whatever the time is... I see no need to change from current practice.
I don't like the idea of every state having different time. My ex wife's dad lived in Indiana and trying to remember what time it was there to make calls etc was a PITA, not life ending.. but it's hard enough to remember time difference with California
Jacksonville CMSA is actually in Florida and Georgia so if this gets approved the same metro area will be different times part of the year.
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on March 07, 2018, 10:23:38 AMI don't like the idea of every state having different time.
It's not difficult when every state has a consistent approach to DST. When I lived in Chicago and my parents lived in Atlanta, it was always an hour later when I called them. It's the same for colleagues in Ohio or Delaware or New York.
And fuck the kids,
I don't like leaving for work when it's still dark out.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 07, 2018, 10:27:51 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 07, 2018, 10:23:38 AMI don't like the idea of every state having different time.
It's not difficult when every state has a consistent approach to DST. When I lived in Chicago and my parents lived in Atlanta, it was always an hour later when I called them. It's the same for colleagues in Ohio or Delaware or New York.
And fuck the kids, I don't like leaving for work when it's still dark out.
I understand different time zones.. let me clarify what I mean is state A observes daylight savings time but state B does not(where bother are in the same time zone).. Imagine a handful of states not observing DST.. some others being on DST year round..
So you live in Chicago and your mama lives in Atlanta and your daddy lives in Miami, both eastern time but in the summer Atlanta being an hour earlier but Miami is the same time.
Z981
With the day being shorter in the winter I remember leaving for work in the dark and getting off in the dark when I lived in NJ.
So especially in northern latitudes winter is going to mean driving to work or driving home in the dark for many if not most people
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on March 07, 2018, 10:41:35 AM
With the day being shorter in the winter I remember leaving for work in the dark and getting off in the dark when I lived in NJ.
So especially in northern latitudes winter is going to mean driving to work or driving home in the dark for many if not most people
Z981
Somewhat related image:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkhvBugUUAAaAn9.jpg)
Quote from: kalvado on March 07, 2018, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 07, 2018, 10:41:35 AM
With the day being shorter in the winter I remember leaving for work in the dark and getting off in the dark when I lived in NJ.
So especially in northern latitudes winter is going to mean driving to work or driving home in the dark for many if not most people
Z981
Somewhat related image:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkhvBugUUAAaAn9.jpg)
I understand that.. I am the totally exhausted pigeon.. I just can't seem to get to bed before midnight.
Z981
I'm questioning some of the claims in that Florida article. Shouldn't it be the spring forward, not the fall back, where it would be harder to get kids up? Fall back is when you
gain an hour. And why do shops have to close at sunset? Why couldn't a couple eat out? None of this makes any kind of sense.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 06, 2018, 08:14:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 06, 2018, 08:01:57 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 06, 2018, 07:58:31 PM
If anything, FL should remain on EST year round, not EDT, which is the equivalent of AST. Miami is as far west as Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville as far west as Cleveland, and yet they would be an hour ahead of Boston, which is about 8 degrees of longitude east of Miami, in the winter. If the time zone lines were to be redrawn and standard time observed year round, I would redraw them like this:
ET (UTC-4): Anything north and east of a line that would start in northern Quebec, pass west of Ottawa and Kingston, cut between Syracuse and Rochester, then pass west of Williamsport and between I-81 and I-99, passing just west of Hagerstown, clipping the WV panhandle counties that are part of the DC exurbs, then bending east just south of the I-81/I-64 junction, passing diagonally southeast down to the NC border just west of I-95, then following the NC/VA border to the coast.
CT (UTC-5): Basically anything not mentioned above that is east of the Mississippi, with the western line bending west around the major metropolitan areas along the river (Twin Cities, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans).
MT (UTC-6): Anything between the Mississippi and the Continental Divide, with some adjustments for metro areas
PT (UTC-7): Anything west of the Continental Divide to the Pacific.
If standard time was year round, it would be -5, -6, -7, and -8. Your numbers (-4, -5, -6, and -7) are for daylight savings time.
I renamed the time zones. ET is AST equivalent, CT is EST equivalent, MT is CST equivalent, and PT is MST equivalent. There is NO way I would keep the northeast on EST year round; a 4:15 AM sunrise in my area on 6/21 is ridiculous, while a 5:20 sunset in December is certainly more desireable.
I would not want to be on AST. I'm prefectly fine with a 4:20 sunset, but it's already too dark in the morning as it is. Year round EST might work though. Maybe the early sunrise would actually wake me up enough to get out of bed for work on time. As it is now, I wake up
extremely groggy (and am usually wide awake when I go to bed). It's also easier to scrape the car off in winter if the sun has had a chance to soften the ice first, which doesn't happen on DST.
Honestly, though, I'd rather just return to the old rules that had us on DST from April-October.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 07, 2018, 09:17:14 AM
The local sunrise and sunset for New Britain, CT today, March 7th, is 6:16 AM and 5:48 PM.
In Rochester, it's 6:36 AM and 6:07 PM. I wouldn't like even that 20 minute offset. I can't stand the few weeks in November when solar noon is before actual noon. Anywhere between 12 and 1:30 is good.
QuoteNothing is stranger than the sun setting near 7 PM and several inches of snow are on the ground.
A few hundred miles to your northwest, there is absolutely nothing strange about that. In fact, it's quite common. We'd be fooling ourselves if we though winter's wrath was over by March 10th :)
Moving most of Florida to AST is really dumb. For one thing sunrise would be almost 8 in winter. The other thing is that it puts the state out-of-sync with the flow of the electronic entertainment industry. Unless (like Canada does, but the population pattern is way different) want to spool up a AST TV feed, primetime would be 9-12, the NFL would start at 2, college at 1, and night baseball at 8. Nationally televised sports events like NBA or MLB playoffs, generally held for an 8 ET start to accomodate the west coast (most people can at least listen to the start on the radio as they drive home) would start at 9, and thus end well after midnight.
No way the sports leagues and TV networks allow such a thing in the third largest state.
Quote from: jwolfer on March 07, 2018, 10:40:02 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 07, 2018, 10:27:51 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 07, 2018, 10:23:38 AMI don't like the idea of every state having different time.
It's not difficult when every state has a consistent approach to DST. When I lived in Chicago and my parents lived in Atlanta, it was always an hour later when I called them. It's the same for colleagues in Ohio or Delaware or New York.
And fuck the kids, I don't like leaving for work when it's still dark out.
I understand different time zones.. let me clarify what I mean is state A observes daylight savings time but state B does not(where bother are in the same time zone).. Imagine a handful of states not observing DST.. some others being on DST year round..
So you live in Chicago and your mama lives in Atlanta and your daddy lives in Miami, both eastern time but in the summer Atlanta being an hour earlier but Miami is the same time.
Z981
I get what you're saying now. We have an office in Phoenix and I have to go to Google to figure out what time it is there. Same for my wife's family who live in England, where they go on and off DST at different times than we do.
Quote from: 1 on March 06, 2018, 08:01:57 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 06, 2018, 07:58:31 PM
If anything, FL should remain on EST year round, not EDT, which is the equivalent of AST. Miami is as far west as Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville as far west as Cleveland, and yet they would be an hour ahead of Boston, which is about 8 degrees of longitude east of Miami, in the winter. If the time zone lines were to be redrawn and standard time observed year round, I would redraw them like this:
ET (UTC-4): Anything north and east of a line that would start in northern Quebec, pass west of Ottawa and Kingston, cut between Syracuse and Rochester, then pass west of Williamsport and between I-81 and I-99, passing just west of Hagerstown, clipping the WV panhandle counties that are part of the DC exurbs, then bending east just south of the I-81/I-64 junction, passing diagonally southeast down to the NC border just west of I-95, then following the NC/VA border to the coast.
CT (UTC-5): Basically anything not mentioned above that is east of the Mississippi, with the western line bending west around the major metropolitan areas along the river (Twin Cities, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans).
MT (UTC-6): Anything between the Mississippi and the Continental Divide, with some adjustments for metro areas
PT (UTC-7): Anything west of the Continental Divide to the Pacific.
If standard time was year round, it would be -5, -6, -7, and -8. Your numbers (-4, -5, -6, and -7) are for daylight savings time.
Speaking for Utah, there’s no way I would want to be on
Pacific standard time year round. If that were the case, we’d have sunset before 4 pm in winter.
EDIT: after thinking about this more and looking on timeanddate.com, the sun would rise at 3:55 AM in June, and only set at 7 pm.
I could deal with MST year round, but I like MDT just fine. I just wish DST started late enough in spring that it was still light at 7:30 in the morning.
Quote from: formulanone on March 06, 2018, 08:50:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 06, 2018, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
I feel like that's largely a strawman that no one actually believes except Fox News watchers and truly crazy people.
Unless you're not serious.
Actually my feeling is that high school starting time is deliberately set up so that kids get used to waking up in a dark all the year round...
School bus and parental pick-up schedules, that's why.
Yep, and damn those spoiled brats - they deserve 5 AM alarm clock! But god forbids poor babies walk 50 feet in the dark...
It is really one way or the other, you cannot have that cake and eat it too.
Do you actually have any children, or are you just looking for attention?
You're the only one dragging out the "think of the children" chestnut, and I really don't care one way or another about time changes.
I have kids and I really didn't like them getting on the bus in the dark in the morning when I lived in the EST/EDT part of Indiana. Some school districts moved start times back past 9am to avoid that but then that created morning child care issues if both parents work.
Keep the time the same, and shift the children one hour into the future in the springtime.
The Florida thing seems backwards to me because they're further south than the rest of Eastern Time and they already have longer days in the winter (sunset is half an hour to 40 minutes later on Christmas than it is in the DC area, for example) and shorter days in the summer.
It's less about whether my future kids get on a school bus when it's light or dark, and more about the fact that they're expected to start their school day before 8 am. There are mountains of research to suggest that's a bad idea, yet here we are, doing it.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 08, 2018, 11:23:19 AM
It's less about whether my future kids get on a school bus when it's light or dark, and more about the fact that they're expected to start their school day before 8 am. There are mountains of research to suggest that's a bad idea, yet here we are, doing it.
It is more about if one size can fit all. Usually that is not the case.
Public schools and clock settings (or highway speed limit), however, is something that comes in one size only for a given location.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2018, 07:27:21 AM
The Florida thing seems backwards to me because they're further south than the rest of Eastern Time and they already have longer days in the winter (sunset is half an hour to 40 minutes later on Christmas than it is in the DC area, for example) and shorter days in the summer.
Like kalvado said, you can't control for everything. It's dark by 5 pm in the wintertime in Chicago, and it's light past 9 pm in the summertime in Western Michigan, but you have to put that pesky border between Eastern Time and Central Time somewhere.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 08, 2018, 11:23:19 AM
It's less about whether my future kids get on a school bus when it's light or dark, and more about the fact that they're expected to start their school day before 8 am. There are mountains of research to suggest that's a bad idea, yet here we are, doing it.
There's research stating one thing, and then there's the reality. School buses need to be coordinated. Sport/Activity schedules need to be coordinated. If you need X amount of time in the morning to get ready, get on the bus/drive to school at 7:30am, begin school at 8am; end at 3pm, start afterschool activities at 4pm, ends at 6pm, kid gets home at 7pm, then where do you fit in dinner and homework, because those same people say a teen needs 8 - 9 hours of sleep. If you say there's 3 hours between 7pm and 10pm, then you have just tied up the kid with a strict, rigid schedule for an entire 24 hour period, 5 days a week.
Oh, by the way, other researchers will say a rigid schedule with no time for relaxing/playing/etc. isn't good either.
Which is why a lot of this so-called research is money well-wasted, because there's numerous conflictions among the research. The news media, which often informs us of such research, would never do such comparisons. They just like getting the press releases and doing stories on them.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2018, 12:45:16 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 08, 2018, 11:23:19 AM
It's less about whether my future kids get on a school bus when it's light or dark, and more about the fact that they're expected to start their school day before 8 am. There are mountains of research to suggest that's a bad idea, yet here we are, doing it.
There's research stating one thing, and then there's the reality. School buses need to be coordinated. Sport/Activity schedules need to be coordinated. If you need X amount of time in the morning to get ready, get on the bus/drive to school at 7:30am, begin school at 8am; end at 3pm, start afterschool activities at 4pm, ends at 6pm, kid gets home at 7pm, then where do you fit in dinner and homework, because those same people say a teen needs 8 - 9 hours of sleep. If you say there's 3 hours between 7pm and 10pm, then you have just tied up the kid with a strict, rigid schedule for an entire 24 hour period, 5 days a week.
Oh, by the way, other researchers will say a rigid schedule with no time for relaxing/playing/etc. isn't good either.
Which is why a lot of this so-called research is money well-wasted, because there's numerous conflictions among the research. The news media, which often informs us of such research, would never do such comparisons. They just like getting the press releases and doing stories on them.
I seem to remember studies showing that if high schoolers start later, and elementary school kids start earlier (the opposite of pretty much everywhere), things will be better than the way it's currently done where high schoolers start earlier. Since it's just a switch and not shifting everyone earlier or later or removing the staggering, it shouldn't be hard to do.
Quote from: 1 on March 08, 2018, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2018, 12:45:16 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 08, 2018, 11:23:19 AM
It's less about whether my future kids get on a school bus when it's light or dark, and more about the fact that they're expected to start their school day before 8 am. There are mountains of research to suggest that's a bad idea, yet here we are, doing it.
There's research stating one thing, and then there's the reality. School buses need to be coordinated. Sport/Activity schedules need to be coordinated. If you need X amount of time in the morning to get ready, get on the bus/drive to school at 7:30am, begin school at 8am; end at 3pm, start afterschool activities at 4pm, ends at 6pm, kid gets home at 7pm, then where do you fit in dinner and homework, because those same people say a teen needs 8 - 9 hours of sleep. If you say there's 3 hours between 7pm and 10pm, then you have just tied up the kid with a strict, rigid schedule for an entire 24 hour period, 5 days a week.
Oh, by the way, other researchers will say a rigid schedule with no time for relaxing/playing/etc. isn't good either.
Which is why a lot of this so-called research is money well-wasted, because there's numerous conflictions among the research. The news media, which often informs us of such research, would never do such comparisons. They just like getting the press releases and doing stories on them.
I seem to remember studies showing that if high schoolers start later, and elementary school kids start earlier (the opposite of pretty much everywhere), things will be better than the way it's currently done where high schoolers start earlier. Since it's just a switch and not shifting everyone earlier or later or removing the staggering, it shouldn't be hard to do.
But then the 7 year old would be done school at 2:30pm. Like I mentioned, there's the reality of the situation: If both parents work, the kid is in after-school daycare...and I doubt the studies referenced how the kid functions when it's in what's pretty much a structured environment until someone picks the kid up.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 08, 2018, 12:26:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2018, 07:27:21 AM
The Florida thing seems backwards to me because they're further south than the rest of Eastern Time and they already have longer days in the winter (sunset is half an hour to 40 minutes later on Christmas than it is in the DC area, for example) and shorter days in the summer.
Like kalvado said, you can't control for everything. It's dark by 5 pm in the wintertime in Chicago, and it's light past 9 pm in the summertime in Western Michigan, but you have to put that pesky border between Eastern Time and Central Time somewhere.
Another option is to adjust local schedules to preferred time zone.
Just assume that proverbial 9-to-5 can be set to 8.30-to-4.30; or 8-to-4, or even 7-to-3 or 10-to-6, based on local preference (vote?).
I'm not sure if big banks, box stores or federal agencies would give that much freedom to local branches; but fundamentally - why not?
That can create a way more continuous change of local timing compared to 1-hour zones.
Moreover, I believe a lot of things in California are already offset to better match customers in eastern time zone.
It doesn't solve a problem of early birds and night owls in a given city, but still is another knob to tweak. And an easier one compared to setting time zone in terms of passing laws or clock discrepancies - although getting everyone on board is a different problem.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2018, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 08, 2018, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2018, 12:45:16 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 08, 2018, 11:23:19 AM
It's less about whether my future kids get on a school bus when it's light or dark, and more about the fact that they're expected to start their school day before 8 am. There are mountains of research to suggest that's a bad idea, yet here we are, doing it.
There's research stating one thing, and then there's the reality. School buses need to be coordinated. Sport/Activity schedules need to be coordinated. If you need X amount of time in the morning to get ready, get on the bus/drive to school at 7:30am, begin school at 8am; end at 3pm, start afterschool activities at 4pm, ends at 6pm, kid gets home at 7pm, then where do you fit in dinner and homework, because those same people say a teen needs 8 - 9 hours of sleep. If you say there's 3 hours between 7pm and 10pm, then you have just tied up the kid with a strict, rigid schedule for an entire 24 hour period, 5 days a week.
Oh, by the way, other researchers will say a rigid schedule with no time for relaxing/playing/etc. isn't good either.
Which is why a lot of this so-called research is money well-wasted, because there's numerous conflictions among the research. The news media, which often informs us of such research, would never do such comparisons. They just like getting the press releases and doing stories on them.
I seem to remember studies showing that if high schoolers start later, and elementary school kids start earlier (the opposite of pretty much everywhere), things will be better than the way it's currently done where high schoolers start earlier. Since it's just a switch and not shifting everyone earlier or later or removing the staggering, it shouldn't be hard to do.
But then the 7 year old would be done school at 2:30pm. Like I mentioned, there's the reality of the situation: If both parents work, the kid is in after-school daycare...and I doubt the studies referenced how the kid functions when it's in what's pretty much a structured environment until someone picks the kid up.
So that means that we're putting the parent's wishes above what's best for the kid.
You can free up time by eliminating homework–schoolwork should be done at school where there's no distractions anyway. If kids need extra self- or parent-directed study time after school, that should be something determined by the parent's prerogative, not a mandatory burden placed on them by the school by assigning busywork to them on their way out the door.
The bill in Florida to put the state on perpetual daylight savings time has passed both houses overwhelmingly. If it is signed, or if a veto action would be overturned, there seems to be a conflict with Federal laws.
It would have been better if they had moved the state to the Atlantic time zone and then abandon daylight savings time. That may have been easier to accomplish.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 09, 2018, 01:13:12 PM
The bill in Florida to put the state on perpetual daylight savings time has passed both houses overwhelmingly. If it is signed, or if a veto action would be overturned, there seems to be a conflict with Federal laws.
It would have been better if they had moved the state to the Atlantic time zone and then abandon daylight savings time. That may have been easier to accomplish.
Probably about the same, as far as I understand.
15 U.S. Code § 261 - Zones for standard time; interstate or foreign commerce - gives Secretary of Transportation (hello, we're back to road-related stuff!) authority on the subject
Quote
The limits of each zone shall be defined by an order of the Secretary of Transportation, having regard for the convenience of commerce [...] and any such order may be modified from time to time.
I can't see the feds overriding a state or local decision on this.
Being from Indiana, I'm pretty familiar with the process.
States can: decide whether or not to observe Daylight Savings Time
States can't: decide the start and stop dates for Daylight Savings Time
States can: petition the USDOT to change time zones. The USDOT does not just rubber stamp these. Some counties in Indiana have been denied requests to change time zones.
So, the Florida state government can't decide to observe EDT year round, but they can ask the USDOT to put the state in the Atlantic Time Zone and then not observe Daylight Savings Time which produces the same result.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 09, 2018, 02:33:01 PM
...
So, the Florida state government can't decide to observe EDT year round, but they can ask the USDOT to put the state in the Atlantic Time Zone and then not observe Daylight Savings Time which produces the same result.
People have been arguing for 6 pages about the placement of certain time zones. If Florida were to be put into the Atlantic Time Zone, then you will suddenly have issues and arguments about how an Atlantic Time Zone state borders a Central Time Zone state.
Based on the actual law, and Florida's desires, this is the correct way to go about it though. Ironically, DST was intended to help those states in more northern climates. Based on the purpose of the DST law, Florida should be year round EST, not AST.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2018, 02:48:08 PM
Ironically, DST was intended to help those states in more northern climates. Based on the purpose of the DST law, Florida should be year round EST, not AST.
DST as a concept came from England. It doesn't quite work too far north, it doesn't quite work in tropics....
Quote from: kalvado on March 09, 2018, 05:39:45 PMDST as a concept came from England.
Don't blame us, blame Kaiser Bill. Not only did the German Empire and Austria-Hungary start a bit earlier in 1916 (April 30th vs the UK's May 21st), the UK almost certainly wouldn't have bothered had we not been blockaded by U-boats and in desperate need to save energy and thus willing to try anything.
QuoteIt doesn't quite work too far north
Actually it does - in summer (definitely not October though) at 50N (ie London), there's a surplus of light hours in the mornings that shifting an hour makes more sense than at 40N (the Kansas-Nebraska line) where there's less time of the year where there's a surplus hour in the morning.
Of course, 60+ North gives you the lack of a need to change outside of a few weeks before/after the equinoxes as there's so much daylight, you don't need that extra hour after work as there's plenty of daylight around, and vice versa on the winter side of things - there's not enough daylight no matter how you position it. Something which is true at 50N for a few weeks around the solstices, I guess.
Quote from: kalvado on March 09, 2018, 05:39:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2018, 02:48:08 PM
Ironically, DST was intended to help those states in more northern climates. Based on the purpose of the DST law, Florida should be year round EST, not AST.
DST as a concept came from England. It doesn't quite work too far north, it doesn't quite work in tropics....
It did? I could've sworn Ben Franklin had the idea before that.
Quote from: Brandon on March 09, 2018, 08:38:06 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 09, 2018, 05:39:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2018, 02:48:08 PM
Ironically, DST was intended to help those states in more northern climates. Based on the purpose of the DST law, Florida should be year round EST, not AST.
DST as a concept came from England. It doesn't quite work too far north, it doesn't quite work in tropics....
It did? I could've sworn Ben Franklin had the idea before that.
He mentioned something similar as a what-if scenario (it involved changing people's schedules, not the clocks themselves), but he was actually against the idea.
This...on top of people who already tried to get Maine to be on Atlantic Standard Time year round.
If several New England states are now encouraged to also choose to move into the Atlantic time zone, the Secretary would be hard pressed to deny their requests.
The way the Eastern time zone is artifically extended westward in the mid-west is certainly precedant setting.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 10, 2018, 06:52:58 AM
If several New England states are now encouraged to also choose to move into the Atlantic time zone, the Secretary would be hard pressed to deny their requests.
The way the Eastern time zone is artifically extended westward in the mid-west is certainly precedant setting.
Another possible argument - day is not really symmetric for most people. Many of us wake up, go to work, and relax in the evening. No more need to feed pigs and milk cows before actual work. So in order to align sleeping cycle with solar cycle, solar noon has to be well past middle of working day. That is, well past 1 PM for 9-to-5 day; 2 PM may be it.
That means extending time zones westward and trimming from the east in general. That is the underlying thing for New England and Atlantic time I believe.
Now, as discussed above, sending kids to school is a modern replacement for milking cows - a significant task to be done before work... And those who have to do it and those who don't have somewhat different perspectives...
DST does not work currently in eastern NY or New England. It just starts to get light out and then you have to wake up in the dark again after the time change. I am not persuaded that it works for northern latitudes, at least the American way.
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2018, 07:53:55 AM
DST does not work currently in eastern NY or New England. It just starts to get light out and then you have to wake up in the dark again after the time change. I am not persuaded that it works for northern latitudes, at least the American way.
It's the fact that we change the time, not the time itself, that is the issue. I would be fine if NY from the Syracuse area east, New England, and most of the Mid-Atlantic (all of NJ and DE, DC, eastern PA, most of MD, a couple of counties in WV, and eastern VA) sprung ahead this weekend, then stayed there as it officially became part of AST.
As a night owl who can't align her schedule to her circadian rhythm, with chronic insomnia, and possible delayed sleep phase syndrome, I would be very much opposed to permanent DST or AST.
http://www.miami.com/funny-stories/florida-wants-daylight-saving-time-year-round-this-is-going-to-be-a-hot-mess-184636/
That said, I WOULD expand the UTC - 4 time zone... by adding parts of Québec, the main part of Newfoundland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Possibly part of Greenland too.
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2018, 07:53:55 AMDST does not work currently in eastern NY or New England. It just starts to get light out and then you have to wake up in the dark again after the time change.
Surely the Spring time change (the one you are talking about) and morning sun, is something where being north is an advantage - at the equinox/near it the days quickly get longer - and more so the further from the equator you are.
Now sure, the amount of time on DST is too long (especially in the fall), and this morning's 0615 sunrise in New York City isn't early enough to steal an hour (nor the 0614 EST that it would be tomorrow if it wasn't 0715 EDST), but NYC days get 160-163 seconds more daylight each day as this month gets on. The next 0615 sunrise in NYC is April 16th - that's 5 week's time, so we're looking at changing around a month too early.
In London, nearly 11 degrees further north, it was an 0626 sunrise this morning, but days get longer quicker than in NYC (235 to 240 seconds this month) and the sun rises at 0627 on the 5th of April - 11 days before NYC recovers that hour of daylight in the morning. There's 3 days of pre-6am sunrises in London this month (due to 'springing forward' in two weeks time), and the third day after the change is less than a month later (20th April). I think the last Sunday in March change time is about right - it's not perfect, but at least the equinox can be used as an excuse. If only we changed back in late September rather than a terrible October where it's too dark - a 6-6 split also makes more sense than a 7-5 (and definitely better than a US 8-4 split with two weeks more at each end vs European dates)
In Reykjavik, 12.5 degrees north of London, today's 0804 sunrise is 0703 by the 27th (they don't do DST, and are on WET, which is about 88 minutes ahead of solar time, so basically perminant DST) and the days get longer by 391 to 394 seconds. Sunset today was at 1913 and by the time they get enough sun in the morning to enable a shift of a hour and still have a roughly half-6 sunrise the sun is already setting at 20 past 9 - there's no use for the extra hour of daylight in the evening at all.
Jacksonville, roughly 10 degrees south of NYC, but also further west (30 minutes - Jacksonville is 26 minutes behind EST wrt solar time vs NYC's 4 minutes ahead): sunrise was at 0642, but with days only getting longer by 118 to 121 seconds/day, the next 0642 sunrise is May 2nd - 6 and a half weeks time!
Being further north allows one to recover that hour in the morning quickly having shifted it, but being too far north makes it pretty pointless to shift it as it's already light late.
As well as a specific routine that means that DST makes sense (industrial, fixed work patterns - ie the '9-to-5'), it's very much a temperate thing - Florida is far enough south that it isn't worth it, Iceland too far north to be worthwhile
(https://i.imgflip.com/26581h.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/26581h)
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 10, 2018, 08:33:11 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/26581h.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/26581h)
If you post that at 3.00 AM, THAT would be a good one
No, post it at 2:01 AM. :P
I'm at 62W/45.5N and we just had sunrise here at 7:29 Atlantic Daylight Time....so I guess I'll have to get used to picking up my double-double at Tim's in the dark again at 6:30 for the next few weeks!
Sunset will be 7:07 tonight but with a high of only +4 (40F) today....there's really not much to do outside around the yard yet in the extended daylight after supper.
The change to ADT would have been better here if it occurred in about a month's time...... but I guess you can't please everyone!
I'm at 40N/75W and it is a dark morning thanks to the politicians who have imposed this daylight savings time on us. I will not have daylight for over a month when I get up now.
DAYLIGHT
SAVING
TIME.
NO SECOND S.
I'm at [insert Des Moines, IA coordinates here] and I feel wronged because ill-educated politicians (oxymoron, anyone?) still subscribe to a bad idea popularized in the early 20th century. :angry:
I guess I'll be the one to break up the DST bitching that as a guy whose lifestyle has been geared toward nighttime since as long as I can remember, I welcome the later daylight hours.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 11, 2018, 07:35:41 AM
I guess I'll be the one to break up the DST bitching that as a guy whose lifestyle has been geared toward nighttime since as long as I can remember, I welcome the later daylight hours.
It's interesting you say that, because I'd generally consider myself the same, but I have the opposite response: I don't care which adjustment from GMT I live in–I'd just rather that it not change twice a year.
7:54 AM sunrise in Atlanta this morning. Yuck.
Moving the switchover to early March was easily one of the stupidest decisions ever made. (And this is also why permanent DST is a complete non-starter. Permanent standard time would be workable, though.)
New Britain, CT (just southwest of Hartford) has rise and set times of 7:09 AM and 6:53 PM. Total time is 11 hours 44 minutes.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 11, 2018, 07:30:49 AM
DAYLIGHT
SAVINGWASTING
TIME.
NO SECOND S.
I'm at [insert Des Moines, IA coordinates here] and I feel wronged because ill-educated politicians (oxymoron, anyone?) still subscribe to a bad idea popularized in the early 20th century. :angry:
bandit957's favorite fix. :sombrero:
I hate standard time. I love DST! (ducks)
Now I have no chance of working in the dark until November when the time changes back. I too prefer later daylight hours when the sun sets closer to nine rather than 5:30 p.m.
Quote from: cjk374 on March 11, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
I hate standard time. I love DST! (ducks)
Now I have no chance of working in the dark until November when the time changes back. I too prefer later daylight hours when the sun sets closer to nine rather than 5:30 p.m.
Sounds like you love summer and not DST specifically.
DST is one of the few ideas that came into Ben Franklin's mind that he should have kept to himself. Every time I have to change the clocks, the harder the transition is on me.
:angry:
It's to the point where I'm wondering if worldwide UTC ('zulu') wouldn't be the right way to go. Instead of this being posted at 10:54 CST ('UTC -5'), it would be posted at 1554z.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on March 11, 2018, 11:54:24 AM
It's to the point where I'm wondering if worldwide UTC ('zulu') wouldn't be the right way to go. Instead of this being posted at 10:54 CST ('UTC -5'), it would be posted at 1554z.
Mike
I was flirting with that idea somewhere up the thread.
Two issues:
1. Date will change mid-day for some folks. Not the biggest concern for NY, where date will click at what is now 7 PM, but 4 PM date switch in San Francisco can be bothersome. Imaging if you have a big contract to be signed at 3 PM, and that event runs late - date of contract becomes a legal nightmare...
2. You will never know what is the actual time of day at a different location. If your overseas friends tell you it is 9 PM, you can safely assume they are about to go to bed, give or take an hour or 2 at most. If both of you are at 18.00 UTC, it tells nothing about actual schedules. Or would you have enough time to catch that 3.00 UTC flight after a day of meetings in HNL?
I view DST as something that persists through political inertia because the arguments for and against are finely balanced while the annoyance of a clock change comes around only twice a year. I favor year-round DST/shifting to the standard time the next time zone east, but this is because I actually like dark mornings, a preference I realize is not shared by the majority of the population and is hard to justify in the face of the standard "What about the little children?" argument.
This year I dealt with the time change by moving the clocks forward at midafternoon yesterday, not just before bedtime, so that the missing hour came out of Saturday daytime chores rather than Saturday evening leisure. But because my computer is on British time (a necessity so that time offsets for scripts that scrape state DOT FTP servers are all of uniform sign) and so adheres to the EU DST schedule, I will have to deal with scripts running an hour behind for a week or two.
Since I use the Euro DST dates with my forum time, starting today and until March 25 it is one hour behind the local time of wherever Big Rig Steve is (except if he is to be in Arizona outside the Navajo nation). Since he is now taking a few days off out in Cali, my forum time is now nothing less that Alaska's :sombrero:.
Quote from: cjk374 on March 11, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
I hate standard time. I love DST! (ducks)
Now I have no chance of working in the dark until November when the time changes back. I too prefer later daylight hours when the sun sets closer to nine rather than 5:30 p.m.
I agree. I like having daylight after I get out of work. Dark mornings don't bother me that much
Z981
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2018, 07:53:55 AM
DST does not work currently in eastern NY or New England. It just starts to get light out and then you have to wake up in the dark again after the time change.
New England, keep in mind, is the least of it. Everywhere between there and Indiana had
even less light this morning.
The nice thing is that days are increasing in length at their fastest rate right now. So mornings will be as light as they were yesterday in another month or so.
I don't know if it's ever been posted here, but here's the link to the study: https://www.colorado.edu/economics/papers/WPs-14/wp14-05/wp14-05.pdf
Honestly, I didn't read thru the entire thing, because it's written on a fairly high technical level. But looking at the graphics, it appears this happens: Deaths are slightly higher the 6 or 7 days around the change to DST compared to the time period just before and after. However, there's a much larger swing between wintertime (when people aren't driving as much) and summertime (which a lot more people are traveling).
Early in the report, the author estimates there are about 100 fatal crashes per day in the US, which is correct...as an *average*. He quickly never mentions it again, as his own data shows that driving in the summer overall is much, much more dangerous than in the winter, a time period far removed from the hour lost in March and gained in November.
If you look at Figure 7 on page 31 of the PDF, he highlights the 6 days around the beginning DST when fatals do seem to spike for that period of time. However, if you look at the chart, around the 25th day after DST, fatals have risen to the same rate again, and continue to rise towards the 50th day after DST (and beyond)
So while everyone wants to make a big deal about DST, you're really best to stay off the road from around mid-April thru the autumn, when fatals are higher.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2018, 04:49:56 PM
I don't know if it's ever been posted here, but here's the link to the study: https://www.colorado.edu/economics/papers/WPs-14/wp14-05/wp14-05.pdf
Honestly, I didn't read thru the entire thing, because it's written on a fairly high technical level. But looking at the graphics, it appears this happens: Deaths are slightly higher the 6 or 7 days around the change to DST compared to the time period just before and after. However, there's a much larger swing between wintertime (when people aren't driving as much) and summertime (which a lot more people are traveling).
Early in the report, the author estimates there are about 100 fatal crashes per day in the US, which is correct...as an *average*. He quickly never mentions it again, as his own data shows that driving in the summer overall is much, much more dangerous than in the winter, a time period far removed from the hour lost in March and gained in November.
If you look at Figure 7 on page 31 of the PDF, he highlights the 6 days around the beginning DST when fatals do seem to spike for that period of time. However, if you look at the chart, around the 25th day after DST, fatals have risen to the same rate again, and continue to rise towards the 50th day after DST (and beyond)
So while everyone wants to make a big deal about DST, you're really best to stay off the road from around mid-April thru the autumn, when fatals are higher.
Your last paragraph (more deaths in the summer, so you should avoid it) contradicts your first paragraph (more deaths in the summer, because there are more cars total).
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2018, 04:37:45 PMThe nice thing is that days are increasing in length at their fastest rate right now. So mornings will be as light as they were yesterday in another month or so.
Sunrise times are reset to yesterdays on: April 16th for NYC. May 2nd for Jacksonville, April 5th for London, and the 27th of March for Reykjavik (if Iceland did DST, which it doesn't) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22229.msg2310504#msg2310504).
As well as being further east and thus having earlier dawns anyway, being further north means that Eastern NY/New England recover quicker than the rest of the EST area in the US.
The problem currently had is the same as the solution - that the length of daylight is increasing at a faster rate than further south means that changing a week or two before the solstice means that there isn't yet quite the length of day to be able to do the shift sensibly that there is further south. Though if longitude is taken to account, that difference was 2 minutes from Jax to NYC yesterday and so dwarfed by the half-a-time-zone further west Jax is.
These problems are far greater in the fall. The March change is roughly in the right place, but October/November is too late. Miami's latest sunrise is the last day of DST (see a previous post of mine on this) and even somewhere as far north (and thus more extreme wrt daylight lengths) as London has a 0744 sunrise on the last day of DST this year (Oct 27th) with it taking until December 2nd to be as-late again.
Quote from: 1 on March 11, 2018, 05:00:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2018, 04:49:56 PM
I don't know if it's ever been posted here, but here's the link to the study: https://www.colorado.edu/economics/papers/WPs-14/wp14-05/wp14-05.pdf
Honestly, I didn't read thru the entire thing, because it's written on a fairly high technical level. But looking at the graphics, it appears this happens: Deaths are slightly higher the 6 or 7 days around the change to DST compared to the time period just before and after. However, there's a much larger swing between wintertime (when people aren't driving as much) and summertime (which a lot more people are traveling).
Early in the report, the author estimates there are about 100 fatal crashes per day in the US, which is correct...as an *average*. He quickly never mentions it again, as his own data shows that driving in the summer overall is much, much more dangerous than in the winter, a time period far removed from the hour lost in March and gained in November.
If you look at Figure 7 on page 31 of the PDF, he highlights the 6 days around the beginning DST when fatals do seem to spike for that period of time. However, if you look at the chart, around the 25th day after DST, fatals have risen to the same rate again, and continue to rise towards the 50th day after DST (and beyond)
So while everyone wants to make a big deal about DST, you're really best to stay off the road from around mid-April thru the autumn, when fatals are higher.
Your last paragraph (more deaths in the summer, so you should avoid it) contradicts your first paragraph (more deaths in the summer, because there are more cars total).
Not at all. They compliment each other. If you want to avoid a deadlier time period of traveling, don't travel in the summer when more people are on the road.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
I view DST as something that persists through political inertia because the arguments for and against are finely balanced while the annoyance of a clock change comes around only twice a year. I favor year-round DST/shifting to the standard time the next time zone east, but this is because I actually like dark mornings, a preference I realize is not shared by the majority of the population and is hard to justify in the face of the standard "What about the little children?" argument.
This year I dealt with the time change by moving the clocks forward at midafternoon yesterday, not just before bedtime, so that the missing hour came out of Saturday daytime chores rather than Saturday evening leisure. But because my computer is on British time (a necessity so that time offsets for scripts that scrape state DOT FTP servers are all of uniform sign) and so adheres to the EU DST schedule, I will have to deal with scripts running an hour behind for a week or two.
I reset my alarm clock before going to bed by hitting the DST button :)
I went to bed about 45 minutes early and woke up about 30 minutes late, "new time".
Quote from: US71 on March 11, 2018, 05:57:58 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
I view DST as something that persists through political inertia because the arguments for and against are finely balanced while the annoyance of a clock change comes around only twice a year. I favor year-round DST/shifting to the standard time the next time zone east, but this is because I actually like dark mornings, a preference I realize is not shared by the majority of the population and is hard to justify in the face of the standard "What about the little children?" argument.
This year I dealt with the time change by moving the clocks forward at midafternoon yesterday, not just before bedtime, so that the missing hour came out of Saturday daytime chores rather than Saturday evening leisure. But because my computer is on British time (a necessity so that time offsets for scripts that scrape state DOT FTP servers are all of uniform sign) and so adheres to the EU DST schedule, I will have to deal with scripts running an hour behind for a week or two.
I reset my alarm clock before going to bed by hitting the DST button :)
I went to bed about 45 minutes early and woke up about 30 minutes late, "new time".
My alarm clock has such a complicated way to change to DST time that it's easier just to change the actual clock.
I went to bed at 4:30am and woke up at 11:30am, DST times. I guess the time change really didn't affect me due to such late going-to-bed and waking up times! lol
My alarm clock is easy to reset. Just put my phone on the dock and it syncs up.
Quote from: jwolfer on March 11, 2018, 02:30:42 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on March 11, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Now I have no chance of working in the dark until November when the time changes back. I too prefer later daylight hours when the sun sets closer to nine rather than 5:30 p.m.
I agree. I like having daylight after I get out of work. Dark mornings don't bother me that much
BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WHY WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!
My alarm clock resets itself. If Congress changes the DST dates, I'll just have to get a new alarm clock -- but that's a price I'd be willing to pay, if they changed USA DST dates to match the EU.
My watches are easy to reset, with a short twist of the crown. Perhaps 2 seconds each.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 11, 2018, 07:36:42 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 11, 2018, 02:30:42 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on March 11, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Now I have no chance of working in the dark until November when the time changes back. I too prefer later daylight hours when the sun sets closer to nine rather than 5:30 p.m.
I agree. I like having daylight after I get out of work. Dark mornings don't bother me that much
BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WHY WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!
AND THE PUPPIES AND KITTENS!!
Z981
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2018, 04:49:56 PMSo while everyone wants to make a big deal about DST, you're really best to stay off the road from around mid-April thru the autumn, when fatals are higher.
That is not necessarily a correct interpretation of the log plot in question, which is based on crash count rather than crash rate. The crash count has to be adjusted according to some measure of exposure, such as traffic volume, to get an accurate estimate of risk. For a season-to-season comparison, AADT is not appropriate because it is averaged across the entire year. The log plot is consistent with an individual driver having a lower risk of dying per VMT in the summer (more miles driven, but typically in much better weather conditions) and even a lower overall risk of dying in summer regardless of VMT (bigger driving population in the summer).
My phone system at work was set up on old DST and so the time was completely jacked up when the new DST rules went in effect in the Bush years. We just dealt with it until we switched the phones over a couple of years ago. I'm sure if something further happens, we'll deal again.
Quote from: kkt on March 11, 2018, 07:37:46 PM
My alarm clock resets itself.
As does mine. I'm surprised how few actually do this. Mine is a Sony bedside radio from like 2009. I'm not even sure it has a manual clock adjustment option.
Quote from: kkt on March 11, 2018, 07:37:46 PM
My alarm clock resets itself. If Congress changes the DST dates, I'll just have to get a new alarm clock -- but that's a price I'd be willing to pay, if they changed USA DST dates to match the EU.
About 10 years ago we got a clock radio that has auto-DST, and which could be re-programmed for new DST rules. It might be worth looking in the owner's manual or on the manufacturer's website.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 07:55:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2018, 04:49:56 PMSo while everyone wants to make a big deal about DST, you're really best to stay off the road from around mid-April thru the autumn, when fatals are higher.
That is not necessarily a correct interpretation of the log plot in question, which is based on crash count rather than crash rate. The crash count has to be adjusted according to some measure of exposure, such as traffic volume, to get an accurate estimate of risk. For a season-to-season comparison, AADT is not appropriate because it is averaged across the entire year. The log plot is consistent with an individual driver having a lower risk of dying per VMT in the summer (more miles driven, but typically in much better weather conditions) and even a lower overall risk of dying in summer regardless of VMT (bigger driving population in the summer).
Two different factors. You're trying to look at an overall risk vs the amount of traffic on the road. However, the plot graph is simply looking at the individual risk of one walking out the door in the morning. In this case, the chart is correct for what the author is trying to get across. If he went with risk based on AADT, then as you mentioned the chart would probably be flipped...which would mean a different outcome for the week after the changeover to DST as well.
But then, the point I'm making would still be accurate - driving in winter would probably be more dangerous than driving the week after the change to DST.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2018, 06:24:20 AMHowever, the plot graph is simply looking at the individual risk of one walking out the door in the morning.
It is not even doing that. It is merely looking at crash count, full stop. The walking-out-the-door risk depends on how many people you have walking out the door each season, and that is likely to be lower in winter as people curtail discretionary travel.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2018, 06:24:20 AMIn this case, the chart is correct for what the author is trying to get across. If he went with risk based on AADT, then as you mentioned the chart would probably be flipped...which would mean a different outcome for the week after the changeover to DST as well.
Actually, it would not. The spike in crashes following DST is a local effect that occurs over a timescale too short for seasonal travel trends to take hold. The chart therefore bolsters the argument that DST (or, rather, the changeover to DST in the spring) imposes an additional cost.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2018, 06:24:20 AMBut then, the point I'm making would still be accurate - driving in winter would probably be more dangerous than driving the week after the change to DST.
That may very well be true. It may even be true that the difference between the worst week in winter and the best week in summer is greater than the bump in the week following the DST change in spring. But a key element of the author's argument is that the bump following the DST change is a loss that correlates to sleep deprivation and is avoidable by sticking to the same schedule year-round.
It needs a good statistical study. Comparing mid-January through March of 1974 with the same time periods in 1973 and 1975 would be a good place to start.
Quote from: english si on March 11, 2018, 05:15:30 PM
These problems are far greater in the fall. The March change is roughly in the right place, but October/November is too late.
I agree - when you consider it as it's related to the solar equinoxes, the end of DST is too late. The beginning of DST occurs about 10 days before the spring equinox on March 21st. Therefore, the end of DST should be 10 days after the fall equinox - around October 1st.
Even better(!!!) just make the first day of Spring the first day of DST and the first day of fall the last day of DST. Problem solved! :)
Though I'd hate to lose that hour of evening light at such a beautiful time of year, October mornings are very dark - almost darker than they are on the true shortest day of the year. I can't imagine how much more so that is in places to my west, such as Indiana.
In that case, we can just view when DST started in later April, then early April, then early mid-March, and see what differences in fatals occurred based on the date. Same can be done with the changeover back to regular time in the fall.
I get an extra hour of daylight when I get home now! Temperatures be damned, I'm getting on my bike!
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2018, 07:53:55 AM
DST does not work currently in eastern NY or New England. It just starts to get light out and then you have to wake up in the dark again after the time change. I am not persuaded that it works for northern latitudes, at least the American way.
This depends on the schedule of the individual. I find the recent time change somewhat welcome since sunrise was getting to be too damn early for my liking.
Doing it a whole hour at once is somewhat jarring to one's circadian rhythms, though. Might be nice if there were a way to shift the clocks more gradually.
The interesting thing is, I make trips to Central time with some regularity. When I do this, the westbound gain and subsequent eastbound loss of an hour is something I barely notice. DST shifts, however... I notice, significantly. I see a couple reasons why this is different:
- with trips to Central Time, the gain or loss of an hour occurs during the day. This is easier to handle than gaining or losing an hour in the middle of the night because it impacts the length of an awake cycle rather than the length of a sleep cycle. Awake cycles are more flexible and don't cause any noticeable fatigue when shortened or lengthened by an hour.
- with trips to Central Time, the clock moves but so does the sun. So there isn't a sudden sense of disorientation caused by the number on the clock and the position of the sun in sky shifting by an hour relative to each other.
Going from light to dark to light again morning-wise is just stupid. To prefer that yo-yo doesn't seem to be very logical to me.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 12, 2018, 08:14:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2018, 07:53:55 AM
DST does not work currently in eastern NY or New England. It just starts to get light out and then you have to wake up in the dark again after the time change. I am not persuaded that it works for northern latitudes, at least the American way.
This depends on the schedule of the individual. I find the recent time change somewhat welcome since sunrise was getting to be too damn early for my liking.
Doing it a whole hour at once is somewhat jarring to one's circadian rhythms, though. Might be nice if there were a way to shift the clocks more gradually.
The interesting thing is, I make trips to Central time with some regularity. When I do this, the westbound gain and subsequent eastbound loss of an hour is something I barely notice. DST shifts, however... I notice, significantly. I see a couple reasons why this is different:
- with trips to Central Time, the gain or loss of an hour occurs during the day. This is easier to handle than gaining or losing an hour in the middle of the night because it impacts the length of an awake cycle rather than the length of a sleep cycle. Awake cycles are more flexible and don't cause any noticeable fatigue when shortened or lengthened by an hour.
- with trips to Central Time, the clock moves but so does the sun. So there isn't a sudden sense of disorientation caused by the number on the clock and the position of the sun in sky shifting by an hour relative to each other.
You can also add associated unusual activities and schedules as clock-resetting factors for such trips. Getting to/from airport, exposure to low pressure on a plane, and non-routine nature of a trip in general may help. Once you get to bed at the end of the day, falling asleep at proper time for a new time zone is usually quite easy. That being said, 6-8 hours of jetlag can be harsh.
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2018, 08:29:00 PM
Going from light to dark to light again morning-wise is just stupid. To prefer that yo-yo doesn't seem to be very logical to me.
I would not prefer such a yo-yo. My point is such a yo-yo effect is only really experienced in my location by people who are waking up before 07:00. That does not include me - I am waking up after sunrise both before and after the time shift, and am getting an extra hour of sunlight to actually be awake during out of it.
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2018, 08:29:00 PM
Going from light to dark to light again morning-wise is just stupid. To prefer that yo-yo doesn't seem to be very logical to me.
Depends on your preference for sunrise (as Duke87 just mentioned). There was enough light to see by at 7:15 this morning (make that 7:00 for you easterners :)).
That's not altogether unreasonable, considering (1) it's only an hour, during a time of day when many people are still asleep; (2) daylight overall is increasing fast enough to make it up in about a month; and (3) the extra light in the evening is decent compensation regardless.
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2018, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2018, 08:29:00 PM
Going from light to dark to light again morning-wise is just stupid. To prefer that yo-yo doesn't seem to be very logical to me.
Depends on your preference for sunrise (as Duke87 just mentioned). There was enough light to see by at 7:15 this morning (make that 7:00 for you easterners :)).
That's not altogether unreasonable, considering (1) it's only an hour, during a time of day when many people are still asleep; (2) daylight overall is increasing fast enough to make it up in about a month; and (3) the extra light in the evening is decent compensation regardless.
See #2. The yo-yo is unacceptable.
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2018, 09:15:49 PM
See #2. The yo-yo is unacceptable.
See (1) - Only if you're actually awake enough to characterize it as such :-D
And it still beats 4am sunrise. I don't deny wishing there was a smoother way to transition, but there sure as heck isn't a better way I can think of.
You want to adjust the clocks every week, 10 minutes at a time?
Quote from: kkt on March 12, 2018, 09:35:23 PM
You want to adjust the clocks every week, 10 minutes at a time?
Actually when the world was less connected people could start their day at dawn - or with some offset to dawn. That is equivalent to daily adjustment fo that many seconds. Difficult to do that these days, though.
But having less discrete timing, say 60 hourletts of 24 minutes a day would help both with better daylight saving adjustment and better matching of local time to timezone.
Quote from: kkt on March 12, 2018, 09:35:23 PM
You want to adjust the clocks every week, 10 minutes at a time?
I would be okay with this.
Hell, adjust it two minutes a day every day from Feb 20th (21st in leap years) - Mar 21st and Sep 21st - Oct 20th. This would avoid any yoyo effect for most of the US, by keeping the amount of daily clock shift below the daily change in length of sunlight around the equinox.
And it would avoid any jarring sudden disruptions to people's circadian rhythms - it would merely be experienced as a month in which the time of sunrise barely changes (for latitudes in the 30s) or shifts relatively slowly (for latitudes in the 40s) but the time of sunset shifts relatively quickly.
Well, since a solar year is 365.25 days, why not allocate the extra six hours over 365 days every year instead of adding a leap year? Would add a little over 59 seconds every day if you allocate the extra 21,600 seconds over 365 days.
As a child until about 10 years old I lived in the far western end of the Eastern Time Zone. From 10-21 years old I lived in the far eastern end of the Central Time Zone, and have spent the last 27+ years pretty far east in the Eastern Time Zone.
I have vague memories of almost 10 pm sunsets in western Michigan as a child, especially around the 4th of July waiting for the fireworks to start. I can remember vividly not wanting to go to bed (my parents wanted me in bed NLT 8:30 pm) because it was still daylight out. I can also remember it still being dark when I got to school during the winter, and again for a week or 2 after the time change, even though it was in still April back then.
I don't remember that being an issue during my teenage years in Chicagoland. School started at 8:25 in elementary school, 9am in junior high (that was a private school that utilized the public school system's buses so they had to start later) and 8:45 in high school (private school in downtown Chicago). I did have a dark ride to get to school my junior and senior years because I was leaving so early from Schaumburg to get downtown, but it was bright sunlight by the time I exited the subway at the Chicago/State stop at around 8-8:05 am.
My youngest just graduated high school in January, and he had to wait by the bus stop in the dark during the deep winter months and again after the switch to DST, but its not an issue for him anymore.
My work schedule is such that it really doesn't matter if its standard time or daylight time, I switch between 12 hours of dayshift and 12 hours of night shift every 2 weeks. I was on my weekend off switching from days to nights this last change over and like jeffandnichole upthread I didn't go to bed until almost 5am Sunday so it was no big deal to me either way. The years I got stuck working night shift during the spring switchover it was cool because I only had to work 11 hours that night while the day crew bitched and whined that they lost an hour of sleep.
I am at the stage of my life all of my work and most of my recreational activities are indoors anyway so the exact time of sunrise and sunset have almost zero impact to me. I do, however, see and understand the strong feelings on both sides of this topic because to some people, their whole life revolves around how much sunlight they get and when it starts and stops.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2018, 12:23:53 AM
Well, since a solar year is 365.25 days, why not allocate the extra six hours over 365 days every year instead of adding a leap year? Would add a little over 59 seconds every day if you allocate the extra 21,600 seconds over 365 days.
And you e d up with sunrise at 9 pm by the next new year day. Yet another year, and sun does up at 5 pm. Great for evening commute...
Quote from: kalvado on March 13, 2018, 06:26:11 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2018, 12:23:53 AM
Well, since a solar year is 365.25 days, why not allocate the extra six hours over 365 days every year instead of adding a leap year? Would add a little over 59 seconds every day if you allocate the extra 21,600 seconds over 365 days.
And you e d up with sunrise at 9 pm by the next new year day. Yet another year, and sun does up at 5 pm. Great for evening commute...
I think (and hope) that was meant sarcastically...
I was reminded while working today of another way that DST time changes screw things up - the fact that it creates days which are not 24 hours long. When trying to do analysis on a years' worth of data collected in 15-minute intervals, this becomes a bit of a headache to have to account for. Especially since the 23 and 25 hour days do not fall on the same calendar date each year.
Not having a time change would avoid this, but... yeah I just can't get on board with doing away with DST because I don't want to lose an hour of useful daylight every day in the summer. On the other hand if we were to go about shifting time zones westward as Florida is trying to do (putting them in Atlantic Standard Time year round), that would make it more palatable.
Go to UTC-4:30 year-round?
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2018, 12:19:17 AM
I was reminded while working today of another way that DST time changes screw things up - the fact that it creates days which are not 24 hours long. When trying to do analysis on a years' worth of data collected in 15-minute intervals, this becomes a bit of a headache to have to account for. Especially since the 23 and 25 hour days do not fall on the same calendar date each year.
....
The changing dates could be addressed via various calendar-reform proposals that would make all or substantially all the months the same length and then use "blank days"–days not assigned to a particular weekday, plus perhaps a couple of days assigned to weeks but not numbered as days of a month–to balance it out. The "Shire Calendar" from the Lord of the Rings (found in one of the appendices to "The Return of the King," or online via a Google search) is an example of this sort of thing. The Shire Calendar uses a fictional "Mid-year's Day" as the "blank day," but you could use New Year's Day if you wanted something more universal.
Of course, that sort of idea would run into a lot of opposition from religious people who believe the seven-day week is sacred and from people who would grouse about things like the dates of holidays (should US Independence Day still be observed on July 4? Do you need to adjust the Computus used to determine the date of Easter?*) or whose birthdays no longer exist (such as those of us born on the 31st of a month). Not to mention the calendar industry, of course, who make money off the way the dates change days change every year.
I've always thought the calendar reform ideas are an interesting concept that stand almost no chance of becoming reality.
*Regarding the Computus issue, it'd be similar to what most of the Orthodox Churches do now because they determine the date of Easter via the Julian Calendar and then map it to the Gregorian Calendar.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2018, 12:19:17 AM
I was reminded while working today of another way that DST time changes screw things up - the fact that it creates days which are not 24 hours long. When trying to do analysis on a years' worth of data collected in 15-minute intervals, this becomes a bit of a headache to have to account for. Especially since the 23 and 25 hour days do not fall on the same calendar date each year.
....
The changing dates could be addressed via various calendar-reform proposals that would make all or substantially all the months the same length and then use "blank days"–days not assigned to a particular weekday, plus perhaps a couple of days assigned to weeks but not numbered as days of a month–to balance it out. The "Shire Calendar" from the Lord of the Rings (found in one of the appendices to "The Return of the King," or online via a Google search) is an example of this sort of thing. The Shire Calendar uses a fictional "Mid-year's Day" as the "blank day," but you could use New Year's Day if you wanted something more universal.
Of course, that sort of idea would run into a lot of opposition from religious people who believe the seven-day week is sacred and from people who would grouse about things like the dates of holidays (should US Independence Day still be observed on July 4? Do you need to adjust the Computus used to determine the date of Easter?*) or whose birthdays no longer exist (such as those of us born on the 31st of a month). Not to mention the calendar industry, of course, who make money off the way the dates change days change every year.
I've always thought the calendar reform ideas are an interesting concept that stand almost no chance of becoming reality.
*Regarding the Computus issue, it'd be similar to what most of the Orthodox Churches do now because they determine the date of Easter via the Julian Calendar and then map it to the Gregorian Calendar.
Calendar issues are more or less non-existant, with leap year being relatively easily accounted for and irregularities being quite infrequent. Daylight savings, however, is a constant nuisance - and to make it worse, it is not fully predictable as politicians love to play with the clock for whatever reasons.
I know that a big factory over here uses internal time, and equipment control system runs on EST the year round, no EDT.
On a separate, but similar notice - as far as I know, NavStar system (commonly referred to as GPS) does not accommodate leap seconds. Which are, like leap years, a result of natural cycles being not exactly proportional to human-made units. In fact solar system motion is somewhat chaotic... But as a result, GPS time is offset from observed time by, if I remember correctly, 15 seconds by now.
For PSE&G electric customers in NJ who are on their RMS (Residential Load Management) Schedule, aka "White Meter", there is no DST. The meters operate on EST year round. So the peak hours are 7:00 am to 9:00 pm when we are on Standard time but 8:00 am to 10:00 pm when we are on DST. So you have to adjust your heavy usage schedules accordingly. A lot of customers don't know this.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2018, 12:19:17 AM
I was reminded while working today of another way that DST time changes screw things up - the fact that it creates days which are not 24 hours long. When trying to do analysis on a years' worth of data collected in 15-minute intervals, this becomes a bit of a headache to have to account for. Especially since the 23 and 25 hour days do not fall on the same calendar date each year.
....
The changing dates could be addressed via various calendar-reform proposals that would make all or substantially all the months the same length and then use "blank days"—days not assigned to a particular weekday, plus perhaps a couple of days assigned to weeks but not numbered as days of a month—to balance it out. The "Shire Calendar" from the Lord of the Rings (found in one of the appendices to "The Return of the King," or online via a Google search) is an example of this sort of thing. The Shire Calendar uses a fictional "Mid-year's Day" as the "blank day," but you could use New Year's Day if you wanted something more universal.
Of course, that sort of idea would run into a lot of opposition from religious people who believe the seven-day week is sacred and from people who would grouse about things like the dates of holidays (should US Independence Day still be observed on July 4? Do you need to adjust the Computus used to determine the date of Easter?*) or whose birthdays no longer exist (such as those of us born on the 31st of a month). Not to mention the calendar industry, of course, who make money off the way the dates change days change every year.
I once proposed a system that would only need two different calendars, a 365 day calendar and a 366 day calendar by having a day simply called "New Year's Day" between the last day of December (always Saturday) and the first day of January (always Sunday) that does not belong to a month nor a day of the week, with a "Leap Day," also not belonging to a month or a day of the week, following New Year's Day every four years. My version had 31 days in January, March, July and October with 30 days the other months.
I was told the biggest reason this would never happen is that various religions would have a problem with a calendar that had extra days between the weekly holy day and thus messing up religious schedules.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 14, 2018, 09:00:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2018, 12:19:17 AM
I was reminded while working today of another way that DST time changes screw things up - the fact that it creates days which are not 24 hours long. When trying to do analysis on a years' worth of data collected in 15-minute intervals, this becomes a bit of a headache to have to account for. Especially since the 23 and 25 hour days do not fall on the same calendar date each year.
....
The changing dates could be addressed via various calendar-reform proposals that would make all or substantially all the months the same length and then use "blank days"–days not assigned to a particular weekday, plus perhaps a couple of days assigned to weeks but not numbered as days of a month–to balance it out. The "Shire Calendar" from the Lord of the Rings (found in one of the appendices to "The Return of the King," or online via a Google search) is an example of this sort of thing. The Shire Calendar uses a fictional "Mid-year's Day" as the "blank day," but you could use New Year's Day if you wanted something more universal.
Of course, that sort of idea would run into a lot of opposition from religious people who believe the seven-day week is sacred and from people who would grouse about things like the dates of holidays (should US Independence Day still be observed on July 4? Do you need to adjust the Computus used to determine the date of Easter?*) or whose birthdays no longer exist (such as those of us born on the 31st of a month). Not to mention the calendar industry, of course, who make money off the way the dates change days change every year.
I once proposed a system that would only need two different calendars, a 365 day calendar and a 366 day calendar by having a day simply called "New Year's Day" between the last day of December (always Saturday) and the first day of January (always Sunday) that does not belong to a month nor a day of the week, with a "Leap Day," also not belonging to a month or a day of the week, following New Year's Day every four years. My version had 31 days in January, March, July and October with 30 days the other months.
I was told the biggest reason this would never happen is that various religions would have a problem with a calendar that had extra days between the weekly holy day and thus messing up religious schedules.
As a matter of fact someone already tried that. USSR was running a 6-day "week" calendar in parallel with 7-day week in 1930-s, with "weekend" being 6,12,18, 24 and 30th of each month.
Imputed length of a year in the Gregorian calendar = 365.2425 days.
Actual length of a year = 365.2422 days.
Hence all the faff and bother with leap seconds and so on.
One of the few good things about DST-related time changes is that it forces correction of clock drift and also consideration of storing or discarding timepieces that are not serving a useful purpose.
QuoteAs a matter of fact someone already tried that. USSR was running a 6-day "week" calendar in parallel with 7-day week in 1930-s, with "weekend" being 6,12,18, 24 and 30th of each month.
Then there was the French Republican Calendar, which tried to do everything in terms of tens (a "décade" of ten days instead of a seven-day week, ten hours in a day, other weirdness). It had a number of problems and didn't last long at all. A major reason it was formulated was part of the anti-religion aspects of the French Revolution and the Gregorian Calendar being seen as tied to religion.
As I type this, under that calendar the time is 4:72 and the date is 24 Ventôse CCXXVI.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2018, 12:19:17 AM
I was reminded while working today of another way that DST time changes screw things up - the fact that it creates days which are not 24 hours long. When trying to do analysis on a years' worth of data collected in 15-minute intervals, this becomes a bit of a headache to have to account for. Especially since the 23 and 25 hour days do not fall on the same calendar date each year.
Not having a time change would avoid this, but... yeah I just can't get on board with doing away with DST because I don't want to lose an hour of useful daylight every day in the summer. On the other hand if we were to go about shifting time zones westward as Florida is trying to do (putting them in Atlantic Standard Time year round), that would make it more palatable.
For data like that collected every 15 minutes, 24x7, I'd see if it was possible to use UTC instead of local civil time. That's what astronomers do.
The railroads kept standard time year-round until the standardization of DST observance in the late 1960s.
Airlines that are big enough to operate in more than one time zone typically chose one time zone to schedule all their operations. Of course in the public timetables they convert to local civil time.
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
DST is pointless, but let's make it confusing and over-complicated, like IoT.
Quote from: formulanone on March 14, 2018, 12:40:37 PM
DST is pointless, but let's make it confusing and over-complicated, like IoT.
Being that most people want DST, and if given the option would elect to have it year-round, it's hardly pointless.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2018, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 14, 2018, 12:40:37 PM
DST is pointless, but let's make it confusing and over-complicated, like IoT.
Being that most people want DST, and if given the option would elect to have it year-round, it's hardly pointless.
It's really not that complicated, either. I'd prefer year-round DST to year-round standard time, but at the end of the day (no pun intended), the current setup is
pretty close to optimal.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2018, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 14, 2018, 12:40:37 PM
DST is pointless, but let's make it confusing and over-complicated, like IoT.
Being that most people want DST, and if given the option would elect to have it year-round, it's hardly pointless.
Year-round DST isn't even DST at all; it's just moving one time zone over.
I would like to see a state by state referendum on DST. Then we know how really popular it is or isn't and make changes accordingly.
Quote from: webny99 on March 14, 2018, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2018, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 14, 2018, 12:40:37 PM
DST is pointless, but let's make it confusing and over-complicated, like IoT.
Being that most people want DST, and if given the option would elect to have it year-round, it's hardly pointless.
It's really not that complicated, either. I'd prefer year-round DST to year-round standard time, but at the end of the day (no pun intended), the current setup is pretty close to optimal.
Same, except that I'd find year-round standard time far more amenable than year-round DST on account of being near the western edge of my time zone. If we
did go to year-round DST, I think most of Georgia (everyone but the Savannah area, and heck, maybe even them) would push for a move to the Central time zone. Technically, by longitude, everything west of a line along roughly US 221 (US 441 south of Douglas) already should be.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 14, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
I would like to see a state by state referendum on DST. Then we know how really popular it is or isn't and make changes accordingly.
Why do we even need a state by state referendum? Just move the clocks back half an hour next fall and be done with it. People will adjust and life will go on.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 14, 2018, 10:45:58 AM
Imputed length of a year in the Gregorian calendar = 365.2425 days.
Actual length of a year = 365.2422 days.
Hence all the faff and bother with leap seconds and so on.
One of the few good things about DST-related time changes is that it forces correction of clock drift and also consideration of storing or discarding timepieces that are not serving a useful purpose.
Nope. There are 2 separate cycles, daily earth rotation - about 24 hour, responsible for night and day; and annual orbit around the Sun, responsible for winter and summer.
Leap days take care of the fact that year is neither 365 (once every 4 years) nor 365.25 days (once every 100 years). In fact, astronomic year is not extremely stable with variations as much as 18 minutes during past 20 years. But, really, who cares? Worst comes to worst we'll have to add or remove leap year every 100 years or so.
Leap second is a result of earth's rotation slowing down - and being not exactly constant as well. Since astronomers are in charge, they insist on lunch at Greenwich observatory starting exactly at astronomic noon and not a second earlier. I couldn't care less if sun is 15 seconds off (and even a minute that is going to be accumulated over my lifetime, or 10 minutes..) for the sake of not touching the clock....
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2018, 01:49:13 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 14, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
I would like to see a state by state referendum on DST. Then we know how really popular it is or isn't and make changes accordingly.
Why do we even need a state by state referendum? Just move the clocks back half an hour next fall and be done with it. People will adjust and life will go on.
Most of the world lives on 1 hour increments to help with synchronizing events. Going to 30 min increments would look moronic.
Moving time zone lines is much more realistic.
Quote from: kalvado on March 14, 2018, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2018, 01:49:13 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 14, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
I would like to see a state by state referendum on DST. Then we know how really popular it is or isn't and make changes accordingly.
Why do we even need a state by state referendum? Just move the clocks back half an hour next fall and be done with it. People will adjust and life will go on.
Most of the world lives on 1 hour increments to help with synchronizing events. Going to 30 min increments would look moronic.
Moving time zone lines is much more realistic.
How does moving the clocks back one half hour prevent everyone working from still working on 1 hour increments?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2018, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 14, 2018, 12:40:37 PM
DST is pointless, but let's make it confusing and over-complicated, like IoT.
Being that most people want DST, and if given the option would elect to have it year-round, it's hardly pointless.
I don't believe most people would elect to have it year-round. It was extremely unpopular when year-round was actually tried.
Here at 47 degrees north, the morning commute is already in twilight a couple of weeks before and after the winter solstice and it's pretty unpleasant. We don't need it to be months of twilight or full darkness for the commute.
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2018, 02:00:32 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 14, 2018, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2018, 01:49:13 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 14, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
I would like to see a state by state referendum on DST. Then we know how really popular it is or isn't and make changes accordingly.
Why do we even need a state by state referendum? Just move the clocks back half an hour next fall and be done with it. People will adjust and life will go on.
Most of the world lives on 1 hour increments to help with synchronizing events. Going to 30 min increments would look moronic.
Moving time zone lines is much more realistic.
How does moving the clocks back one half hour prevent everyone working from still working on 1 hour increments?
Because if I am scheduling a conference call for X o'clock sharp, everyone expect they will have that at .00
Going to half-hour increments breaks that pattern.
It is not a bad idea in general - but since everyone is used to whole hour steps...
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 02:29:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2018, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 14, 2018, 12:40:37 PM
DST is pointless, but let's make it confusing and over-complicated, like IoT.
Being that most people want DST, and if given the option would elect to have it year-round, it's hardly pointless.
I don't believe most people would elect to have it year-round. It was extremely unpopular when year-round was actually tried.
Here at 47 degrees north, the morning commute is already in twilight a couple of weeks before and after the winter solstice and it's pretty unpleasant. We don't need it to be months of twilight or full darkness for the commute.
And that is the problem. There's a lot of people, here included, that hate switching times. But regardless if you leave it at Standard time, Daylight time, or even :30, there's going to be issues people won't be happy with.
Now, when it was tried 40 years ago people hated it, so 4 decades later the result may be different. But the problems will still exist.
Quote from: kalvado on March 14, 2018, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2018, 01:49:13 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 14, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
I would like to see a state by state referendum on DST. Then we know how really popular it is or isn't and make changes accordingly.
Why do we even need a state by state referendum? Just move the clocks back half an hour next fall and be done with it. People will adjust and life will go on.
Most of the world lives on 1 hour increments to help with synchronizing events. Going to 30 min increments would look moronic.
Moving time zone lines is much more realistic.
Isn't there some isolated time zone somewhere that's a half-hour off its neighbors? I'm pretty sure there was at one time, but not sure if it still exists or not.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 14, 2018, 02:47:06 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 14, 2018, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2018, 01:49:13 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 14, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
I would like to see a state by state referendum on DST. Then we know how really popular it is or isn't and make changes accordingly.
Why do we even need a state by state referendum? Just move the clocks back half an hour next fall and be done with it. People will adjust and life will go on.
Most of the world lives on 1 hour increments to help with synchronizing events. Going to 30 min increments would look moronic.
Moving time zone lines is much more realistic.
Isn't there some isolated time zone somewhere that's a half-hour off its neighbors? I'm pretty sure there was at one time, but not sure if it still exists or not.
Newfoundland, among others, as per this (https://www.timeanddate.com/time/time-zones-interesting.html) site.
But Nepal UTC +5:45 and New Zealand at +12:45 and +13:45 is mystifying. That's not marching to a different beat, but marching to two different drum kits.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 14, 2018, 02:47:06 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 14, 2018, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2018, 01:49:13 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 14, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
I would like to see a state by state referendum on DST. Then we know how really popular it is or isn't and make changes accordingly.
Why do we even need a state by state referendum? Just move the clocks back half an hour next fall and be done with it. People will adjust and life will go on.
Most of the world lives on 1 hour increments to help with synchronizing events. Going to 30 min increments would look moronic.
Moving time zone lines is much more realistic.
Isn't there some isolated time zone somewhere that's a half-hour off its neighbors? I'm pretty sure there was at one time, but not sure if it still exists or not.
India, due to English joke of up-side-down clock. Iran, I believe, and central Australia. There was even 45 minutes somewhere.
There's an area of central Australia around Eucla that uses an unofficial 45-minute time zone to reduce the time differential between that area and Perth and Adelaide. During standard time the difference from Perth to Adelaide is an hour and a half and during DST it's two and a half hours because Western Australia doesn't observe DST. (I suppose without the unofficial zone they'd be on the same time as Perth, so I guess it's a nuisance being up against the other time zone boundary with such a big difference so they split the difference?)
Somewhere online there's a picture of a road sign noting that time zone.
People like DST in the summer, and they like standard time in the winter, but they don't like switching. We need to give them lollipops.
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2018, 04:54:06 PM
I 100 percent dislike DST. It's a concept past its time (pun unintended)–one that seems to only create unnecessary difficulty in the modern information era. Most people don't live and work by the solar clock anymore. The US needs to drop the idiocy and either stick with standard time, or permanently move forward an hour.
But.. But.. But... KIDS! GO! TO! SCHOOL! IN! THE! DARK!!!!
Tradespeople generally start their day at sunrise in the winter. Pushing sunrise an hour later would also cram a bunch more folks on the road together.
The year-round DST argument is an obvious one mostly to 9-to-5ers. The rest of us, not so much.
Quote from: kalvado on March 14, 2018, 08:11:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2018, 12:19:17 AM
I was reminded while working today of another way that DST time changes screw things up - the fact that it creates days which are not 24 hours long. When trying to do analysis on a years' worth of data collected in 15-minute intervals, this becomes a bit of a headache to have to account for. Especially since the 23 and 25 hour days do not fall on the same calendar date each year.
....
The changing dates could be addressed via various calendar-reform proposals that would make all or substantially all the months the same length and then use "blank days"–days not assigned to a particular weekday, plus perhaps a couple of days assigned to weeks but not numbered as days of a month–to balance it out. The "Shire Calendar" from the Lord of the Rings (found in one of the appendices to "The Return of the King," or online via a Google search) is an example of this sort of thing. The Shire Calendar uses a fictional "Mid-year's Day" as the "blank day," but you could use New Year's Day if you wanted something more universal.
Of course, that sort of idea would run into a lot of opposition from religious people who believe the seven-day week is sacred and from people who would grouse about things like the dates of holidays (should US Independence Day still be observed on July 4? Do you need to adjust the Computus used to determine the date of Easter?*) or whose birthdays no longer exist (such as those of us born on the 31st of a month). Not to mention the calendar industry, of course, who make money off the way the dates change days change every year.
I've always thought the calendar reform ideas are an interesting concept that stand almost no chance of becoming reality.
*Regarding the Computus issue, it'd be similar to what most of the Orthodox Churches do now because they determine the date of Easter via the Julian Calendar and then map it to the Gregorian Calendar.
Calendar issues are more or less non-existant, with leap year being relatively easily accounted for and irregularities being quite infrequent. Daylight savings, however, is a constant nuisance - and to make it worse, it is not fully predictable as politicians love to play with the clock for whatever reasons.
I know that a big factory over here uses internal time, and equipment control system runs on EST the year round, no EDT.
On a separate, but similar notice - as far as I know, NavStar system (commonly referred to as GPS) does not accommodate leap seconds. Which are, like leap years, a result of natural cycles being not exactly proportional to human-made units. In fact solar system motion is somewhat chaotic... But as a result, GPS time is offset from observed time by, if I remember correctly, 15 seconds by now.
Notice I was responding specifically to the sentence highlighted in boldface in the post I was quoting. That's why I brought up the calendar reform issue. Obviously it's not an issue that's ever going to gain serious traction in society any time soon. I think there's a better chance of the USA adopting metric measurement than there is of the calendar being reformed!
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 03:30:56 PMThere's an area of central Australia around Eucla that uses an unofficial 45-minute time zone to reduce the time differential between that area and Perth and Adelaide.
No, they split the difference between the two time zones to reduce the time difference to their near neighbours (anywhere along the road about 150 miles from the border either way though most of the small population is within 30 miles of the border) across the border.
They actually create a 45 minute time difference (105 for South Australia in summer) with their respective state capital - but as they are over 1000km away, it doesn't matter much to be on the same time as them. It matters a bit more that they aren't on the same time as their nearest towns - but even they are a long drive away (and they might go west or east) and so a time change isn't a problem even them.
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
For data like that collected every 15 minutes, 24x7, I'd see if it was possible to use UTC instead of local civil time. That's what astronomers do.
I'm not the one collecting the source data, I have to work with it as is.
And actually that is itself part of the headache, since "as is" involves DST being handled differently in different datasets.
Also, while being presented data indexed to UTC would simplify life somewhat, for the particular analysis I am doing, the local time matters - so I can't just work wholly in UTC and ignore clock changes.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 06, 2018, 07:45:12 PM
DST interferes with one portion of business at work. Our restaurant POS is set to run its daily closure routines at 2:45 a.m. every night. On the night that the time changes in the spring, the clock jumps from 1:59:59 directly to 3:00:00, and the server doesn't close that Saturday's business because 2:45 doesn't happen. Last year, I figured out the correct order to manually run the processes. This year, we're changing the time to 3:15 temporarily.
Why not change the process to 3:15 permanently?
In the US, having daily processes run between 1am and 3am is asking for trouble if the computers involved operate on observed local time.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 11:19:34 AM
QuoteAs a matter of fact someone already tried that. USSR was running a 6-day "week" calendar in parallel with 7-day week in 1930-s, with "weekend" being 6,12,18, 24 and 30th of each month.
Then there was the French Republican Calendar, which tried to do everything in terms of tens (a "décade" of ten days instead of a seven-day week, ten hours in a day, other weirdness). It had a number of problems and didn't last long at all. A major reason it was formulated was part of the anti-religion aspects of the French Revolution and the Gregorian Calendar being seen as tied to religion.
As I type this, under that calendar the time is 4:72 and the date is 24 Ventôse CCXXVI.
From what I've read, the reason metric time failed is because most people actually owned clocks, which were pretty expensive, and didn't want to replace them.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 14, 2018, 08:41:40 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 06, 2018, 07:45:12 PM
DST interferes with one portion of business at work. Our restaurant POS is set to run its daily closure routines at 2:45 a.m. every night. On the night that the time changes in the spring, the clock jumps from 1:59:59 directly to 3:00:00, and the server doesn't close that Saturday's business because 2:45 doesn't happen. Last year, I figured out the correct order to manually run the processes. This year, we're changing the time to 3:15 temporarily.
Why not change the process to 3:15 permanently?
In the US, having daily processes run between 1am and 3am is asking for trouble if the computers involved operate on observed local time.
We did just shift it this week to move it back permanently. We'll have to see how it changes the auditors' workflows though. For one, it will mean a longer lunch break waiting for the reports to process and print. For the other, it could mean she ends up staying over at the end of her night because it pushes things back and she runs out of time at the end of her shift.
Quote from: vdeane on March 14, 2018, 08:45:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 11:19:34 AM
QuoteAs a matter of fact someone already tried that. USSR was running a 6-day "week" calendar in parallel with 7-day week in 1930-s, with "weekend" being 6,12,18, 24 and 30th of each month.
Then there was the French Republican Calendar, which tried to do everything in terms of tens (a "décade" of ten days instead of a seven-day week, ten hours in a day, other weirdness). It had a number of problems and didn't last long at all. A major reason it was formulated was part of the anti-religion aspects of the French Revolution and the Gregorian Calendar being seen as tied to religion.
As I type this, under that calendar the time is 4:72 and the date is 24 Ventôse CCXXVI.
From what I've read, the reason metric time failed is because most people actually owned clocks, which were pretty expensive, and didn't want to replace them.
I read there were a whole host of issues: replacing clocks, difficulty dealing with people in other countries who followed the standard calendar and time, general resentment of a change from having a seven-day week with one day off to a ten-day décade with one day off, the calendar not being synced to an actual orbit around the sun because the year was to begin on the autumnal equinox and that doesn't fall on the same day every year, uncertainty as to exactly how leap years were to be calculated.....
It
would be kind of neat to own a French Republican dual clock that showed both that time and regular time, but we have more important expenses.
Regarding Australian Central Western Time, here is that road sign I mentioned. I love the "WHY?" someone wrote on there.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-05/11/1/enhanced/webdr12/enhanced-2798-1462944635-1.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 09:11:39 PM
It would be kind of neat to own a French Republican dual clock that showed both that time and regular time, but we have more important expenses.
There should be an app for that... Or writing one should be fairly easy! :bigass:
Quote from: kalvado on March 14, 2018, 09:18:58 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 09:11:39 PM
It would be kind of neat to own a French Republican dual clock that showed both that time and regular time, but we have more important expenses.
There should be an app for that... Or writing one should be fairly easy! :bigass:
There is. I have two. That's how I knew the date and time. But the analog clocks look a lot more interesting!
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180315/29a0d886adc95d4b7561f035f9154264.jpg)
I've wondered why South Australia and Northern Territory are on that half hour offset. Why not a full hour offset like it was when time zones were established?
I've also wondered why Saint Pierre and Miquelon is in UTC - 3 instead of UTC - 3.5 or UTC - 4. The way it is now, it's like they're on DST in the winter and double DST in the summer.
The more I research the time zones everywhere, the more it seems like every single change (other than to end the practice of every single city deciding whether to follow DST individually) since they were first established has made things less logical than they were before.
For Australia, just as general background, the states were poorly connected until relatively recently. The distances were long and the roads were poor. Each state had its own railroad, but there were different gauges and not connected until 1969. That means that each state would be free to set their time zone to the closest approximation of solar time for their biggest city, rather than use one hour jumps.
I like the DST setup the way it is now, putting extra daylight in the evening when we have it to spare, and then conserving it for morning when there isn't enough to go around. I don't mind the switch between the two, but a lot of people don't like it, so I have a solution. Instead of changing times, in early spring, everyone stays on the same time but moves a few hundred miles to the west to enjoy the later sunset. Then in late fall they move back to the east and take their clocks with them. Coastal residents can take a cruise for the part of the year they move toward the water.
Quote from: wxfree on March 15, 2018, 03:37:14 PM
I like the DST setup the way it is now, putting extra daylight in the evening when we have it to spare, and then conserving it for morning when there isn't enough to go around. I don't mind the switch between the two, but a lot of people don't like it, so I have a solution. Instead of changing times, in early spring, everyone stays on the same time but moves a few hundred miles to the west to enjoy the later sunset. Then in late fall they move back to the east and take their clocks with them. Coastal residents can take a cruise for the part of the year they move toward the water.
A modest proposal :)
Quote from: kkt on March 15, 2018, 09:07:37 PM
Quote from: wxfree on March 15, 2018, 03:37:14 PM
I like the DST setup the way it is now, putting extra daylight in the evening when we have it to spare, and then conserving it for morning when there isn't enough to go around. I don't mind the switch between the two, but a lot of people don't like it, so I have a solution. Instead of changing times, in early spring, everyone stays on the same time but moves a few hundred miles to the west to enjoy the later sunset. Then in late fall they move back to the east and take their clocks with them. Coastal residents can take a cruise for the part of the year they move toward the water.
A modest proposal :)
Also, if we consume one child per year, the school scheduling and overpopulation problem goes away entirely.
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 05:17:33 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
Yep. What the county is doing is illegal.
It probably depends on whether he's paid hourly or salary, and whether he's entitled to full time and a half overtime, just straight time overtime, or no overtime at all. And if they're going to give him overtime for the long day, are they going to dock his pay for the short one? Seems like the issue is messy no matter how you do it... if you ignore it, it's fair if the number of long and short days is even, but not if someone works a different number of each due to dates of their employment. And if you factor it in, depending on how you do it, the company might have to eat that hour, or employees will arbitrarily have a smaller paycheck one pay period.
Overtime rules can lead to interesting policies. At my last job, employees were paid straight time, and we had flex time, so the only rule was that your hours worked and paid time off used needed to add to 80. Interns, however, could not flex their time across weeks, because they were entitled to full time and a half overtime, so the accounting didn't work.
Quote from: vdeane on March 17, 2018, 07:07:07 PM
It probably depends on whether he's paid hourly or salary, and whether he's entitled to full time and a half overtime, just straight time overtime, or no overtime at all. And if they're going to give him overtime for the long day, are they going to dock his pay for the short one? Seems like the issue is messy no matter how you do it... if you ignore it, it's fair if the number of long and short days is even, but not if someone works a different number of each due to dates of their employment. And if you factor it in, depending on how you do it, the company might have to eat that hour, or employees will arbitrarily have a smaller paycheck one pay period.
At least with salaried employees in my area, there's no such thing as overtime. You work the hours they expect you to, and you get a paycheck in return. Whether a week is short or long isn't typically relevant.
I suppose most of these issues are avoided by having the fall-back/spring-forward times on Sunday mornings, when virtually no one is working.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 05:17:33 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
There are a couple of twists I forgot to tell you about:
Our work week starts on Wednesday and ends on Tuesday. So week 1 of the pay period we work Wed and Thurs, off the weekend, work Mon and Tues. Week 2 we work Fri, Sat, and Sun. That's 48 hours week 1, 36 hours week 2. I get comp time, not cash overtime-unless I hit a certain number of hours of comp, I forgot how much, but I never get to that number because it gets burned off by taking lunches, going home early, taking days off, (etc). So week one I get 8 x 1.5 hrs (12 hrs) added to my account and week 2 I get 4 hours deducted from my account because we have to show at least 40 hrs each week.
Working the time shift weekend means 35 hours in the spring, 37 hours in the fall. What we used to have to do was put down 35 hrs worked week 2 (only 11 hrs for that Saturday night/Sunday morning) and burn 5 hrs of comp time to get it to the 40 hrs we get paid. In November we would have put 13 hrs down for that Saturday night/Sunday morning to equal 37 hours and burn only 3 hrs of comp. But now
we don't have to, and it all comes out in the wash anyway (8 hrs burned over the course of the year, either way).
Note: I underline "we don't have to" because I could do so, if I chose, to go back to doing it that way-but I have a tendency to fill out my time sheets ahead of time unless I'm going on vacation or something like that where I need to do something different than my usual totaling up-its just easier for me.
Now, if I had some training or something that I had to come in for on one of those off days and that put me at or over 40 hours of work for that week, that might or might not change my thinking. I'm really not worried about it either way because my pay check is going to be the same, its just a floating number of hours on the side that ebbs and flows that I can use to not come to work and still get paid, and not use my vacation/sick/holiday time for.
Oh and vdeane, although it may sound like it because of the way I get paid, I technically am not salaried. My boss is, and his time sheet doesn't have a break down by day, just for the week. He has to certify that he worked at least 40 hrs or burn his vacation/sick/holiday time to get to that number for the week. He does not get comp time. My time sheet has a breakdown by each day worked during the week, but I don't "clock in". I just write down the number of hours worked each day and total it up from there.
Our system was really set up for the Monday through Friday 8a-5p (an hour off for lunch), no nights weekends, holidays or hurricanes the majority of the"non essential" employees work. Law enforcement, detention, and firefighters, though essential, are exempt from overtime the way most people understand overtime to work (there is a whole different way they get figured out where things like Kelly time gets factored in before they see a second of overtime that is so confusing I'm not even sure I get it). Those of us in 911 are considered "civilian" essential employees so we are governed under the rules of overtime most people think of but we do comp instead of cash. I don't know the total number of employees the county has, I am guessing well over 500 though, and there are only 13 of us who get regular overtime and are not exempt "Kelly" employees.
In any event, the last two years I did not work either of the "time shift" weekends so I haven't been affected either way.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 05:17:33 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
In my workplace, reporting hours that are not true for that day would be seen as fraud.
We don't always assign the same worker to overnight shifts. It would be sheer luck if a spring-forward overnight shift worker also worked the fall-back shift. And regardless, overtime and wages for hourly workers are based on the scheduled work week, not what might happen seven months later.
Maybe we should always assign salaried workers to the overnight shift :)
Quote from: kkt on March 18, 2018, 07:14:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 05:17:33 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
In my workplace, reporting hours that are not true for that day would be seen as fraud.
We don't always assign the same worker to overnight shifts. It would be sheer luck if a spring-forward overnight shift worker also worked the fall-back shift. And regardless, overtime and wages for hourly workers are based on the scheduled work week, not what might happen seven months later.
Maybe we should always assign salaried workers to the overnight shift :)
Whatever it worth, here is a quote from e-mail sent out by our HR:
Quotewhen the clocks go forward one hour, and employees only work 11 hours instead of 12 hours on the overnight shift, they are only paid for the 11 hours or the time they actually worked. Please consider allowing employees to use their accruals for the hour missed or allow them to stay an extra hour after their shift is scheduled to end to make up the hour. [...]must follow A-21 and A-133 regulations, we do not have the liberty to "give" time not worked.
As far as I understand, this refers to federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) documents.
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 18, 2018, 04:50:00 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 05:17:33 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
There are a couple of twists I forgot to tell you about:
...
...
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/ed1675bfeebdc92e4fdd1f701a0f501e/tenor.gif?itemid=4981184)
MUCH simpler where I work. Pay periods are 1st to 15th, 16th to end of month. OT is calculated on the current week, regardless if they pay period ends mid-week.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 08:51:22 AM
Yep. What the county is doing is illegal.
Against the letter of the law but not necessarily the spirit of it since it is, overall, a wash.
This is also one of those things that it can be illegal all it wants, that doesn't matter unless there is a desire to actually enforce the law in this case, which I'm guessing there is not. The limited resources of the state labor department have bigger fish to fry than going after employers for not accounting for DST in the officially sanctioned manner.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 18, 2018, 01:11:06 AM
At least with salaried employees in my area, there's no such thing as overtime. You work the hours they expect you to, and you get a paycheck in return. Whether a week is short or long isn't typically relevant.
A distinction that is important to make: Most salaried employees are also classified as "FLSA exempt", which is the real reason they get no overtime; it has nothing to do with salary/hourly pay setup. To qualify as FLSA exempt, an employee must meet at least one of several criteria, the long list of which isn't terribly relevant to most people. Most exempt employees are classified as such by meeting the criteria for being a professional, administrative, or executive employee. That is, management or white-collar workers. You can't give a cashier a salary and then not pay them overtime–they still qualify for it under FLSA despite the salary. (All you did is make the math way more complicated because now you have to figure out how to pay time-and-a-half on a salary.)
Quote from: Duke87 on March 19, 2018, 12:34:14 AM
This is also one of those things that it can be illegal all it wants, that doesn't matter unless there is a desire to actually enforce the law in this case, which I'm guessing there is not. The limited resources of the state labor department have bigger fish to fry than going after employers for not accounting for DST in the officially sanctioned manner.
Not necessarily–in labor disputes it's often an issue of squeaky wheels getting the grease. Most abuses are allowed to stand not because of a lack of resources by the enforcement agencies, but ignorance on the affected employees' part that laws are being broken in the first place, or reluctance to confront the employer in fear of retaliation. Wage-and-hour violations are usually pretty clear cut–you either paid someone correctly or you didn't–so it's a fairly attractive target for a state agency to swoop in and assess a fine. They have to know about it first, though.
On the NJ Turnpike, it turned out they are more lenient than most based on what I've read thru the years, including in this thread. For those affected, in the Spring they still get their full 8 hour shift pay, even though they only worked 7 hours. In the fall, they get 9 hours pay, since they worked an additional 1 when the clocks fell back. If this pushed anyone into OT status (or if they already were in the OT status), then they get OT. Since most full timers work during the week and only part timers were working the weekend, this didn't generally come into play.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 19, 2018, 12:34:14 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 08:51:22 AM
Yep. What the county is doing is illegal.
Against the letter of the law but not necessarily the spirit of it since it is, overall, a wash.
No...it's againt the letter. If it was in spirit, employers could start working employees 50 or 60 hours a week, only to cut them back to 20 or 30 hours the next week. Or...even worse, you could wind up working 20 hours one week, and the employer can say to make up for it you can work 60 hours the next week, and not get paid overtime. There's also the need that the employer would need to stay employed and work the same shift 9 months later. And then there's always the probability the employee was hired sometime between mid-March and October, who didn't get a free hour in the spring.
Here are sunrise/sunset times of various cities during the winter solstice under Standard Time and proposed year-round DST. Those poor people in Bangor, Maine currently watch the sunset at 3:57PM during the winter solstice... depressing!
(https://i.imgur.com/bLeDECs.png)
Quote from: tradephoric on March 19, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
Here are sunrise/sunset times of various cities during the winter solstice under Standard Time and proposed year-round DST. Those poor people in Bangor, Maine currently watch the sunset at 3:57PM during the winter solstice… depressing!
(https://i.imgur.com/bLeDECs.png)
But look at that sunrise time in Detroit! High school kids would be in their 2nd period classes before they see daylight!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2018, 10:48:00 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on March 19, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
Here are sunrise/sunset times of various cities during the winter solstice under Standard Time and proposed year-round DST. Those poor people in Bangor, Maine currently watch the sunset at 3:57PM during the winter solstice... depressing!
(https://i.imgur.com/bLeDECs.png)
But look at that sunrise time in Detroit! High school kids would be in their 2nd period classes before they see daylight!
resolving algorithm:
1. define criteria: latest sunrise time acceptable, earliest sunset time acceptable, etc..
2. determine sunrise and sunset times for different time zone settings
3. realize anything would make many people unhappy
4. Send B-52 with nukes to make problem non-existent
5. Proceed to a next location
Quote from: kalvado on March 19, 2018, 11:25:12 AM
resolving algorithm:
1 - Infinity: realize anything would make many people unhappy
Bonus: Send B-52 with nukes to make problem non-existent
Fixed. :sombrero:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2018, 10:48:00 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on March 19, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
Here are sunrise/sunset times of various cities during the winter solstice under Standard Time and proposed year-round DST. Those poor people in Bangor, Maine currently watch the sunset at 3:57PM during the winter solstice... depressing!
(https://i.imgur.com/bLeDECs.png)
But look at that sunrise time in Detroit! High school kids would be in their 2nd period classes before they see daylight!
Yes. Sunrise times after 8:00 AM should be avoided, even if it means the evening commute is in darkness.
Quote from: kkt on March 19, 2018, 01:19:27 PM
Yes. Sunrise times after 8:00 AM should be avoided, even if it means the evening commute is in darkness.
Now behold the issue:
minimal day length at my latitude is 9 hours. Two cities at approximately same latitude in same Eastern time zone are Grand Rapids MI at 85.6 W and Portland ME at 70.4 W, meaning that they have just more than an hour astronomic time difference between two.
If you say that Grand Rapids shouldn't get sunrise after 8 (actually it has 8.15, but that is almost good enough), Portland gets sunrise at 7 - and 9 hours later, at 4 PM, sun goes down. Portland is not very happy about that.
Did I mention robbing Peter to pay Paul? It was somewhat similar experience...
Should wanting DST be considered a moral weakness?
Everyone should want the Sun directly overhead at Noon and then accept naturally resulting sunrise and sunset times.
Anyone who wants more sunlight in the evening should realize that they would be taking it away from the morning with DST not some how manufacturing more of it.
Let Noon be Noon!
If everyone woke up at 1pm like I do then their morning commute would never be in darkness!
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 19, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
If everyone woke up at 1pm like I do then their morning commute would never be in darkness!
Dang, I wish I had that schedule! :sombrero:
But don't forget that evening commutes account for 50%, too. So you've got a 50% average, whereas my commutes (7:00-7:30 and 4:30-5:00) are closer to 80-85% done in the light, and 100% from April to September.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 19, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
If everyone woke up at 1pm like I do then their morning commute would never be in darkness!
Hear hear!
There's also the added bonus of almost no traffic on the road when you head home.
The only negative to this is that when you get off nothing's open.
Quote from: webny99 on March 19, 2018, 02:38:21 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 19, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
If everyone woke up at 1pm like I do then their morning commute would never be in darkness!
Dang, I wish I had that schedule! :sombrero:
Come join us in the casino industry then! Get off at 11pm, go to bed at 3am! Have Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday off!
Quote from: kj3400 on March 19, 2018, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 19, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
If everyone woke up at 1pm like I do then their morning commute would never be in darkness!
Hear hear!
There's also the added bonus of almost no traffic on the road when you head home.
The only negative to this is that when you get off nothing's open.
You gradually learn what is open when you get off and tailor your business habits accordingly. Norman has a 24-hour grocery store (Crest) that isn't Walmart, which is fantastic. There are several fast-food restaurants that are either 24 hour or close at something like 1am. And, of course, the internet is always open.
The weird thing is on your days off, all of a sudden these places you were barely aware existed because they're never open actually are, and it's really disorienting having the extra options. (Wait, I can actually eat at Wendy's?)
Quote from: tradephoric on March 19, 2018, 10:34:07 AMThose poor people in Bangor, Maine currently watch the sunset at 3:57PM during the winter solstice... depressing!
But look at that luxury 7:09am sunrise time. London sees an hour less daylight on the solstice - 4 minutes less in the evening, but 55 minutes less in the morning. The pre-4pm sunsets are grim, but the post-8am dawns are worse.
I'm currently enjoying the 6am sunlight (aided by the ground being white the last couple of days making everything brighter) and don't particular look forward to it not arriving until 7am next Sunday. However I'm also enjoying the 6pm sunlight and am looking forward to it being 7pm next Sunday. The balance just about tips in favour, for me, at that point - if I can have it light for only one 6-7 in the day, then evening takes it by a hair. But faced with a terrible choice of having light at either 8.30am or 4.30pm, am takes it by far, just as pm takes it when it is 4.30am or 8.30pm!
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 19, 2018, 01:54:02 PM
Should wanting DST be considered a moral weakness?
Everyone should want the Sun directly overhead at Noon and then accept naturally resulting sunrise and sunset times.
Anyone who wants more sunlight in the evening should realize that they would be taking it away from the morning with DST not some how manufacturing more of it.
Let Noon be Noon!
In my experience very people care about noon being when the sun is right overhead, but a lot care about there being at least a little light in the sky when they get up.
Quote from: kkt on March 19, 2018, 10:30:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 19, 2018, 01:54:02 PM
Should wanting DST be considered a moral weakness?
Everyone should want the Sun directly overhead at Noon and then accept naturally resulting sunrise and sunset times.
Anyone who wants more sunlight in the evening should realize that they would be taking it away from the morning with DST not some how manufacturing more of it.
Let Noon be Noon!
In my experience very people care about noon being when the sun is right overhead, but a lot care about there being at least a little light in the sky when they get up.
Yeah, I'd care more about solar noon and nominal noon matching if noon were actually close to the midpoint of my day. I tend to be awake most days from around 7 AM to 11 PM, meaning "midday" for me would be around 3 PM. Of course, if the sun were directly overhead then, it would always be very dark when I woke up. Today, under DST, the sun will be directly overhead here at about 1:45, which I think makes for a good compromise.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 08:51:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 05:17:33 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
Yep. What the county is doing is illegal.
Not necessarily. My wife works for a local municipality part-time and her straight time/overtime is calculated on an annual basis. Since she doesn't get PTO, if she wants to take a week off, she can make up the hours during the rest of the month, or even in another month.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 20, 2018, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 08:51:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 05:17:33 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
Yep. What the county is doing is illegal.
Not necessarily. My wife works for a local municipality part-time and her straight time/overtime is calculated on an annual basis. Since she doesn't get PTO, if she wants to take a week off, she can make up the hours during the rest of the month, or even in another month.
Their policy doesn't make it legal.
If someone is working more than 40 hours per week and works on a per-hour basis, they should be getting overtime. Even if there's an agreement in place, it can still be afoul of regulations. I would also think that this is a verbal agreement too, especially if it would put someone over 40 hours.
Now, that all said - does this happen? Sure. A lot. But there's a difference between what employee and employers agree to, and what is the law. And it's certainly not unheard of for someone to file or participate in a lawsuit years later, claiming they worked more than 40 hours and weren't compensated for it.
Laws vary from state to state. I wouldn't make claims about any state I hadn't worked in.
Quote from: kkt on March 20, 2018, 01:49:43 PM
Laws vary from state to state. I wouldn't make claims about any state I hadn't worked in.
Original statement included county doing this and that. Since county is more than likely to get some federal funding (grants and what not), there has to be some compliance with OMB requirements, making it more uniform.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2018, 12:20:06 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 20, 2018, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 08:51:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 05:17:33 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 17, 2018, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Workplaces that have workers on the overnight shift during fallback night in the fall may have some issues too. If an employee usually works Saturday night at 10 PM until 6 AM Sunday it's usually 8 hours, but during fallback night it's 9 hours and they're entitled to overtime.
It's not really a problem. What we do at our agency is write down the 12 hours we usually work regardless. So if I work the spring one I'm only working 11 hours, but I'll make up for it in November by working 13, so over the course of the year it all balances out.
Back in the day we used to put down 11 and 13 but it was decided to just have us put down the same 12 either way. It saved the county a half hour of comp time and we don't get shorted because the other week is short by 1 hour.
Unless I missed something, OT is calculated for the work week, not over the course of an entire year. In the fall, an employee that normally works 40 hours works 41, and is entitled to overtime pay for that extra hour. Just because it's an hour made up that was previously lost in March doesn't mean he's not entitled to the OT pay. He still worked a longer-than-normal week.
Yep. What the county is doing is illegal.
Not necessarily. My wife works for a local municipality part-time and her straight time/overtime is calculated on an annual basis. Since she doesn't get PTO, if she wants to take a week off, she can make up the hours during the rest of the month, or even in another month.
Their policy doesn't make it legal.
If someone is working more than 40 hours per week and works on a per-hour basis, they should be getting overtime. Even if there's an agreement in place, it can still be afoul of regulations. I would also think that this is a verbal agreement too, especially if it would put someone over 40 hours.
Now, that all said - does this happen? Sure. A lot. But there's a difference between what employee and employers agree to, and what is the law. And it's certainly not unheard of for someone to file or participate in a lawsuit years later, claiming they worked more than 40 hours and weren't compensated for it.
Quote from: kkt on March 20, 2018, 01:49:43 PM
Laws vary from state to state. I wouldn't make claims about any state I hadn't worked in.
It's hard to believe that there's a state that allows workers to work more than 40 hours a week without additional compensation.
As for oddities, I signed an agreement with my employer that allows me to skip breaks. I'm a valet for the time being, and we have downtime between each car. So we signed an agreement acknowledging that downtime, and that we don't need to take a mandated 30 minute break. I can't remember if the document came from my employer or from L&I, but I haven't taken a "break" in almost four years. On the plus side, I work exactly eight hours a day.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 19, 2018, 01:54:02 PM
Should wanting DST be considered a moral weakness?
Everyone should want the Sun directly overhead at Noon and then accept naturally resulting sunrise and sunset times.
Anyone who wants more sunlight in the evening should realize that they would be taking it away from the morning with DST not some how manufacturing more of it.
Let Noon be Noon!
Quote from: kkt on March 19, 2018, 10:30:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 19, 2018, 01:54:02 PM
Should wanting DST be considered a moral weakness?
Everyone should want the Sun directly overhead at Noon and then accept naturally resulting sunrise and sunset times.
Anyone who wants more sunlight in the evening should realize that they would be taking it away from the morning with DST not some how manufacturing more of it.
Let Noon be Noon!
In my experience very people care about noon being when the sun is right overhead, but a lot care about there being at least a little light in the sky when they get up.
I don't give a crap when the sun is directly overhead. That doesn't have any impact on me.
And I don't need daylight in the mornings. In the mornings, I'm being awakened by an alarm clock, taking a shower, and then getting dressed and going to work. I don't need daylight for any of that.
I'd rather have my daylight when I get home in the evenings, to allow me to be able to do a few things outside before it gets dark. And in the winter, on standard time, it being nearly dark by the time I leave work and pretty much dark when I get home is downright depressing. I'd still rather it be dark in the mornings.
Quote from: kkt on March 20, 2018, 01:49:43 PM
Laws vary from state to state. I wouldn't make claims about any state I hadn't worked in.
FLSA is a federal law.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2018, 02:36:58 PMIt's hard to believe that there's a state that allows workers to work more than 40 hours a week without additional compensation.
"that allows
non-exempt workers to work more than 40 hours a week".
There are a bunch of us out there who are exempt from overtime requirements.
The national pastime is baseball. A typical start time for a MLB night game is 7:10pm. The average length of an MLB game is 3 hours, 5 minutes, and 11 seconds.... but longer games can stretch out to 4 hours. So the game is over around 11 o'clock. After watching the top stories of their local 11 o'clock news, people are ready for bed. While TV streaming services are breaking down this structured routine, people still want to feel plugged in and watch these "live" events. It's not just sports... some people might want to watch that live 2-hour bachelor finale so they can gossip all about it the next day with their coworkers.
The point is most American's don't base their sleep schedule on sunrise/sunset times. People go to bed after their favorite television program is over... and prime-time programming ends at 11pm. So a typical American's sleep schedule is most likely something like this... go to bed at 11pm, get 7 hours sleep, wake up at 6am for work/school. Would year-round DST favor the typical American's sleep schedule? Even with year-round DST it still favors morning people. Just look at this chart again... what percentage of American's are sleeping at 6PM? Compared to the percentage of American's asleep at 8AM it's not that high.
(https://i.imgur.com/bLeDECs.png)
Quote from: tradephoric on March 21, 2018, 09:27:20 AM
People go to bed after their favorite television program is over... and prime-time programming ends at 11pm.
Only in the Eastern or Pacific time zone. In the Central and Mountain time zones, as well as Alaska and Hawaii, prime time ends at 10 PM.
Quote from: tradephoric on March 21, 2018, 09:27:20 AMEven with year-round DST it still favors morning people.
Of course year-round DST favours morning people inherently - DST is about helping morning people not fall asleep during those late-finishing baseball games (which is surely hard work even for evening people - there's a reason they have big organs playing during baseball :)), etc, while going back in winter is about having it that evening people can still, just about, get up in the morning for work.
Evening people can do stuff long after dark - that's what makes them evening people! Morning people wake up earlier because they need less light in the morning before waking up.
Quotewhat percentage of American's are sleeping at 6PM? Compared to the percentage of American's asleep at 8AM it's not that high
Indeed - which is why the industrialised temperate (ie no siestas) world went with a 9-5 day - we naturally get tired after-dark, but are not done with sleep until after-dawn (that might not be a continuous block during the night, and there might be an afternoon nap).
That more people are asleep 4-5 hours before solar noon than 5-6 hours after shows that we don't actually need light evenings as much as light mornings. Yes, morning people need light evenings more and evening people need light mornings more, but we aren't awake dawn-til-dusk, with noon in the middle. That doesn't mean that the sun is irrelevant - it very much is, but that our day is meant to be shifted towards the after-noon, so we should shift our days earlier (compared to the sun) with great care.
People really stay up just to watch the news? I thought following broadcast schedules was a thing of the past.
My bedtime routine is a few pages of a relaxing book to take me away from the troubles of the day, not add to it with Trump's latest tweet.
Quote from: kalvado on March 19, 2018, 11:25:12 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2018, 10:48:00 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on March 19, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
Here are sunrise/sunset times of various cities during the winter solstice under Standard Time and proposed year-round DST. Those poor people in Bangor, Maine currently watch the sunset at 3:57PM during the winter solstice... depressing!
(https://i.imgur.com/bLeDECs.png)
But look at that sunrise time in Detroit! High school kids would be in their 2nd period classes before they see daylight!
resolving algorithm:
1. define criteria: latest sunrise time acceptable, earliest sunset time acceptable, etc..
2. determine sunrise and sunset times for different time zone settings
3. realize anything would make many people unhappy
4. Send B-52 with nukes to make problem non-existent
5. Proceed to a next location
#3 is the only constant, which is why I urge people to walk away from the whole thing, but the social engineer in too many of us can't seem to give up.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 22, 2018, 12:21:31 AM
#3 is the only constant, which is why I urge people to walk away from the whole thing, but the social engineer in too many of us can't seem to give up.
Yep, setting clock fixed and walking away would work. Twice a year disruptive clock change isva good way to keep triggering people...
The only answer that would make anyone happy with time changes are 6-hour schooldays and workdays. No more clock meddling!
I think many of us can live with that proposal.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2018, 02:36:58 PM
I can't remember if the document came from my employer or from L&I, but I haven't taken a "break" in almost four years. On the plus side, I work exactly eight hours a day.
"Anyone seen Jake lately?"
"Yeah, he's taking another 'break' in that Porsche over there."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 08:52:04 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2018, 02:36:58 PM
I can't remember if the document came from my employer or from L&I, but I haven't taken a "break" in almost four years. On the plus side, I work exactly eight hours a day.
"Anyone seen Jake lately?"
"Yeah, he's taking another 'break' in that Porsche over there."
Or a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California edition? ;)
The Canadian province of Saskatchewan, for some unknown reason, does not observe DST at all.
If this thread keeps going until November, we won't need to start a new one then :D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 08:52:04 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2018, 02:36:58 PM
I can't remember if the document came from my employer or from L&I, but I haven't taken a "break" in almost four years. On the plus side, I work exactly eight hours a day.
"Anyone seen Jake lately?"
"Yeah, he's taking another 'break' in that Porsche over there."
(https://media.giphy.com/media/5wWf7GR2nhgamhRnEuA/giphy.gif)
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2018, 12:38:04 PM
Or a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California edition? ;)
No fucking way I'd touch that car.
Quote from: webny99 on March 22, 2018, 02:16:34 PM
The Canadian province of Saskatchewan, for some unknown reason, does not observe DST at all.
If this thread keeps going until November, we won't need to start a new one then :D
DST is less beneficial to states/provinces on the western edge of a timezone. These locations already experience later sunsets than states/provinces on the eastern edge of a time zone. If you look at a DST map of North America, Saskatchewan is really more in line with the Mountain Time Zone than the Central Time Zone. But since Saskatchewan is on the "extreme" western edge of the Central Time Zone, they don't really benefit from DST because they already get late sunsets in the summer. Even without DST, people from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan enjoy summer solstice sunsets at 9:31pm. With DST the sun would go down at 10:31pm.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/1c/ac/f41cace7de9114ecce9d54f56430a93f.jpg)
That map appears to be slightly out of date in that since 2015 Quintana Roo observes what in the US is called Eastern Standard Time year-round (Mexico calls the time zone Southeastern, or I guess whatever the Spanish equivalent is) without DST.
The map does underscore the absurdity of Florida ever being on Atlantic Time (or the equivalent of whatever would be an hour ahead of Washington and New York).
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 22, 2018, 03:36:44 PM
That map appears to be slightly out of date in that since 2015 Quintana Roo observes what in the US is called Eastern Standard Time year-round (Mexico calls the time zone Southeastern, or I guess whatever the Spanish equivalent is) without DST.
The map does underscore the absurdity of Florida ever being on Atlantic Time (or the equivalent of whatever would be an hour ahead of Washington and New York).
Honestly speaking, I don't see a good reason for time zone lines to go strictly north-south if we're aiming at best utilizing daylight, not the ease of astronomic observations.
Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 22, 2018, 03:36:44 PM
That map appears to be slightly out of date in that since 2015 Quintana Roo observes what in the US is called Eastern Standard Time year-round (Mexico calls the time zone Southeastern, or I guess whatever the Spanish equivalent is) without DST.
The map does underscore the absurdity of Florida ever being on Atlantic Time (or the equivalent of whatever would be an hour ahead of Washington and New York).
Honestly speaking, I don't see a good reason for time zone lines to go strictly north-south if we're aiming at best utilizing daylight, not the ease of astronomic observations.
I don't disagree with that. I was just trying to comment–perhaps not very effectively–on how much further west Florida is than people generally realize.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2018, 12:38:04 PM
Or a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California edition? ;)
No fucking way I'd touch that car.
If you had access to a car like this, would you take it back right away?
Neither would I.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 22, 2018, 03:52:27 PM
I don't disagree with that. I was just trying to comment–perhaps not very effectively–on how much further west Florida is than people generally realize.
Here's an interesting graphic that might help put things in context:
http://blog.poormansmath.net/images/SolarTimeVsStandardTimeV2.png
It's a map showing the difference between standard time and solar time around the world.
We also have this:
https://bostonraremaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BRM2573-Chicago_Alton-RR-1884_lowres-3000x2153.jpg
...which shows the railroads' original time zone boundaries.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 22, 2018, 05:10:57 PM
Here's an interesting graphic that might help put things in context:
http://blog.poormansmath.net/images/SolarTimeVsStandardTimeV2.png
It's a map showing the difference between standard time and solar time around the world.
That is a helpful map. Indiana is in the wrong time zone. But not as wrong as Argentina.
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2018, 05:30:11 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 22, 2018, 05:10:57 PM
Here's an interesting graphic that might help put things in context:
http://blog.poormansmath.net/images/SolarTimeVsStandardTimeV2.png
It's a map showing the difference between standard time and solar time around the world.
That is a helpful map. Indiana is in the wrong time zone. But not as wrong as Argentina.
There is no right and wrong here. There may be wrong scheduling.
I am OK with my lunch break being somewhat after astronomic noon, and (assuming break is in the middle of a work day) would be fine with break starting at 10 and workday starting at 6 - if solar noon is at 9.30. Wouldn't you be OK with that?
Here's another interesting map showing the hours of daylight during the winter solstice. While Florida already gets about 2 more hours of daylight than some of the northern lower 48 states, Florida is the state actively pursing year-round DST in their legislator. Of course the weather in Florida can still be quite pleasant in December, whereas people in the northern states are hibernating for the winter... not many people in North Dakota are having BBQs in mid-December where people in Florida would enjoy a few more BBQs during the pleasant winter evenings.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2016/06/Daylight-hours-winter-solstice.jpg&w=1484)
The argument against year-round DST is that the children would have to wait for the bus in the dark during the winter months. Well guess what... if you live in a state on the western edge of a timezone a lot of kids ALREADY have to wait for the bus in the dark. The point is all these arguments for why DST is good/bad are pretty arbitrary. An argument that may apply for people on the border of Indiana may not apply to the people on the border of Illinois (ie. the timezone line). Since so many of these arguments become arbitrary, Congress should just pick a time system that doesn't involve changing the clocks twice a year and stick with it.
A state by state solution would be best. What's good for the people in Maine wouldn't be what's best for those in Indiana even though they are in the same time zone.
Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2018, 12:38:04 PM
Or a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California edition? ;)
No fucking way I'd touch that car.
If you had access to a car like this, would you take it back right away?
Neither would I.
Look, we're not like the valets in Ferris Bueller. I like my job and wouldn't want to risk it by doing something stupid.
Now,
with that in mind, our route from the garage to the hotel is about 4 blocks, so I would thoroughly enjoy it for that distance. Assuming it's not painfully confusing to operate.
The more I think about it the time change from ST to DT (and back) is a good thing.
If we do away with it either way, how on Earth are we going to get people to change the batteries in their smoke detectors twice a year? Think of all the children that would be lost in massive conflagrations because their smoke detectors didn't activate. Oh the horror of it all! :happy:
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 22, 2018, 11:15:24 PM
The more I think about it the time change from ST to DT (and back) is a good thing.
If we do away with it either way, how on Earth are we going to get people to change the batteries in their smoke detectors twice a year? Think of all the children that would be lost in massive conflagrations because their smoke detectors didn't activate. Oh the horror of it all! :happy:
But the conflagrations would help them see while they're waiting for the bus in the dark!
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 06:55:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2018, 12:38:04 PM
Or a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California edition? ;)
No fucking way I'd touch that car.
If you had access to a car like this, would you take it back right away?
Neither would I.
Look, we're not like the valets in Ferris Bueller. I like my job and wouldn't want to risk it by doing something stupid.
Now, with that in mind, our route from the garage to the hotel is about 4 blocks, so I would thoroughly enjoy it for that distance. Assuming it's not painfully confusing to operate.
I know, I got nothin' to worry about, you're a professional. ;)
Apparently, Indiana thinks it's in the correct time zone. They haven't attempted to move from ET to CT.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2018, 01:40:21 PM
Apparently, Indiana thinks it's in the correct time zone. They haven't attempted to move from ET to CT.
Depends on county. NW and SW Indiana are on CT, not ET.
Quote from: Brandon on March 23, 2018, 02:11:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2018, 01:40:21 PM
Apparently, Indiana thinks it's in the correct time zone. They haven't attempted to move from ET to CT.
Depends on county. NW and SW Indiana are on CT, not ET.
They are with Chicago more than on CT. If IL decides they need Pacific time zone, guess what NW IN would do...
I don't see DST being abolished because if it were the sun would rise at 4:25 am in NYC on the summer solstice (with civil twilight starting at 3:51am) and set at 7:30 pm (with civil twilight ending at 8:04pm). With last call in NYC being at 4 am, people filing out of the bars would already be encountering civil twilight. Who wants the sun to get up THAT early in the summer? The birds will be chirping just as the bar patrons rest their head on the pillow. I don't care if you are a morning person, the first rays of sunshine illuminating the sky at 3:51 am is too damn early. Abolishing DST would mean F#$@'ing over millions of New Yorker's.... that's just not going to happen. Most people like their sunshine later in the day... not at 3:51 am.
OTOH, perpetual DST doesn't sound so bad. On the shortest day of the year the sun sets in NYC at 4:31 pm. It's no wonder people get depressed in the winter.... they are either stuck at their job or get home from work and it's already pitch black out. Would people from NYC really oppose the sun setting at 5:31 pm on the shortest day of the year? Conversely, the sun would rise at 8:16 am in NYC on the shortest day of the year with perpetual DST (with civil twilight staring at 7:45 am), which is about the current sunrise time for cities on the western edge of the eastern time zone. That still sounds reasonable.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2018, 01:40:21 PM
Apparently, Indiana thinks it's in the correct time zone. They haven't attempted to move from ET to CT.
Moving the entire state to CT has been debated in committee but never gotten beyond that. The state is pretty split. Of course NWI and the Evansville area are already on Central. There is a lot of support for moving to CT in the Lafayette, Terre Haute and Bloomington areas. Some support in the South Bend area as well.
I moved from an ET part of Indiana to a CT part of Indiana 7 months ago and I much prefer the daylight schedule on CT, and also the TV schedule as well, with primetime TV and sporting events starting an hour earlier. I didn't have to stay up until midnight to see the Whinycats get sent home last night.
If Indiana did move more counties to Central Time, I'd suspect most of the counties along the river from the Corydon area east to Lawrenceburg would stay on Eastern Time to be in synch with Louisville and Cincinnati.
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2018, 11:55:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 06:55:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2018, 12:38:04 PM
Or a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California edition? ;)
No fucking way I'd touch that car.
If you had access to a car like this, would you take it back right away?
Neither would I.
Look, we're not like the valets in Ferris Bueller. I like my job and wouldn't want to risk it by doing something stupid.
Now, with that in mind, our route from the garage to the hotel is about 4 blocks, so I would thoroughly enjoy it for that distance. Assuming it's not painfully confusing to operate.
I know, I got nothin' to worry about, you're a professional. ;)
(https://media.tenor.com/images/d1a4d7fc6514498c9f3d070c3e58796f/tenor.gif)
And I'm back to normal. DST has started in Europe overnight, so my "wherever Big Rig Steve is right now" time now points again to the correct time zone. It had been one hour behind for the last two weeks (as it sticks to my local time minus 6-9 hours, depending on the current position of Big Rig Steve).
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 25, 2018, 03:34:23 AMAnd I'm back to normal. DST has started in Europe overnight, so my "wherever Big Rig Steve is right now" time now points again to the correct time zone.
My computer has likewise sprung forward to British Summer Time, so now the scripts I run every Monday night to harvest construction plans from transportation agency sites will begin at 6.01 PM, instead of 7.01 PM. This increases the chances they will finish before midnight. (With 73 scripts currently active, all of which run at least once every three months, it can take as long as 22 hours for a complete run.)
Quote from: hbelkins on March 24, 2018, 07:48:09 PM
If Indiana did move more counties to Central Time, I'd suspect most of the counties along the river from the Corydon area east to Lawrenceburg would stay on Eastern Time to be in synch with Louisville and Cincinnati.
Ignoring for a moment the reality that Cincinnati and Louisville should both be on Central time based on their longitude, and assuming that will never happen, then yes, I think Crawford, Lawrence, Orange, Jackson, Washington, Harrison, Jennigs, Scott, Clark, Floyd, Ripley, Jefferson, Dearborn, Ohio and Switzerland staying on Eastern due to getting their local TV stations from Cincinnati or Louisville.
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate Central Time and am glad I'm in the Eastern Time Zone.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2018, 08:10:01 PM
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate Central Time and am glad I'm in the Eastern Time Zone.
What's so bad about it - at least you get advance warning. :awesomeface:
Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2018, 08:10:01 PM
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate Central Time and am glad I'm in the Eastern Time Zone.
Heh. I was born in Texas but moved to Virginia when I was 1, so on the rare occasions when I go to places on Central Time I feel I've gotten my lost hour back.
As a Hoosier living in the Eastern Time Zone, is it bad to say that one of the reasons I like being in Eastern is being able to watch the ball drop on New Years Eve and it actually mean something to me?
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 25, 2018, 09:15:41 PM
As a Hoosier living in the Eastern Time Zone, is it bad to say that one of the reasons I like being in Eastern is being able to watch the ball drop on New Years Eve and it actually mean something to me?
People still care about that?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 25, 2018, 09:34:48 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 25, 2018, 09:15:41 PM
As a Hoosier living in the Eastern Time Zone, is it bad to say that one of the reasons I like being in Eastern is being able to watch the ball drop on New Years Eve and it actually mean something to me?
People still care about that?
Um, yeah.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 25, 2018, 09:34:48 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 25, 2018, 09:15:41 PM
As a Hoosier living in the Eastern Time Zone, is it bad to say that one of the reasons I like being in Eastern is being able to watch the ball drop on New Years Eve and it actually mean something to me?
People still care about that?
Judging by the crowds that show up, heck yeah.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 25, 2018, 09:34:48 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 25, 2018, 09:15:41 PM
As a Hoosier living in the Eastern Time Zone, is it bad to say that one of the reasons I like being in Eastern is being able to watch the ball drop on New Years Eve and it actually mean something to me?
People still care about that?
I'm with you. I don't give a f*** about NYC's new years. I'm usually eating dinner when that happens. Seattle has their own fireworks at the Space Needle, which I find to be far more interesting.
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 25, 2018, 09:15:41 PM
As a Hoosier living in the Eastern Time Zone, is it bad to say that one of the reasons I like being in Eastern is being able to watch the ball drop on New Years Eve and it actually mean something to me?
Does anyone outside of NYC actually give a shit about that?
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2018, 03:12:59 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 25, 2018, 09:34:48 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 25, 2018, 09:15:41 PM
As a Hoosier living in the Eastern Time Zone, is it bad to say that one of the reasons I like being in Eastern is being able to watch the ball drop on New Years Eve and it actually mean something to me?
People still care about that?
I'm with you. I don't give a f*** about NYC's new years. I'm usually eating dinner when that happens. Seattle has their own fireworks at the Space Needle, which I find to be far more interesting.
Quote from: Brandon on March 26, 2018, 05:22:57 AM
Does anyone outside of NYC actually give a shit about that?
That is exactly the message - being in EST actually makes that meaningful.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2018, 08:10:01 PM
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate Central Time and am glad I'm in the Eastern Time Zone.
Prime time television starts at 7, NFL games start at noon, the Super Bowl is over by 9 or 9:30...I much prefer Central Time.
It's kind of sad that the rhythm of life is defined by TV scheduling, both because of the general principle, and because of the existence of DVRs and the cloud equivalents thereof.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 26, 2018, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2018, 08:10:01 PM
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate Central Time and am glad I'm in the Eastern Time Zone.
Prime time television starts at 7, NFL games start at noon, the Super Bowl is over by 9 or 9:30...I much prefer Central Time.
I'm not worried about any of that -- especially the NFL.
I don't like Central Time because the sun sets so early in the winter, and it's compounded by the reversion back to standard time. If it's practically dark by 5 p.m. here, that means it's practically dark by 4 p.m. in Owensboro or Paducah.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 26, 2018, 10:41:34 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 26, 2018, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2018, 08:10:01 PM
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate Central Time and am glad I'm in the Eastern Time Zone.
Prime time television starts at 7, NFL games start at noon, the Super Bowl is over by 9 or 9:30...I much prefer Central Time.
I'm not worried about any of that -- especially the NFL.
I don't like Central Time because the sun sets so early in the winter, and it's compounded by the reversion back to standard time. If it's practically dark by 5 p.m. here, that means it's practically dark by 4 p.m. in Owensboro or Paducah.
Even if you were in Central, it would still set later than when it sets where I live (4:13 PM) unless you're east of Huntington, WV.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 26, 2018, 10:24:30 AM
It's kind of sad that the rhythm of life is defined by TV scheduling, both because of the general principle, and because of the existence of DVRs and the cloud equivalents thereof.
But that provides an insight into another possible solutions - TV schedules can change more gradually, without any need to touch actual clock...
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 26, 2018, 10:24:30 AM
It's kind of sad that the rhythm of life is defined by TV scheduling, both because of the general principle, and because of the existence of DVRs and the cloud equivalents thereof.
I watch most television through streaming options. The last thing I watched live was Fox's adaptation of A Christmas Story: The Musical, and that was over three months ago. But it was nice that it started and ended an hour earlier than if I was on the East Coast.
I'm not sure why I'd choose not to watch a live sporting event live, unless I wasn't available to watch it when it was going on.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 26, 2018, 10:41:34 AM
I don't like Central Time because the sun sets so early in the winter, and it's compounded by the reversion back to standard time. If it's practically dark by 5 p.m. here, that means it's practically dark by 4 p.m. in Owensboro or Paducah.
Once you get far enough north and/or east, the sun sets early in the winter in the Eastern Time Zone too. In Boston, in November, it's dark by 4:30.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 26, 2018, 10:24:30 AM
It's kind of sad that the rhythm of life is defined by TV scheduling, both because of the general principle, and because of the existence of DVRs and the cloud equivalents thereof.
DVRs and the Cloud are way more recent technologies than the advent of DST. TV shows and their timing are a function of most people's work and school schedules. TV adapted to people; not the other way around. Soaps and other daytime TV wouldn't work well in the evening when moms are taking care of the kids; sports and other TV programs commonly seen at night won't work well during the day when people are at work.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 26, 2018, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2018, 08:10:01 PM
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate Central Time and am glad I'm in the Eastern Time Zone.
Prime time television starts at 7, NFL games start at noon, the Super Bowl is over by 9 or 9:30...I much prefer Central Time.
I never watch broadcasts. I watch discs that I buy, or from the library. I definitely don't care about televised sports. I don't want my eyeballs to be monetized.
Quote from: kkt on March 26, 2018, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 26, 2018, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2018, 08:10:01 PM
Said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate Central Time and am glad I'm in the Eastern Time Zone.
Prime time television starts at 7, NFL games start at noon, the Super Bowl is over by 9 or 9:30...I much prefer Central Time.
I never watch broadcasts. I watch discs that I buy, or from the library. I definitely don't care about televised sports. I don't want my eyeballs to be monetized.
You're missing out on great television if you're waiting for it to come out on DVD. Granted, broadcast television, basic cable, and Hulu have commercials, but Amazon's streaming service and Netflix's do not.
I don't know that I'm missing out. If it's great, it'll still be great in a few years when it comes out on DVD.
It's worth noting that many people enjoy talking about what they're watching as it comes out with their friends and on social media. Many people also prefer to follow what's "trendy". Honestly, I only have so much time, so I'm VERY particular about which TV shows I watch, particularly if it's something older and I'd have to catch up.
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 25, 2018, 09:15:41 PM
As a Hoosier living in the Eastern Time Zone, is it bad to say that one of the reasons I like being in Eastern is being able to watch the ball drop on New Years Eve and it actually mean something to me?
ABC has started broadcasting the New Orleans ball drop too.
Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 07:33:45 AM
That is exactly the message - being in EST actually makes that meaningful.
tdindy88 worded his post in such a way that he seemed to indicate a preference for EST so that, when he watched the ball drop (which apparently he does regardless of his current time zone), it actually meant "happy new year" and not "happy new year, EST". I think mine and Brandon's point is that, if you don't live in the eastern time zone, why do you bother watching the ball drop at all? Surely there's a large celebration in every time zone that is broadcast zone-wide.
Now, apparently about 1/3 of all Americans watch the ball drop in NYC, with about a million crowding Times Square to see it in-person. But that doesn't negate the potential meaningless of the drop itself to those outside of EST. It's more a testament to America's obsession with the Big Apple, something Brandon and I don't fully understand.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2018, 06:21:15 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 07:33:45 AM
That is exactly the message - being in EST actually makes that meaningful.
tdindy88 worded his post in such a way that he seemed to indicate a preference for EST so that, when he watched the ball drop (which apparently he does regardless of his current time zone), it actually meant "happy new year" and not "happy new year, EST". I think mine and Brandon's point is that, if you don't live in the eastern time zone, why do you bother watching the ball drop at all? Surely there's a large celebration in every time zone that is broadcast zone-wide.
Now, apparently about 1/3 of all Americans watch the ball drop in NYC, with about a million crowding Times Square to see it in-person. But that doesn't negate the potential meaningless of the drop itself to those outside of EST. It's more a testament to America's obsession with the Big Apple, something Brandon and I don't fully understand.
Well, I knew some guys who started celebrating with some distant points eastward - having a drink every time another time zone clicked into new year... Small problem is that some of them could be too drunk to celebrate their local midnight properly - but strongest did continue their journey westward even after that...
There's more than 30 time zones across the world, accounting for zones offset by 30 or 45 minutes, and UTC+13 and +14 out in the Pacific...
Were they all blackout drunk by the end of it? :-D
It's over 26 hours, so one can sober up a little between drinks if they are not big ones. The problem is 'celebrate' is probably not a small drink, or even one and tiredness would kick in, and if you don't do lengthy sessions....
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2018, 06:21:15 PMI think mine and Brandon's point is that, if you don't live in the eastern time zone, why do you bother watching the ball drop at all? Surely there's a large celebration in every time zone that is broadcast zone-wide.
When I was in SoCal for NYE, the people who actually lived there whom I was with watched the ball drop at midnight. I didn't get it - not least as I didn't realise they did it again and this was actually live. To me it felt like watching Sydney's fireworks on the News that happens some hours before the New Year starts for you.
The UK (maybe not Scotland so much) goes with Big Ben bonging. There's now a fireworks display at the London Eye that mostly runs after the bonging stops (the first year serious money was spent - 2000 - they did a gimmick of fireworks travelling at the 'speed of midnight'* along the river from the new Dome to Parliament. It was about 10 seconds at most, so was finished before the clock chimed and looked sucky on the TV).
We don't give a rats ass about the ball drop here - it happens in the small hours of the New Year, and while it might make a morning news montage of 'elsewhere' on Jan 1st, far more time (even though the news has already shown it several times already) goes to Sydney, supplemented by Hong Kong and perhaps some other Asian or European cities if they have good fireworks.
The only reason I give a rat's ass about the ball drop in Times Square is that it happens at 11 pm local time, and it's a lot easier to stay up until 11 than midnight.
You couldn't pay me enough money to hang out there for 14+ hours waiting for the ball to drop, but thousands of people do it willingly every year.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 08:52:04 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2018, 02:36:58 PM
I can't remember if the document came from my employer or from L&I, but I haven't taken a "break" in almost four years. On the plus side, I work exactly eight hours a day.
"Anyone seen Jake lately?"
"Yeah, he's taking another 'break' in that Porsche over there."
(https://media.giphy.com/media/5wWf7GR2nhgamhRnEuA/giphy.gif)
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2018, 12:38:04 PM
Or a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California edition? ;)
No fucking way I'd touch that car.
Cameron?
Z981
A NICE STRETCH JOB WITH A TV AND A BAR!
What stinks is being on the eastern edge of the time zone. In May and June it starts get light here by around 4:15 or 4:20 that is too early. I have stayed in Kansas and Nebraska and it doesn't get light there until around 5 or so and it stays light longer at night.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
What stinks is being on the eastern edge of the time zone. In May and June it starts get light here by around 4:15 or 4:20 that is too early. I have stayed in Kansas and Nebraska and it doesn't get light there until around 5 or so and it stays light longer at night.
Wisconsin is in the central time zone, though. Are you not in New Berlin? I'd be annoyed if I were in some place like MI's Upper Peninsula.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 30, 2018, 12:33:48 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
What stinks is being on the eastern edge of the time zone. In May and June it starts get light here by around 4:15 or 4:20 that is too early. I have stayed in Kansas and Nebraska and it doesn't get light there until around 5 or so and it stays light longer at night.
Wisconsin is in the central time zone, though. Are you not in New Berlin? I'd be annoyed if I were in some place like MI's Upper Peninsula.
Precisely.... pretty much all of Wisconsin is considered to be on the "eastern edge" of the Central Time Zone.
Quote from: webny99 on March 30, 2018, 05:31:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 30, 2018, 12:33:48 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
What stinks is being on the eastern edge of the time zone. In May and June it starts get light here by around 4:15 or 4:20 that is too early. I have stayed in Kansas and Nebraska and it doesn't get light there until around 5 or so and it stays light longer at night.
Wisconsin is in the central time zone, though. Are you not in New Berlin? I'd be annoyed if I were in some place like MI's Upper Peninsula.
Precisely.... pretty much all of Wisconsin is considered to be on the "eastern edge" of the Central Time Zone.
Ohhhh, I read the post wrong. I read it as "eastern edge of the eastern time zone". Which obviously makes no sense thinking about it now. :pan:
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
What stinks is being on the eastern edge of the time zone. In May and June it starts get light here by around 4:15 or 4:20 that is too early. I have stayed in Kansas and Nebraska and it doesn't get light there until around 5 or so and it stays light longer at night.
^And if DST was eliminated it would be getting light at 3:15am! If the goal is to never have to change the clocks again, i think there are two options that could work.
1. Nationwide year-round DST (as Marco Rubio is trying to push though).
2. Eliminate DST entirely, but shift all the time zones over. Eastern time would become Atlantic... Central would become Eastern.... Rocky would become Central... Pacific would become Rocky.... and Alaska would become Pacific. This would accomplish the same result as option #1, but we could at least say we are no longer on DST.
I guess there is a third option... be like China and combine time zones, and just deal with the sun setting at 1AM depending on where you live. But i don't know if that would fly.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 02, 2018, 02:05:20 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
What stinks is being on the eastern edge of the time zone. In May and June it starts get light here by around 4:15 or 4:20 that is too early. I have stayed in Kansas and Nebraska and it doesn't get light there until around 5 or so and it stays light longer at night.
^And if DST was eliminated it would be getting light at 3:15am! If the goal is to never have to change the clocks again, i think there are two options that could work.
1. Nationwide year-round DST (as Marco Rubio is trying to push though).
2. Eliminate DST entirely, but shift all the time zones over. Eastern time would become Atlantic... Central would become Eastern.... Rocky would become Central... Pacific would become Rocky.... and Alaska would become Pacific. This would accomplish the same result as option #1, but we could at least say we are no longer on DST.
I guess there is a third option... be like China and combine time zones, and just deal with the sun setting at 1AM depending on where you live. But i don't know if that would fly.
1 and 2 are essentially equivalent. And yes, that was tried before...
probably there are other examples, but here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_time
But honestly speaking, all you need to do is to adjust local activities to
Or we could do away with time-zones completely and have one universal world time. However, the key is to set up the business day to start at the exact same time around the world, regardless of what the sun is doing. Then people move to various parts of the world depending if they are morning people or night people (ie. if they want to work during the day or night). Boom! Problem solved.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 02, 2018, 05:55:37 PM
Or we could do away with time-zones completely and have one universal world time. However, the key is to set up the business day to start at the exact same time around the world, regardless of what the sun is doing. Then people move to various parts of the world depending if they are morning people or night people (ie. if they want to work during the day or night). Boom! Problem solved.
We've already got UTC for those who want it. But most people, the overwhelming majority of people, don't want it for their everyday lives.
A lot of regions in the world are in the wrong time-zone if you are basing it strictly on longitude. A few examples include Spain, France, Singapore, Argentina, much of China, and Russia. In all these cases, the regions intrude into their western timezone neighbor. OTOH, regions rarely intrude into their eastern timezone neighbor (apart from eastern Greenland which already gets near perpetual sunlight in the summer anyways). The point is it seems that many countries favor to push back their solar noon to later in the day - meaning enjoying more light at the end of the day as opposed to the beginning.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Standard_World_Time_Zones.png)
I love the font used to label the oceans on that map, so much so that I did some research to dig it up. It's called Sanvito.
A lot of those are the result of permanent DST (Iceland, the UTC parts of Greenland, Russia, Argentina, Cancun, etc.).
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 01:04:47 PM
A lot of those are the result of permanent DST (Iceland, the UTC parts of Greenland, Russia, Argentina, Cancun, etc.).
That's true. If America adopted permanent DST, America would mimic Russia on the map (with the timezones shifting farther to the west). And if Europe remained on DST (not permanent DST), it would mean that NYC would only be 4 hours behind London during the winter months and only 1 hour behind Rio De Janeiro year round. In addition to enjoying more sunlight later in the day in America, the business day of North America/South America/and Europe would more closely interlap.
It would also be abysmally dark in the morning in winter, making it hard for us night owls to get up and ready for work when we need to (some of us are stuck in "9-5"), and making the ice I need to scrape off the windshield every night it goes below freezing hard as a rock, since the sun will not have had a chance to warm it up before I need to leave. And what with Canada? Are they really going to adopt permanent DST just because of the US?
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 01:39:38 PM
And what with Canada? Are they really going to adopt permanent DST just because of the US?
Doubtful, considering Saskatchewan already does their own thing, and western Ontario is already extremely far west (even further than Indiana) and is on EST.
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 01:39:38 PM
It would also be abysmally dark in the morning in winter, making it hard for us night owls to get up and ready for work when we need to (some of us are stuck in "9-5"), and making the ice I need to scrape off the windshield every night it goes below freezing hard as a rock, since the sun will not have had a chance to warm it up before I need to leave. And what with Canada? Are they really going to adopt permanent DST just because of the US?
The sun would rise at 8:16AM in NYC on the winter solstice if we had permanent DST with civil twilight starting at 7:45AM. If you get up at 7:45AM or later for work in NYC, there would be light even on the shortest day of the year (the New York Stock Exchange starts at 9:30am... giving traders nearly 2 hours of light before the bell rings to start the business world). That doesn't sound abysmally dark to me. By the way the sun currently sets at 4:30pm in NYC during the winter solstice. You are a self described night owl, so that means you are probably up for hours after the sun sets in NYC on the shortest day of the year. Just ask yourself this question.... are more people in NYC sleeping at 8:16 AM or 4:30PM?
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 01:39:38 PM
It would also be abysmally dark in the morning in winter, making it hard for us night owls to get up and ready for work when we need to (some of us are stuck in "9-5"), and making the ice I need to scrape off the windshield every night it goes below freezing hard as a rock, since the sun will not have had a chance to warm it up before I need to leave. And what with Canada? Are they really going to adopt permanent DST just because of the US?
The sun would rise at 8:16AM in NYC on the winter solstice if we had permanent DST with civil twilight starting at 7:45AM. If you get up at 7:45AM or later for work in NYC, there would be light even on the shortest day of the year (the New York Stock Exchange starts at 9:30am... giving traders nearly 2 hours of light before the bell rings to start the business world). That doesn't sound abysmally dark to me. By the way the sun currently sets at 4:30pm in NYC during the winter solstice. You are a self described night owl, so that means you are probably up for hours after the sun sets in NYC on the shortest day of the year. Just ask yourself this question.... are more people in NYC sleeping at 8:16 AM or 4:30PM?
Trick question. New York City is the city that never sleeps.
tradephoric, neither the latest sunrise nor the earliest sunset occurs on the winter solstice. The latest sunrise occurs about two weeks later and the earliest sunset occurs about two weeks earlier. You can look it up.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 01:39:38 PM
It would also be abysmally dark in the morning in winter, making it hard for us night owls to get up and ready for work when we need to (some of us are stuck in "9-5"), and making the ice I need to scrape off the windshield every night it goes below freezing hard as a rock, since the sun will not have had a chance to warm it up before I need to leave. And what with Canada? Are they really going to adopt permanent DST just because of the US?
The sun would rise at 8:16AM in NYC on the winter solstice if we had permanent DST with civil twilight starting at 7:45AM. If you get up at 7:45AM or later for work in NYC, there would be light even on the shortest day of the year (the New York Stock Exchange starts at 9:30am... giving traders nearly 2 hours of light before the bell rings to start the business world). That doesn't sound abysmally dark to me. By the way the sun currently sets at 4:30pm in NYC during the winter solstice. You are a self described night owl, so that means you are probably up for hours after the sun sets in NYC on the shortest day of the year. Just ask yourself this question.... are more people in NYC sleeping at 8:16 AM or 4:30PM?
New York City is located around the correct longitude for its time zone. For full credit, repeat the exercise for other cities in the Eastern Time Zone but which are located much farther west.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 04, 2018, 03:32:31 PM
tradephoric, neither the latest sunrise nor the earliest sunset occurs on the winter solstice. The latest sunrise occurs about two weeks later and the earliest sunset occurs about two weeks earlier. You can look it up.
The winter solstice is the day with the shortest period of daylight... that's why the focus of sunrise/sunset times are made on that day. But in the end there are only two options if you want to never have to set your clocks twice a year... eliminate DST entirely or make DST permanent. Sure, vdeane doesn't want permanent DST because he would have to scrape the ice off the windows during the winter and his little hands would get cold in the morning... awwww booo. But if we didn't have DST at all, then civil twilight would begin at 3:50am in NYC during the summer solstice and the sun would set at a relatively early 7:28pm (it would be getting dark by the 2nd inning of the Yankees game). People want to enjoy their summer nights (shocker!) and DST accomplishes this. I doubt Vdeane is complaining that it's still dark at 4AM during the summer solstice. Maybe 3 people in all of NYC would complain that it's still dark at 4AM. These 3 people might want to eliminate daylight saving time, but the other 7 million people in NYC would hate having 1 less hour of sunlight during the summer evenings.
Quote from: kkt on April 04, 2018, 04:06:06 PM
New York City is located around the correct longitude for its time zone. For full credit, repeat the exercise for other cities in the Eastern Time Zone but which are located much farther west.
I did post sunrise/sunset times during the winter solstice if DST was made permanent. Detroit is a city on the western edge of the eastern timezone. The response was "But look at that sunrise time in Detroit! High school kids would be in their 2nd period classes before they see daylight!". Again though... are more people sleeping in Detroit at 8:57AM or 6:02PM. To me, 6:02PM is still relatively early. Most people in Detroit are going to be awake for at least another 3 or 4 hours. Even with permanent DST, cities in the most western edge of the eastern timezone are going to be blanketed in darkness for much of the evening when most people are still awake.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2018, 10:48:00 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on March 19, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
Here are sunrise/sunset times of various cities during the winter solstice under Standard Time and proposed year-round DST. Those poor people in Bangor, Maine currently watch the sunset at 3:57PM during the winter solstice… depressing!
(https://i.imgur.com/bLeDECs.png)
But look at that sunrise time in Detroit! High school kids would be in their 2nd period classes before they see daylight!
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 04, 2018, 03:32:31 PM
tradephoric, neither the latest sunrise nor the earliest sunset occurs on the winter solstice. The latest sunrise occurs about two weeks later and the earliest sunset occurs about two weeks earlier. You can look it up.
Difference is not that great, and having all numbers in same place is a bit easier to handle..
Politically permanent DST actually has a chance of passing. With Florida passing their Sunshine Protection Act and Marco Rubio trying to push similar legislation through the US Congress, we could potentially see permanent DST in America in the next few years. I imagine states could still opt out of DST completely (like Arizona and Hawaii currently do). Potentially a lot of states on Rocky Time will want to opt out of DST to be on Pacific time... and Arizona will suddenly have a lot of company!
There is no legislation in Congress to eliminate DST. Anybody who wants to eliminate DST may have to settle for permanent DST. But it accomplishes everyone's biggest goal... not having to set their clocks twice a year.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 05:02:32 PM
Politically permanent DST actually has a chance of passing. With Florida passing their Sunshine Protection Act and Marco Rubio trying to push similar legislation through the US Congress, we could potentially see permanent DST in America in the next few years. I imagine states could still opt out of DST completely (like Arizona and Hawaii currently do). Potentially a lot of states on Rocky Time will want to opt out of DST to be on Pacific time... and Arizona will suddenly have a lot of company!
There is no legislation in Congress to eliminate DST. Anybody who wants to eliminate DST may have to settle for permanent DST. But it accomplishes everyone's biggest goal... not having to set their clocks twice a year.
I can easily see that. AZ time is both permanent Mtn Standard or permanent Pac DST. I can see much of the western edges of time zones following suit. So the Dakotas can be on permanent Mtn DST. Indiana and Michigan can be permanent Ctl DST. And New England can be on permanent Eastern DST. Basically move the boundaries of the time zones a few hundred miles to the east and then get rid of the clock change.
As it is, I know of many people who start work extra early on Fridays in the summer so that they could leave earlier and head towards weekend vacation spots. In effect, at least on Fridays, these people do a double DST. People with flexible work schedules could pick the time that suits them, but there is no reason to force every one else to shift.
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 01:39:38 PM
And what with Canada? Are they really going to adopt permanent DST just because of the US?
Well do you really think if America went to permanent DST that Canada wouldn't follow suit? That's not even a question in my mind.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 04, 2018, 04:06:06 PM
New York City is located around the correct longitude for its time zone. For full credit, repeat the exercise for other cities in the Eastern Time Zone but which are located much farther west.
I did post sunrise/sunset times during the winter solstice if DST was made permanent. Detroit is a city on the western edge of the eastern timezone. The response was "But look at that sunrise time in Detroit! High school kids would be in their 2nd period classes before they see daylight!". Again though... are more people sleeping in Detroit at 8:57AM or 6:02PM. To me, 6:02PM is still relatively early. Most people in Detroit are going to be awake for at least another 3 or 4 hours. Even with permanent DST, cities in the most western edge of the eastern timezone are going to be blanketed in darkness for much of the evening when most people are still awake.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2018, 10:48:00 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on March 19, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
Here are sunrise/sunset times of various cities during the winter solstice under Standard Time and proposed year-round DST. Those poor people in Bangor, Maine currently watch the sunset at 3:57PM during the winter solstice… depressing!
(https://i.imgur.com/bLeDECs.png)
But look at that sunrise time in Detroit! High school kids would be in their 2nd period classes before they see daylight!
The point is not that more people are awake at sunset than at sunrise. The point is that it's easier to stop sleeping and get out of bed if there's some light in the sky. Humans seem to naturally wake around dawn. Getting up way before dawn is really hard and no one wants to do that all winter long.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 02, 2018, 02:05:20 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
What stinks is being on the eastern edge of the time zone. In May and June it starts get light here by around 4:15 or 4:20 that is too early. I have stayed in Kansas and Nebraska and it doesn't get light there until around 5 or so and it stays light longer at night.
^And if DST was eliminated it would be getting light at 3:15am! If the goal is to never have to change the clocks again, i think there are two options that could work.
1. Nationwide year-round DST (as Marco Rubio is trying to push though).
2. Eliminate DST entirely, but shift all the time zones over. Eastern time would become Atlantic... Central would become Eastern.... Rocky would become Central... Pacific would become Rocky.... and Alaska would become Pacific. This would accomplish the same result as option #1, but we could at least say we are no longer on DST.
I guess there is a third option... be like China and combine time zones, and just deal with the sun setting at 1AM depending on where you live. But i don't know if that would fly.
Maybe a single time zone for the contiguous U.S. could work if it was set halfway between Central and Mountain, where neither coast is more than 1.5 hours off their natural time. Yes, it's Super Newfie Time.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
The sun would rise at 8:16AM in NYC on the winter solstice if we had permanent DST with civil twilight starting at 7:45AM. If you get up at 7:45AM or later for work in NYC, there would be light even on the shortest day of the year (the New York Stock Exchange starts at 9:30am... giving traders nearly 2 hours of light before the bell rings to start the business world). That doesn't sound abysmally dark to me. By the way the sun currently sets at 4:30pm in NYC during the winter solstice. You are a self described night owl, so that means you are probably up for hours after the sun sets in NYC on the shortest day of the year. Just ask yourself this question.... are more people in NYC sleeping at 8:16 AM or 4:30PM?
I have to arrive at work at 8:30. Now, I know for guys you can just roll out of bed and be at your desk two minutes later, but for us girls it isn't that simple. In order to pluck my eyebrows, put in my contacts, brush my teeth, take my pills, take a shower, dry off, do a quick email/Facebook check while letting my hair get a head start air drying (essential to not be miserable with the hairdryer and to minimize frizz), dry my hair, prepare and eat breakfast, get dressed, and commute to work, I have to be out of bed no later than 6:15, assuming there's nothing like a snowstorm or needing to wear a fancier outfit than pants and a blouse to take more time. I save makeup and nail polish for special occasions because I'd have to get up even earlier if I didn't.
It doesn't help that I have a tendency to move slowly and space out when tired, which I always am when getting up before my circadian rhythm wants me to, between 8 and 10 (though I've been known to sleep in until noon on the weekends because I end up chronically sleep deprived over the week... insomnia is a bitch). I could probably save 15 minutes if I was capable of consistently moving at a reasonable speed in the morning.
I usually go to bed at 11 on work nights (12-2 on weekends), though I'm really aiming for 10; I'm just never successful at going to bed that early.
My office has windows, and nobody's cube is too far from one, so I get to see the sun even if it's at work.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 04, 2018, 03:32:31 PM
tradephoric, neither the latest sunrise nor the earliest sunset occurs on the winter solstice. The latest sunrise occurs about two weeks later and the earliest sunset occurs about two weeks earlier. You can look it up.
The winter solstice is the day with the shortest period of daylight... that's why the focus of sunrise/sunset times are made on that day. But in the end there are only two options if you want to never have to set your clocks twice a year... eliminate DST entirely or make DST permanent. Sure, vdeane doesn't want permanent DST because he would have to scrape the ice off the windows during the winter and his little hands would get cold in the morning... awwww booo. But if we didn't have DST at all, then civil twilight would begin at 3:50am in NYC during the summer solstice and the sun would set at a relatively early 7:28pm (it would be getting dark by the 2nd inning of the Yankees game). People want to enjoy their summer nights (shocker!) and DST accomplishes this. I doubt Vdeane is complaining that it's still dark at 4AM during the summer solstice. Maybe 3 people in all of NYC would complain that it's still dark at 4AM. These 3 people might want to eliminate daylight saving time, but the other 7 million people in NYC would hate having 1 less hour of sunlight during the summer evenings.
Most times scraping ice takes 5 minutes. If it's hard as a rock, however, which can happen on the late sunrise days of January, it can take at least 15. And it still leaves little streaks of ice on the windshield because trying to get rid of all of them would make it take 45 minutes.
It's not my fault that some people are incapable of staying awake without sunlight. May I recommend natural wavelength compact fluorescents for those dark winter nights?
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 05:02:32 PM
Politically permanent DST actually has a chance of passing. With Florida passing their Sunshine Protection Act and Marco Rubio trying to push similar legislation through the US Congress, we could potentially see permanent DST in America in the next few years. I imagine states could still opt out of DST completely (like Arizona and Hawaii currently do). Potentially a lot of states on Rocky Time will want to opt out of DST to be on Pacific time... and Arizona will suddenly have a lot of company!
There is no legislation in Congress to eliminate DST. Anybody who wants to eliminate DST may have to settle for permanent DST. But it accomplishes everyone's biggest goal... not having to set their clocks twice a year.
What is the big deal about trying to eliminate the clock change? I find it to be a minor annoyance at best. It's also good for correcting the natural drift that clocks develop over time (my watch is usually a couple
minutes off by the time change). Usually my brain has already begun to snap into the new time within a couple hours of changing the clocks. The hour variation is much less than the variation between when I get up during the week and on the weekend.
The change I would make is to move the clock changes back to where they were before Bush changed them. IMO neither permanent DST or no DST is optimal.
Also, it's Mountain Time, not "Rocky Time". And everyone already knew Florida is nuts. People are incapable of eating dinner after the sun has set? Or shop? Really? I remember many family vacations where we were still out after dark (mostly 1000 Islands, but also Boston and Toronto). Something has to be in the water down there...
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 04, 2018, 03:32:31 PM
tradephoric, neither the latest sunrise nor the earliest sunset occurs on the winter solstice. The latest sunrise occurs about two weeks later and the earliest sunset occurs about two weeks earlier. You can look it up.
The winter solstice is the day with the shortest period of daylight... that's why the focus of sunrise/sunset times are made on that day. But in the end there are only two options if you want to never have to set your clocks twice a year... eliminate DST entirely or make DST permanent. Sure, vdeane doesn't want permanent DST because he would have to scrape the ice off the windows during the winter and his little hands would get cold in the morning... awwww booo. But if we didn't have DST at all, then civil twilight would begin at 3:50am in NYC during the summer solstice and the sun would set at a relatively early 7:28pm (it would be getting dark by the 2nd inning of the Yankees game). People want to enjoy their summer nights (shocker!) and DST accomplishes this. I doubt Vdeane is complaining that it's still dark at 4AM during the summer solstice. Maybe 3 people in all of NYC would complain that it's still dark at 4AM. These 3 people might want to eliminate daylight saving time, but the other 7 million people in NYC would hate having 1 less hour of sunlight during the summer evenings.
I'm starting to think maybe y'all should just move south to a reasonable latitude and then you won't have to worry about 4 AM sunrises or 4 PM sunsets or whatever. :bigass:
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 08:36:07 PMI have to arrive at work at 8:30. Now, I know for guys you can just roll out of bed and be at your desk two minutes later, but for us girls it isn't that simple. In order to pluck my eyebrows, put in my contacts, brush my teeth, take my pills, take a shower, dry off, do a quick email/Facebook check while letting my hair get a head start air drying (essential to not be miserable with the hairdryer and to minimize frizz), dry my hair, prepare and eat breakfast, get dressed, and commute to work, I have to be out of bed no later than 6:15, assuming there's nothing like a snowstorm or needing to wear a fancier outfit than pants and a blouse to take more time. I save makeup and nail polish for special occasions because I'd have to get up even earlier if I didn't.
What little sunlight we have during the winter months is wasted on the monotony of getting ready for work in the morning. Do you really enjoy the sun as you pluck your eyebrows in the bathroom, brush your teeth, and take a shower? Hell no!
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 08:36:07 PM
It doesn't help that I have a tendency to move slowly and space out when tired, which I always am when getting up before my circadian rhythm wants me to, between 8 and 10 (though I've been known to sleep in until noon on the weekends because I end up chronically sleep deprived over the week... insomnia is a bitch). I could probably save 15 minutes if I was capable of consistently moving at a reasonable speed in the morning.
You just described the sleep pattern of millions of working Americans. Now if you wake up at noon in Bangor, Maine during the winter, you only have 3 hours and 57 minutes of daylight left (and have already wasted nearly 5 hours of daylight). Talk about a crappy start to the weekend.
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 08:36:07 PM
Also, it's Mountain Time, not "Rocky Time". And everyone already knew Florida is nuts. People are incapable of eating dinner after the sun has set? Or shop? Really? I remember many family vacations where we were still out after dark (mostly 1000 Islands, but also Boston and Toronto). Something has to be in the water down there...
There is a lot of things that Florida is nuts about, but this isn't one of them. Let's just admit that people who live in the northern states are pretty much screwed during the winter... regardless of exactly when the sun rises or sets. But in Florida you can have pleasant evenings during the winter months. Why not spend an hour longer on the golf course, go out to dinner at the beach, or enjoy a BBQ after work? These winter activities are limited when it's pitch dark in Florida at 5:59 pm (that's when civil twilight ends in Orlando during the winter solstice).
Quote from: Eth on April 04, 2018, 09:54:41 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 04, 2018, 03:32:31 PM
tradephoric, neither the latest sunrise nor the earliest sunset occurs on the winter solstice. The latest sunrise occurs about two weeks later and the earliest sunset occurs about two weeks earlier. You can look it up.
The winter solstice is the day with the shortest period of daylight... that's why the focus of sunrise/sunset times are made on that day. But in the end there are only two options if you want to never have to set your clocks twice a year... eliminate DST entirely or make DST permanent. Sure, vdeane doesn't want permanent DST because he would have to scrape the ice off the windows during the winter and his little hands would get cold in the morning... awwww booo. But if we didn't have DST at all, then civil twilight would begin at 3:50am in NYC during the summer solstice and the sun would set at a relatively early 7:28pm (it would be getting dark by the 2nd inning of the Yankees game). People want to enjoy their summer nights (shocker!) and DST accomplishes this. I doubt Vdeane is complaining that it's still dark at 4AM during the summer solstice. Maybe 3 people in all of NYC would complain that it's still dark at 4AM. These 3 people might want to eliminate daylight saving time, but the other 7 million people in NYC would hate having 1 less hour of sunlight during the summer evenings.
I'm starting to think maybe y'all should just move south to a reasonable latitude and then you won't have to worry about 4 AM sunrises or 4 PM sunsets or whatever. :bigass:
Or you all could move to Arizona or Saskatchewan or whatever. Shrug.
Quote from: Eth on April 04, 2018, 09:54:41 PM
I'm starting to think maybe y'all should just move south to a reasonable latitude and then you won't have to worry about 4 AM sunrises or 4 PM sunsets or whatever. :bigass:
Even if i move to Florida it's pitch dark by 6PM in the winter! That's still way too damn early. Of course if we went to permanent DST....
Let's just face the facts: it's never going to be perfect, no matter where you are or what time zone you decide upon.
All I desire is to end the archaic practice of changing the clock twice a year. I don't care if (for me) that results in UTC-6 or UTC-5 permanently, or whether that means dark mornings or dark evenings at certain times during the year. Just, for crying out loud, pick one and stick with it. I feel like the twice annual time change is more disruptive to my life than waking up while it's still dark outside for a couple months of the year.
You could always live on the equator.
Everyone should just accept that the Sun should be directly overhead at Noon every day year round and adjust their life's schedule to suit.
Let Noon be Noon.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2018, 10:08:38 PM
You could always live on the equator.
Or Hawaii, which is close enough to the equator that there's only a two-hour difference in daylight between the solstices. It doesn't do daylight savings for that reason, and also staying in synch with non-DST countries like Japan is more important than synching with the rest of the U.S.
Of course, this is a pricey option. The cost-of-living differential from the rest of the U.S. (dubbed the "paradise tax") is estimated to be over 30%.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 04, 2018, 10:27:35 PM
Everyone should just accept that the Sun should be directly overhead at Noon every day year round and adjust their life's schedule to suit.
Let Noon be Noon.
I consider myself to be a more acutely aware than average observer of nature, but I have never noticed solar noon. If I sat and watched the shadows I could figure out noon after it happened (maybe as it's happening with some solar viewing glasses), but the sun is never directly overhead as far away from the equator as most of us are, and nowhere is directly overhead more than two days per year. The time when the sun reaches its high point and the shadows start to get longer is something I don't think most people notice.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 04, 2018, 10:00:31 PM
Let's just face the facts: it's never going to be perfect, no matter where you are or what time zone you decide upon.
I do find it funny that after 16 pages, we are only just now coming to the conclusion that, no matter what we do to our time zones, we will never satisfy everyone. I think this is why DST rules almost never change.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 09:59:36 PMEven if i move to Florida it's pitch dark by 6PM in the winter! That's still way too damn early.
Alternate between hemispheres so you don't have to deal with winter (which is your real problem).
Either that or don't care about what an artificial number on a round thing says!
QuoteOf course if we went to permanent DST....
Why not go the whole hog and run on UTC, so then in winter the sun sets at 9pm or whatever?
Just don't force other people to have to comply with your own idiocy - I'd imagine vdeane will go insane getting up 6 hours before dawn to go to work in mid-winter.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2018, 10:08:38 PMYou could always live on the equator.
But then the sun sets around 6pm whatever season (they don't really do winter/summer) - it would be like endless winter, only with minimum temperatures being about 85! ;)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 04, 2018, 10:00:31 PMAll I desire is to end the archaic practice of changing the clock twice a year.
Not changing the clock is the archaic (or perhaps the 'natural') practice*. DST has only been implemented for 102 years (brought in as war-time rationing of electricity so that energy could go into bombs and guns).
*What we did before the Industrial Revolution was this strange thing called sleeping more in winter and less in summer - we still do, but try not to as we feel the tick-tock of small little mechanisms/circuits rules us and the giant ball of flaming gas that gives us our energy doesn't.
I believe the best alternative is to have permanent DST but allow states/provinces to opt out and remain on standard time year-round (as Arizona, Hawaii, and Saskatchewan currently do). This way a region on the western edge of a time zone can choose not to observe permanent DST, thus giving them the same sunrise time in the winter that they are currently accustomed to (with the understanding that sunsets will be an hour earlier in the Summer). If this occurred I believe Saskatchewan and Arizona would remain on standard time, and Utah and Idaho would join Arizona's lead (drastically reducing the size of the Mountain time zone). And who knows what Indiana would decide to do. This is the time zone map I envision if permanent DST was approved nationwide.
(https://i.imgur.com/3sipt44.jpg)
I agree that this is less about "lack of daylight" and more about "lack of summer". Many people seem to not like seasons beyond consuming Cadbury Eggs and Pumpkin Spice Lattes.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2018, 09:56:37 PM
What little sunlight we have during the winter months is wasted on the monotony of getting ready for work in the morning. Do you really enjoy the sun as you pluck your eyebrows in the bathroom, brush your teeth, and take a shower? Hell no!
At least it's not indistinguishable than midnight. I already have enough things in life and society that depress me; I don't need to think about having to get up before anything even resembling the crack of dawn for at least half the year for a minimum of the next 36 years.
Quote
You just described the sleep pattern of millions of working Americans. Now if you wake up at noon in Bangor, Maine during the winter, you only have 3 hours and 57 minutes of daylight left (and have already wasted nearly 5 hours of daylight). Talk about a crappy start to the weekend.
I'm pretty sure most people don't sleep in
that late, even on the weekends. Dad gets up around 10 on the weekends. Mom sometimes sleeps in until 8 or 9, but it's rare for her to get up later than 7. I imagine that's more typical, especially since society favors morning larks. Year-round DST would make lark favoritism
more pervasive, not less, since owls are already accustomed to being awake and doing things well after sunset.
Quote
There is a lot of things that Florida is nuts about, but this isn't one of them. Let's just admit that people who live in the northern states are pretty much screwed during the winter... regardless of exactly when the sun rises or sets. But in Florida you can have pleasant evenings during the winter months. Why not spend an hour longer on the golf course, go out to dinner at the beach, or enjoy a BBQ after work? These winter activities are limited when it's pitch dark in Florida at 5:59 pm (that's when civil twilight ends in Orlando during the winter solstice).
Honestly, I would consider those to be summer activities. Regarding going out to dinner, don't restaurants have lights with outdoor seating? Up north, sunset isn't considered a requirement to stop eating.
Quote from: vdeane on April 05, 2018, 01:59:29 PM
Honestly, I would consider those to be summer activities. Regarding going out to dinner, don't restaurants have lights with outdoor seating? Up north, sunset isn't considered a requirement to stop eating.
Florida has two seasons: summer and roughly 48 hours of winter.
Quote from: formulanone on April 05, 2018, 03:13:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 05, 2018, 01:59:29 PM
Honestly, I would consider those to be summer activities. Regarding going out to dinner, don't restaurants have lights with outdoor seating? Up north, sunset isn't considered a requirement to stop eating.
Florida has two seasons: summer and roughly 48 hours of winter.
Better that in some places up north where people do get beautiful summer - but you have some important meetings on that particular day..
For those thinking about shifting the clocks forward an hour permanantly, here's the UK debate that saw the trial period 50 years ago not be continued (it was rejected strongly): https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1970/dec/02/british-standard-time
Which, of course, is the second time we'd returned to GMT with summer time, having moved to GMT+1 (with summer time) in autumn 1940 and having double summer time in 1941-45, dropping the double summer time soon after VE day (to the relief of the nation!) and going back to GMT in October '45. We didn't look back at moving to CET being a good idea for a generation (this time without summer time). The same happened with the 'British Standard Time' experiment, only for longer, and as MPs too young to remember start pushing it, they are failing miserably with it thankfully.
Quote from: english si on April 05, 2018, 06:24:02 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 04, 2018, 10:00:31 PMAll I desire is to end the archaic practice of changing the clock twice a year.
Not changing the clock is the archaic (or perhaps the 'natural') practice*. DST has only been implemented for 102 years (brought in as war-time rationing of electricity so that energy could go into bombs and guns).
Yeah, perhaps 'archaic' was the wrong word of choice. Either way, I still believe the practice is outdated in current society and should be done away with.
Quote from: vdeane on April 05, 2018, 01:59:29 PMI don't need to think about having to get up before anything even resembling the crack of dawn for at least half the year for a minimum of the next 36 years.
You will have to work that long? In Kentucky, state employees and teachers can retire after 27 years with full benefits.
Most NY employees (Tier 4) can retire without penalty if they're over 55 and have 30 years of service, but since I'm newer than most employees (Tier 6), I have to wait until I'm 63.
Quote from: vdeane on April 05, 2018, 08:52:24 PM
Most NY employees (Tier 4) can retire without penalty if they're over 55 and have 30 years of service, but since I'm newer than most employees (Tier 6), I have to wait until I'm 63.
That's not unreasonable. I'm 56, and will only have 20 years of state service this year. Do the math; I won't have 27 years in until I'm 63. Of course, the reality is that I will have to work until I die and will never be able to retire. And even if that was not the case, my intent was always to work, if able, until I'm 70 and then would be eligible for the top tier of Social Security benefits, assuming SS is still in place by then.
Quote from: english si on April 05, 2018, 06:24:02 AM
*What we did before the Industrial Revolution was this strange thing called sleeping more in winter and less in summer - we still do, but try not to as we feel the tick-tock of small little mechanisms/circuits rules us and the giant ball of flaming gas that gives us our energy doesn't.
More specifically, we got up when it got to be light enough to see, and went to bed when it got to be too dark to see. Candles or oil were expensive and not bright enough to do many kinds of activities.
Clocks didn't get to be a daily part of life for ordinary people until the mid-19th century and we needed them to catch trains and report for our shift at the mill. So really it was only about 60 years between clocks being commonplace and the beginning of DST use. People light getting up when it gets light.
There was also that concept of a "Second Sleep".
Midnight snack came from this. It the wake time between first and second sleep
Z981
Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2018, 09:27:40 PMMore specifically, we got up when it got to be light enough to see, and went to bed when it got to be too dark to see.
While that is broadly the case, it is wrong in those specifics.
It also fuels stuff like tradephoric's nonsense that you can't eat dinner after dark!
QuoteCandles or oil were expensive and not bright enough to do many kinds of activities.
Other stuff burns and gives light - cheaper stuff like wood...
And not being able to many kinds of activities doesn't mean all you could do was sleep. You could still eat, drink, talk, tell stories, play music, dance, generally be merry.
Of course, your fire would wane overnight, so these sorts of things were harder pre-dawn than post-dusk.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 05, 2018, 09:18:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 05, 2018, 08:52:24 PM
Most NY employees (Tier 4) can retire without penalty if they're over 55 and have 30 years of service, but since I'm newer than most employees (Tier 6), I have to wait until I'm 63.
That's not unreasonable. I'm 56, and will only have 20 years of state service this year. Do the math; I won't have 27 years in until I'm 63. Of course, the reality is that I will have to work until I die and will never be able to retire. And even if that was not the case, my intent was always to work, if able, until I'm 70 and then would be eligible for the top tier of Social Security benefits, assuming SS is still in place by then.
I don't disagree. Still depressing to think about when dragging myself out of bed in the morning, though. If only I could do something about my insomnia so I could actually wake up refreshed.
Quote from: english si on April 06, 2018, 12:30:51 PM
It also fuels stuff like tradephoric's nonsense that you can't eat dinner after dark!
I obviously never said you can't eat dinner after dark, it's just that most people don't want to fire up the BBQ once it gets dark outside (and in Florida it's dark by 6PM during the winter solstice). Also, the main attraction of a beach side restaurant in Florida is... wait for it... the beach! Yes, tourists in Florida during the winter will still eat dinner once it gets dark out, but they may not be enticed to go to that fancy beach side restaurant knowing it's pitch dark out and won't be able to enjoy the water/sunset/hot girls walking around in bikinis/etc. Instead, maybe they end up eating SPAM in their hotel room... tourist money lost (good for sales of SPAM though!). You would have to go to dinner by 4:30pm if you'd like to enjoy the sunset during your meal.... and you can argue that tourists should adjust their schedules if they want to enjoy that sunset during dinner, but if anything tourists are likely to sleep in longer during their week-long winter break and aren't thinking about going to dinner at 4:30pm when they are accustomed to eating at 6pm back home.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 06, 2018, 02:03:15 PM
Quote from: english si on April 06, 2018, 12:30:51 PM
It also fuels stuff like tradephoric's nonsense that you can't eat dinner after dark!
I obviously never said you can't eat dinner after dark, it's just that most people don't want to fire up the BBQ once it gets dark outside (and in Florida it's dark by 6PM during the winter solstice). Also, the main attraction of a beach side restaurant in Florida is... wait for it... the beach! Yes, tourists in Florida during the winter will still eat dinner once it gets dark out, but they may not be enticed to go to that fancy beach side restaurant knowing it's pitch dark out and won't be able to enjoy the water/sunset/hot girls walking around in bikinis/etc. Instead, maybe they end up eating SPAM in their hotel room... tourist money lost (good for sales of SPAM though!). You would have to go to dinner by 4:30pm if you'd like to enjoy the sunset during your meal.... and you can argue that tourists should adjust their schedules if they want to enjoy that sunset during dinner, but if anything tourists are likely to sleep in longer during their week-long winter break and aren't thinking about going to dinner at 4:30pm when they are accustomed to eating at 6pm back home.
I take it you're not in Florida during winter all that often, are you?
^It's about what Floridians want. The Florida Senate nearly unanimously passed the Sunshine Protection Act, which would keep Daylight Saving time permanent in the state. There were only two dissenters in the Senate bill and the Florida House passed it by a vote of 103-11. In addition, public polls show tremendous support for getting rid of the time changes.
If that is what the people of Florida want, perhaps no one there will change their clocks next November. Then they will have achieved what they want without having to lift a finger.
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2018, 08:36:07 PM
What is the big deal about trying to eliminate the clock change? I find it to be a minor annoyance at best. It's also good for correcting the natural drift that clocks develop over time (my watch is usually a couple minutes off by the time change). Usually my brain has already begun to snap into the new time within a couple hours of changing the clocks. The hour variation is much less than the variation between when I get up during the week and on the weekend.
Changing the clocks twice a year is a sudden shock to people's routine. As one example, someone who drove home from work in daylight the Friday before the time change may now be driving home in pitch darkness the following Monday after the time change (even though they punch out at the same time). And millions of commuters are dealing with this same 'shock'. A lot of people don't like driving at night, and the Monday following a time change might be the first time they have driven at night in several months (and they are pretty much forced to do it if they have a job... good luck getting off early by saying you aren't comfortable driving at night). Those drivers who don't like driving at night are pretty much thrown into the DEEP end of the pool every year during the time change. Is it any wonder there is a spike in traffic crashes immediately following a time change?
Maybe there is a big benefit to staying on standard time during the winter months, but what is the compelling argument? To be fair, the time changes do remind us all to re-calibrate our wrist watches... but that isn't compelling enough to keep switching between standard time and DST.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 06, 2018, 03:19:42 PM
If that is what the people of Florida want, perhaps no one there will change their clocks next November. Then they will have achieved what they want without having to lift a finger.
Federal laws doesn't allow a state to remain on permanent DST year-round... it only allows a state to remain on standard time year-round. In order for Florida's Sunshine Protection Act to take effect, similar legislation must be passed through the US Congress and that is what Marco Rubio is trying to do now.
How are the politicians going to force the people to change their clocks in November?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 06, 2018, 03:51:40 PM
How are the politicians going to force the people to change their clocks in November?
There is a section in the Uniform Time Act of 1966 that addresses violations. I'm no legal expert but maybe someone here could decipher what would happen if a state like Florida refused to go back to standard time in November.
Quote(c) Violations; enforcement
For any violation of the provisions of this section the Secretary of Transportation or his duly authorized agent may apply to the district court of the United States for the district in which such violation occurs for the enforcement of this section; and such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce obedience thereto by writ of injunction or by other process, mandatory or otherwise, restraining against further violations of this section and enjoining obedience thereto.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-80/pdf/STATUTE-80-Pg107.pdf
Quote from: tradephoric on April 06, 2018, 03:26:50 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 06, 2018, 03:19:42 PM
If that is what the people of Florida want, perhaps no one there will change their clocks next November. Then they will have achieved what they want without having to lift a finger.
Federal laws doesn't allow a state to remain on permanent DST year-round... it only allows a state to remain on standard time year-round. In order for Florida's Sunshine Protection Act to take effect, similar legislation must be passed through the US Congress and that is what Marco Rubio is trying to do now.
Then why didn't they switch to Atlantic Standard Time?
Quote from: 1 on April 06, 2018, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 06, 2018, 03:26:50 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 06, 2018, 03:19:42 PM
If that is what the people of Florida want, perhaps no one there will change their clocks next November. Then they will have achieved what they want without having to lift a finger.
Federal laws doesn't allow a state to remain on permanent DST year-round... it only allows a state to remain on standard time year-round. In order for Florida's Sunshine Protection Act to take effect, similar legislation must be passed through the US Congress and that is what Marco Rubio is trying to do now.
Then why didn't they switch to Atlantic Standard Time?
Because that is also federal domain. Feds get to draw time zones and establish DST dates. States may choose not to observe DST at all, but not to observe that on different dates or move to a different time zone.
Legally correct way of doing things (as far as I understand) would be to petition secretary of transportation requesting to be moved to a different time zone, not to tweak DST..
Yep, it would take an act of Congress for a state to change time zones. The Secretary of Transportation would certainly deny Florida's request to change time zones seeing that the state is nowhere near the Atlantic Time Zone and all the surrounding states (North & East of Florida) are on Eastern Time.
Florida is going about it the right way... they just need to petition the U.S. Congress to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to allow permanent DST.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 06, 2018, 03:51:40 PM
How are the politicians going to force the people to change their clocks in November?
Some businesses have regulated minimum hours of business, banks for instance. Federally regulated transportation like railroads and airlines may need to go by legal local time in their state, not whatever the no-nothings want to set their clocks to. For individual people, no one would care if they want to set their time on Nepal Standard Time (EDT +9h 45m) if they want, though that would sort of defeat the purpose of having a clock.
Quote from: kkt on April 06, 2018, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 06, 2018, 03:51:40 PM
How are the politicians going to force the people to change their clocks in November?
Some businesses have regulated minimum hours of business, banks for instance. Federally regulated transportation like railroads and airlines may need to go by legal local time in their state, not whatever the no-nothings want to set their clocks to. For individual people, no one would care if they want to set their time on Nepal Standard Time (EDT +9h 45m) if they want, though that would sort of defeat the purpose of having a clock.
But what would happen if a CEO of a major Florida company based their hours on permanent DST? Short of confusing the hell out their customers, would there be any legal ramifications?
Quote from: tradephoric on April 06, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 06, 2018, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 06, 2018, 03:51:40 PM
How are the politicians going to force the people to change their clocks in November?
Some businesses have regulated minimum hours of business, banks for instance. Federally regulated transportation like railroads and airlines may need to go byhttps://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=2316631;topic=22229.400;last_msg=2316631 legal local time in their state, not whatever the no-nothings want to set their clocks to. For individual people, no one would care if they want to set their time on Nepal Standard Time (EDT +9h 45m) if they want, though that would sort of defeat the purpose of having a clock.
But what would happen if a CEO of a major Florida company based their hours on permanent DST? Short of confusing the hell out their customers, would there be any legal ramifications?
They can do that even without any clock movement. Make 7 AM-3PM default office hours, end of story.
Do we even know if the Uniform Time Act of 1966 is constitutional. Has there ever been a legal suit brought?
Dude. Just stop.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 06, 2018, 11:40:09 PM
Do we even know if the Uniform Time Act of 1966 is constitutional. Has there ever been a legal suit brought?
I think the interstate commerce clause would be a pretty ironclad justification for the Uniform Time Act.
Oregon lawmaker aims to make daylight saving time permanent
http://www.ktvz.com/news/oregon-lawmaker-aims-to-make-daylight-saving-time-permanent/715346420
Quote from: tradephoric on April 07, 2018, 11:30:29 AM
Oregon lawmaker aims to make daylight saving time permanent
http://www.ktvz.com/news/oregon-lawmaker-aims-to-make-daylight-saving-time-permanent/715346420
And splitting the Portland metro area?
Quote from: 1 on April 07, 2018, 11:43:58 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 07, 2018, 11:30:29 AM
Oregon lawmaker aims to make daylight saving time permanent
http://www.ktvz.com/news/oregon-lawmaker-aims-to-make-daylight-saving-time-permanent/715346420
And splitting the Portland metro area?
Quote"My office has been in contact with legislators in Washington and California, and we are enthusiastic about people not having to change their clocks again.
I'd be fine with this. I think more people would appreciate light in the evening than in the morning. As a 22 year old, I know I would. My grandparents? Not so much.
As discussed above, would our time zones change from Pacific to Mountain? Or Pacific DST? I think the former is the only thing allowed.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 06, 2018, 05:09:43 PM
Yep, it would take an act of Congress for a state to change time zones. The Secretary of Transportation would certainly deny Florida's request to change time zones seeing that the state is nowhere near the Atlantic Time Zone and all the surrounding states (North & East of Florida) are on Eastern Time.
"Hey Mitch, it's Marco."
"Hello Marco, how are you?"
"I'm fine, and yourself?"
"I'm good too, thanks for asking."
"Hey Mitch, I need a favor. I need you to tell your wife to approve Florida's request to change time zones. You know that big bill you're wanting passed? I was leaning against it, but if you will convince your wife to approve this request, I will support your bill and will sign on as a co-sponsor."
"Well, Marco, that sounds fair. I will talk to Elaine tonight. I'm sure she will see the validity in your request and you'll have no problems getting it approved. And I appreciate your support on our legislation. I was hoping there would be something we could do to get you on board."
"Thanks, Mitch, I really appreciate it. Sounds like a win-win for both of us."
"Yes it does, Marco. See you on the Senate floor tomorrow."
Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2018, 07:45:06 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 06, 2018, 05:09:43 PM
Yep, it would take an act of Congress for a state to change time zones. The Secretary of Transportation would certainly deny Florida's request to change time zones seeing that the state is nowhere near the Atlantic Time Zone and all the surrounding states (North & East of Florida) are on Eastern Time.
"Hey Mitch, it's Marco."
"Hello Marco, how are you?"
"I'm fine, and yourself?"
"I'm good too, thanks for asking."
"Hey Mitch, I need a favor. I need you to tell your wife to approve Florida's request to change time zones. You know that big bill you're wanting passed? I was leaning against it, but if you will convince your wife to approve this request, I will support your bill and will sign on as a co-sponsor."
"Well, Marco, that sounds fair. I will talk to Elaine tonight. I'm sure she will see the validity in your request and you'll have no problems getting it approved. And I appreciate your support on our legislation. I was hoping there would be something we could do to get you on board."
"Thanks, Mitch, I really appreciate it. Sounds like a win-win for both of us."
"Yes it does, Marco. See you on the Senate floor tomorrow."
But nobody in the state legislator is proposing that Florida switch time zones. Even if Marco lobbied for Florida to change time zones, it wouldn't accomplish what they are after. Yes, Florida wants later sunsets in the winter but they still want to be on the same time as NYC. That's why Florida's Sunshine Protection Act is contingent on Congress amending the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to allow permanent DST.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 09, 2018, 03:53:04 PM
Yes, Florida wants later sunsets in the winter...
It's worth mentioning that after year-round DST was enacted by Nixon on January 8, 1974, the NY Times published an article entitled "Schools Ask End to Daylight Time" on Jan. 31, 1974. The article stated that eight Florida school-aged children had been killed in accidents since daylight time was imposed, compared to just 2 during the same period a year ago. A spokesman for Florida's state education department said that six of the deaths "were clearly attributable to the fact that children were going off to school in darkness" . The article also mentions that meetings were set in Florida state legislature to consider switching to standard time.
I question why only data from Florida was cited in the NY Times article from 1974. Did other states potentially see a drop in the number of school-aged children killed in accidents since daylight time was imposed, compared to the same period a year ago? What about the lives potentially saved in Florida during the evening commute when it was much lighter out than the year prior? If 20 total lives were saved, but 6 school-aged children were killed... would that be seen as a net positive in reducing TOTAL fatalities? Hard questions to answer i guess...
I do know a 2004 study analyzed the effects of daylight and daylight saving time on US pedestrian fatalities and motor vehicle occupant fatalities. That study estimated that permanent DST would reduce pedestrian fatalities by 171 per year and reduce motor vehicle occupant fatalities by 195 per year.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457503000150
Quote from: tradephoric on April 09, 2018, 04:57:46 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 09, 2018, 03:53:04 PM
Yes, Florida wants later sunsets in the winter...
It’s worth mentioning that after year-round DST was enacted by Nixon on January 8, 1974, the NY Times published an article entitled “Schools Ask End to Daylight Time” on Jan. 31, 1974. The article stated that eight Florida school-aged children had been killed in accidents since daylight time was imposed, compared to just 2 during the same period a year ago. A spokesman for Florida’s state education department said that six of the deaths “were clearly attributable to the fact that children were going off to school in darkness”. The article also mentions that meetings were set in Florida state legislature to consider switching to standard time.
I question why only data from Florida was cited in the NY Times article from 1974. Did other states potentially see a drop in the number of school-aged children killed in accidents since daylight time was imposed, compared to the same period a year ago? What about the lives potentially saved in Florida during the evening commute when it was much lighter out than the year prior? If 20 total lives were saved, but 6 school-aged children were killed… would that be seen as a net positive in reducing TOTAL fatalities? Hard questions to answer i guess...
I do know a 2004 study analyzed the effects of daylight and daylight saving time on US pedestrian fatalities and motor vehicle occupant fatalities. That study estimated that permanent DST would reduce pedestrian fatalities by 171 per year and reduce motor vehicle occupant fatalities by 195 per year.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457503000150
I don't have a reference handy, but a pro-Central Time group in Indiana did a similar study recently on the increase of morning accidents involving school-aged children when the sunrise is after 7am local time.
There is no similar drop in afternoon accidents because even with earlier sunsets most, if not all, kids are already off buses by sunset.
Had to get an early start this morning and looking out over the Gulf of St. Lawrence....there was just a hint of light at 4:45 Atlantic Time. Sunrise was at 6:10 and Sunset will be at 8:05 this evening.
About 5:59 AM to 7:40 PM here by New Britain, CT today. (13 hours 41 minutes) :)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 23, 2018, 08:01:01 AM
About 5:59 AM to 7:40 PM here by New Britain, CT today. (13 hours 41 minutes) :)
Here's a cool tool (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/rochester) that shows the amount of daylight year-round in a given place. It also includes the variations of twilight, which is interesting. Only 6h39m of true "night" last night in Rochester, from 9:50 PM to 4:28 AM.
Today's daylight in Rochester lasts from 6:15 AM to 8:02 PM. And, for the record, no, I do not have the slightest inkling of a wish that it was 5:15 AM to 7:02 PM :-P
Quote from: webny99 on April 23, 2018, 12:26:09 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 23, 2018, 08:01:01 AM
About 5:59 AM to 7:40 PM here by New Britain, CT today. (13 hours 41 minutes) :)
Here's a cool tool (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/rochester) that shows the amount of daylight year-round in a given place. It also includes the variations of twilight, which is interesting. Only 6h39m of true "night" last night in Rochester, from 9:50 PM to 4:28 AM.
Today's daylight in Rochester lasts from 6:15 AM to 8:02 PM. And, for the record, no, I do not have the slightest inkling of a wish that it was 5:15 AM to 7:02 PM :-P
would you prefer it to be 7:15 AM to 9:02 PM ? Double daylight time may be an answer!
Actually as good of an idea as general daylight is. Make it fully crazy with "winter time", "summer time" and "equinox time"..
In order of my personal preference:
(1) As-is: 6:15 AM to 8:02 PM
(2) Double DST: 7:15 AM to :9:02 PM
(3) No DST: 5:15 AM to 7:02 PM
Not really a fan of either of the last two, so might as well leave it as-is. But may the debate continue - the fall time change is approaching :paranoid: :D
My preference would be to have my time zone and the timing of the beginning and end of DST to create the largest possible percentage of days where the sunrise is between 6 and 7.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:21:12 AM
My preference would be to have my time zone and the timing of the beginning and end of DST to create the largest possible percentage of days where the sunrise is between 6 and 7.
The problem isn't the time zone...it's where you live.
You need to move further south to have a lot more consistency. Orlando, Miami, even New Orleans will have sunrises mostly between 6 & 7. The further north you are, the greater variance you'll have.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:21:12 AM
My preference would be to have my time zone and the timing of the beginning and end of DST to create the largest possible percentage of days where the sunrise is between 6 and 7.
Bellingham, WA only gets 8 hours and 16 minutes of daylight during the winter solstice. I picked Bellingham because it has one of the most northern latitudes of any major city in the continental United States. If the times were adjusted so that the sun rose at 7AM, the sun would set in Bellingham at 3:16PM. As it is currently, the sun rises at 8AM and sets at 4:16PM. With perpetual daylight saving time, it would rise at 9AM and set at 5:16PM.
According to Skopos Labs, Senate Bill S. 2537: Sunshine Protection Act of 2018 has a 13% chance of passing. This is a bill that would make Daylight Saving Time permanent throughout the country.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2537/summary
If it passes, I'd bet folding money it would be repealed within a year. I personally like the idea because I hate when it gets dark at 5, but I sense great opposition to it.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 24, 2018, 10:33:33 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:21:12 AM
My preference would be to have my time zone and the timing of the beginning and end of DST to create the largest possible percentage of days where the sunrise is between 6 and 7.
Bellingham, WA only gets 8 hours and 16 minutes of daylight during the winter solstice. I picked Bellingham because it has one of the most northern latitudes of any major city in the continental United States. If the times were adjusted so that the sun rose at 7AM, the sun would set in Bellingham at 3:16PM. As it is currently, the sun rises at 8AM and sets at 4:16PM. With perpetual daylight saving time, it would rise at 9AM and set at 5:16PM.
Note that I said largest possible percentage. If the time zone was adjusted so that the sun rose at 7am on the winter solstice, that would push a lot of summer sunrises before 6am. The farther north you are, the larger the variance in your daylight times, and the smaller that 'largest possible percentage' becomes.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 12:32:24 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 24, 2018, 10:33:33 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:21:12 AM
My preference would be to have my time zone and the timing of the beginning and end of DST to create the largest possible percentage of days where the sunrise is between 6 and 7.
Bellingham, WA only gets 8 hours and 16 minutes of daylight during the winter solstice. I picked Bellingham because it has one of the most northern latitudes of any major city in the continental United States. If the times were adjusted so that the sun rose at 7AM, the sun would set in Bellingham at 3:16PM. As it is currently, the sun rises at 8AM and sets at 4:16PM. With perpetual daylight saving time, it would rise at 9AM and set at 5:16PM.
Note that I said largest possible percentage. If the time zone was adjusted so that the sun rose at 7am on the winter solstice, that would push a lot of summer sunrises before 6am. The farther north you are, the larger the variance in your daylight times, and the smaller that 'largest possible percentage' becomes.
If the time zone was adjusted so that the sun rose at 7am on the winter solstice, this
would result in the maximum number of days with sunrise between 6 AM and 7 AM. The closer it is to the solstice, the less difference from day to day.
I wish my time zone would be adjusted so that we wouldn't have the same debate about this posted twice a year. . .
I'm not about to go thru the pages to test this theory, but I wonder if most of the people here upset and/or wanting DST changed live further north where they're more affected by it.
Everyone, except those in two states, is affected because the clocks have to be changed twice a year with DST.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2018, 08:24:43 AM
I'm not about to go thru the pages to test this theory, but I wonder if most of the people here upset and/or wanting DST changed live further north where they're more affected by it.
Eh, I've lived most of my life further north (north of the 45th parallel, although now I don't), and I hate DST. Not because of when it puts sunrise and sunset (or because of what time those things are when it isn't in effect), but because I have to change my clock and adjust my daily routine twice a year.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2018, 07:41:44 AM
I wish my time zone would be adjusted so that we wouldn't have the same debate about this posted twice a year. . .
Actually, I've been trying to keep the thread active to remind people that it exists. That way, we can use this thread come fall instead of someone starting a new one :-P
Regarding the northern latitudes, I consider Upstate NY to be a northern latitude (relative to most of the US). Despite this, I have no real problems with DST as it exists now. We still have long evenings in the summer and short evenings in the winter... but no matter how big your annual daylight swing is, it still comes down to whether you want the daylight in the morning or the evening. DST works as a happy-medium, and eliminating it (or doubling it) would be by far inferior options.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 25, 2018, 08:40:39 AM
Everyone, except those in two states, is affected because the clocks have to be changed twice a year with DST.
Depends on how one is 'affected'. Taking the most recent sub-discussion, revolving around consistent sunrises, someone in Florida will be less affected than someone in Maine. That's what I'm getting at. If we're talking about the effect of changing clocks twice a year, then we might as well have a whole thread about power outages when we need to go around resetting clocks when the power returns.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2018, 08:24:43 AM
I'm not about to go thru the pages to test this theory, but I wonder if most of the people here upset and/or wanting DST changed live further north where they're more affected by it.
My own theory is that people who live south of about 35 degrees north don't feel much benefit from DST because their day length doesn't change as much, so they object more strongly to changing their clocks.
People north of 35 also dislike changing their clocks, but they feel the benefit of changing more.
(And people in non-panhandle Alaska have such extreme variation that nothing is going help them get sunrise around the right time of day, so they might as well not bother with the time change if it weren't for a consistent time difference to other places in the world.)
Quote from: webny99 on April 25, 2018, 09:21:07 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2018, 07:41:44 AM
I wish my time zone would be adjusted so that we wouldn't have the same debate about this posted twice a year. . .
Actually, I've been trying to keep the thread active to remind people that it exists. That way, we can use this thread come fall instead of someone starting a new one :-P
Yeah, it will be great. Everyone will post the exact same things they did in the last 17 pages. There will be one important difference, which is that the dates on each post will start with "2018-10-" instead of "2018-04-".
Then stay tuned for another 17 pages of the exact same arguments, with post dates beginning "2019-03-"!
In the summary of Senate Bill S. 2537, it discusses how Russia went back to standard time in 2014 after switching to permanent DST in 2011.
QuoteRussia switched to permanent DST in 2011, but reversed themselves in 2014due primarily to the unpopularity of such late sunrises during the winter – with most of the country's populace waking up, getting ready, and commuting to work in complete darkness.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2537/summary
One important note though... the solar noon in many Russian cities running standard time is still later than what solar noon would be in North America cities running permanent DST. In another post, I had mentioned that many regions in the world are in the wrong time-zone if you are basing it strictly on longitude. Many countries seem to favor to push back their solar noon to later in the day, by having their time-zones intrude into western time-zone neighbors. For whatever reason, America doesn't push their time-zones to intrude much into their western time-zone neighbor. So essentially, permanent DST in America would act much the same way that standard time does in the rest of the world. Consider Valverde del Fresno, Spain... the sun doesn't set till 10PM during the summer solstice. You can't find that late of a sunset in America along the same latitude... for example Lafayette, Indiana is on the extreme western edge of the Eastern Time Zone and has the same latitude as Valverde del Fresno.... the sun sets there at 9:20PM... a full 40 minutes earlier.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 26, 2018, 03:50:10 PM
Consider Valverde del Fresno, Spain... the sun doesn't set till 10PM during the summer solstice. You can't find that late of a sunset in America along the same latitude... for example Lafayette, Indiana is on the extreme western edge of the Eastern Time Zone and has the same latitude as Valverde del Fresno.... the sun sets there at 9:20PM... a full 40 minutes earlier.
Madrid, Spain is west of Greenwich, England. Spain should really share the same time as England. It's just kind of funny to me that London is on Greenwich Mean Time, yet no other countries want to join them. Even the UK abandons GMT in the summer during their Daylight Saving Time. Short of a few countries in Africa and Iceland, no countries are on GMT permanently.
I'd hardly call it "the rest of the world". In North America, just about everything is somewhat close, with the exceptions of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Cancún (which switched to permanent DST), most of Alaska, the Yukon, and part of the Northwest Territories. Iceland and part of Greenland seem to be on permanent DST. Most of South America is somewhat close, with the exceptions of Uruguay, Chile (two hours ahead of where they should be by longitude (!)), and Argentina. Europe was just about perfect until World War II (when France and Spain switched to CET; Belarus has since switched to MSK for political reasons). Most of south and east Asia are just about perfect sans China; ditto for Australia and New Zealand. The Middle East is pretty good too. Same for Africa with the exceptions of Libya, Namibia, and some countries in West Africa.
Russia is interesting because their time zones already seem to be one hour ahead for the most part; I didn't realize they were no longer on permanent DST. That must have been like double DST!
Quote from: vdeane on April 26, 2018, 08:09:57 PM
Russia is interesting because their time zones already seem to be one hour ahead for the most part; I didn't realize they were no longer on permanent DST. That must have been like double DST!
Yeah, it really was like double DST for Russia when it went to permanent DST in 2011. During the winter solstice the sun rose at 10:51 AM and set at 6:01 PM in Novosibirsk (the 3rd most populous city in Russia). Now that it's back to standard time, the sun rises at an early 9:51 AM :-D
Edmonton, Alberta is about the same latitude as Novosibirsk, Russia. Running standard time during the winter solstice, the sun rises in Edmonton at 8:48 AM and sets at 4:16 PM. If permanent DST was enacted, Edmonton would pretty much have the same sunrise/sunset times as Novosibirsk (ie. North American permanent DST would mimic Russian Standard time).
Quote from: tradephoric on April 26, 2018, 04:27:24 PMIt's just kind of funny to me that London is on Greenwich Mean Time, yet no other countries want to join them. Even the UK abandons GMT in the summer during their Daylight Saving Time. Short of a few countries in Africa and Iceland, no countries are on GMT permanently.
Portugal and Ireland are on GMT in winter, but - like the UK currently - have to do DST per EU regulations so, even if they wanted to (they don't), ditching DST won't happen. And Morocco makes 4. The 'few' (ie 12) African countries, Iceland and a couple of other places, have a higher population those 4 countries that use WET with DST (plus the Faeroes, Jersey, Guernsey, Man, Canary Islands that are on the same time).
Also, there are only 8 countries on the meridian. UK, France, Spain, Algeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, Togo, Ghana. The three European countries use DST (a majority don't) and three countries use CET (France, Spain, Algeria). So half the countries on the Meridian are on the base UTC+0 year round.
Spain and France have big movements to ditch Berlin Time - which was imposed on them by fascists (and in a very literal sense!). For Spain, it's very much a health and productivity issue - the whole country is sleep deprived and get nearly an hour less sleep than the EU average (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/22/spaniards-sleep-time-zone-spain).
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 12:36:31 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 12:32:24 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 24, 2018, 10:33:33 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:21:12 AM
My preference would be to have my time zone and the timing of the beginning and end of DST to create the largest possible percentage of days where the sunrise is between 6 and 7.
Bellingham, WA only gets 8 hours and 16 minutes of daylight during the winter solstice. I picked Bellingham because it has one of the most northern latitudes of any major city in the continental United States. If the times were adjusted so that the sun rose at 7AM, the sun would set in Bellingham at 3:16PM. As it is currently, the sun rises at 8AM and sets at 4:16PM. With perpetual daylight saving time, it would rise at 9AM and set at 5:16PM.
Note that I said largest possible percentage. If the time zone was adjusted so that the sun rose at 7am on the winter solstice, that would push a lot of summer sunrises before 6am. The farther north you are, the larger the variance in your daylight times, and the smaller that 'largest possible percentage' becomes.
If the time zone was adjusted so that the sun rose at 7am on the winter solstice, this would result in the maximum number of days with sunrise between 6 AM and 7 AM. The closer it is to the solstice, the less difference from day to day.
I wonder if you could define no-time-change-based time-zones by turning it into an optimization problem, using two co-equal rules:
Minimize the amount of darkness (time before civil dawn) occurring after 6:30am throughout the year
Minimize the amount of daylight (time after sunrise) occurring before 5:30am throughout the year
...and then tweak as needed to recognize areas with economic connections, the perceived need to be on even-hour offsets from UTC, etc.
This is an intriguing enough problem that I might have to tackle it the next time I have a free weekend (like that'll ever happen...)
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 27, 2018, 12:11:37 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 12:36:31 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 12:32:24 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 24, 2018, 10:33:33 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:21:12 AM
My preference would be to have my time zone and the timing of the beginning and end of DST to create the largest possible percentage of days where the sunrise is between 6 and 7.
Bellingham, WA only gets 8 hours and 16 minutes of daylight during the winter solstice. I picked Bellingham because it has one of the most northern latitudes of any major city in the continental United States. If the times were adjusted so that the sun rose at 7AM, the sun would set in Bellingham at 3:16PM. As it is currently, the sun rises at 8AM and sets at 4:16PM. With perpetual daylight saving time, it would rise at 9AM and set at 5:16PM.
Note that I said largest possible percentage. If the time zone was adjusted so that the sun rose at 7am on the winter solstice, that would push a lot of summer sunrises before 6am. The farther north you are, the larger the variance in your daylight times, and the smaller that 'largest possible percentage' becomes.
If the time zone was adjusted so that the sun rose at 7am on the winter solstice, this would result in the maximum number of days with sunrise between 6 AM and 7 AM. The closer it is to the solstice, the less difference from day to day.
I wonder if you could define no-time-change-based time-zones by turning it into an optimization problem, using two co-equal rules:
Minimize the amount of darkness (time before civil dawn) occurring after 6:30am throughout the year
Minimize the amount of daylight (time after sunrise) occurring before 5:30am throughout the year
...and then tweak as needed to recognize areas with economic connections, the perceived need to be on even-hour offsets from UTC, etc.
This is an intriguing enough problem that I might have to tackle it the next time I have a free weekend (like that'll ever happen...)
And maintaining 1 hour granularity?
THat is what placing area into it straight time zone would do. No big optimization required.
Quote from: kalvado on April 27, 2018, 12:30:55 PM
And maintaining 1 hour granularity?
THat is what placing area into it straight time zone would do. No big optimization required.
Let me re-frame the problem:
Question: What time zone should a particular place observe?
Criteria:
1. No DST (the reason threads like this get started every spring and fall).
2. Time zone must be expressed as a whole-hour difference from UTC, for simplicity.
3. Within those two constraints, the indicated local time zone shall be selected as to minimize the sum of:
a. Total time before civil dawn occurring after 6:30am through the year
b. Total time after sunrise occurring before 5:30am through the year
4. The selected time zone may deviate from the indicated time zone to keep economically linked areas (CMSAs? TV markets?) on the same time zone.
The result will still probably be 4-5 time zones for the continental US...but the borders will be a little different.
I don't actually know what it would look like on a map. That's part of why I'd love to take a weekend, play with the data, and see what happens.
BTW, before someone asks:
-- the use of dawn and sunrise in 3a/3b is intentional. I'm trying to hypothesize criteria that allow for some ability to accommodate differences in latitude.
-- I'm not wedded to those specific times. Frankly, I personally don't care since my daily schedule is linked more to sunrise than the clock, but I'm trying to recognize the two big complaints that always come up in time zone/DST discussions: "I don't like kids going to school / getting ready for work in the dark" and "I'd rather have daylight after normal work hours than before". I'm open to suggestions for alternatives.
This kind of exercise could also be used to describe when an optimal change between standard and daylight saving time ought to occur...but I won't go there since the time changes annoy me. :)
I wish I weren't running late on something for work. This would be a kind of cool/fun programming/mapping weekend project.
^^^
As long as your time zone boundaries keep my part of Kentucky in the easternmost time zone in the US, I'll be glad.
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate Central time? :bigass:
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 27, 2018, 01:05:04 PM
Let me re-frame the problem:
Question: What time zone should a particular place observe?
Criteria:
1. No DST (the reason threads like this get started every spring and fall).
2. Time zone must be expressed as a whole-hour difference from UTC, for simplicity.
3. Within those two constraints, the indicated local time zone shall be selected as to minimize the sum of:
a. Total time before civil dawn occurring after 6:30am through the year
b. Total time after sunrise occurring before 5:30am through the year
4. The selected time zone may deviate from the indicated time zone to keep economically linked areas (CMSAs? TV markets?) on the same time zone.
The result will still probably be 4-5 time zones for the continental US...but the borders will be a little different.
I don't actually know what it would look like on a map. That's part of why I'd love to take a weekend, play with the data, and see what happens.
BTW, before someone asks:
-- the use of dawn and sunrise in 3a/3b is intentional. I'm trying to hypothesize criteria that allow for some ability to accommodate differences in latitude.
-- I'm not wedded to those specific times. Frankly, I personally don't care since my daily schedule is linked more to sunrise than the clock, but I'm trying to recognize the two big complaints that always come up in time zone/DST discussions: "I don't like kids going to school / getting ready for work in the dark" and "I'd rather have daylight after normal work hours than before". I'm open to suggestions for alternatives.
This kind of exercise could also be used to describe when an optimal change between standard and daylight saving time ought to occur...but I won't go there since the time changes annoy me. :)
I wish I weren't running late on something for work. This would be a kind of cool/fun programming/mapping weekend project.
I'm also curious to see how that would look worldwide. Too bad I'm not quite sure of the easiest way to do it. It sounds really interesting.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 27, 2018, 01:22:08 PMHave I mentioned lately how much I hate Central time? :bigass:
But Central Time is God's Time! Weekend afternoon sports naturally roll into primetime, and Carson's...er, Letterman's...er, Colbert's monologue wraps up at a reasonable bedtime, just as God intended. :bigass:
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 27, 2018, 01:05:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 27, 2018, 12:30:55 PM
And maintaining 1 hour granularity?
THat is what placing area into it straight time zone would do. No big optimization required.
Let me re-frame the problem:
Question: What time zone should a particular place observe?
Criteria:
1. No DST (the reason threads like this get started every spring and fall).
2. Time zone must be expressed as a whole-hour difference from UTC, for simplicity.
3. Within those two constraints, the indicated local time zone shall be selected as to minimize the sum of:
a. Total time before civil dawn occurring after 6:30am through the year
b. Total time after sunrise occurring before 5:30am through the year
4. The selected time zone may deviate from the indicated time zone to keep economically linked areas (CMSAs? TV markets?) on the same time zone.
The result will still probably be 4-5 time zones for the continental US...but the borders will be a little different.
I don't actually know what it would look like on a map. That's part of why I'd love to take a weekend, play with the data, and see what happens.
BTW, before someone asks:
-- the use of dawn and sunrise in 3a/3b is intentional. I'm trying to hypothesize criteria that allow for some ability to accommodate differences in latitude.
-- I'm not wedded to those specific times. Frankly, I personally don't care since my daily schedule is linked more to sunrise than the clock, but I'm trying to recognize the two big complaints that always come up in time zone/DST discussions: "I don't like kids going to school / getting ready for work in the dark" and "I'd rather have daylight after normal work hours than before". I'm open to suggestions for alternatives.
This kind of exercise could also be used to describe when an optimal change between standard and daylight saving time ought to occur...but I won't go there since the time changes annoy me. :)
I wish I weren't running late on something for work. This would be a kind of cool/fun programming/mapping weekend project.
Keep it simple. You basically require sunrise at equinox to be at 6 AM, that minimizes your unwanted hours. That means putting noon as close to 11.59 AM as practical - that is, observing as-drawn time zone of closest (15 deg)*x meridian.
Some shift may occur since you define sunrise in 2 slightly different ways in (3)(a) and (3)(b), something like optimal noon at 12.15 PM - but that would be totally absorbed by (4).
Quote from: kalvado on April 27, 2018, 01:53:08 PMKeep it simple. You basically require sunrise at equinox to be at 6 AM, that minimizes your unwanted hours. That means putting noon as close to 11.59 AM as practical - that is, observing as-drawn time zone of closest (15 deg)*x meridian.
Some shift may occur since you define sunrise in 2 slightly different ways in (3)(a) and (3)(b), something like optimal noon at 12.15 PM - but that would be totally absorbed by (4).
The difference in 3(a) and 3(b) should add a little bit of a longitudinal adjustment to it...but admittedly not a huge one at least as regards to CONUS.
I was also toying around with some alternative criteria...which would justify the fun of building a nifty macro-driven spreadsheet or bit of R code. It wouldn't be as much fun if it were simplified. :)
Suncalc.org is a great resource. Click on any point in the world map and it will show sunrise, sunset, dusk, dawn, and sun duration times for that location. It will also show what timezone the location is in and will tell you if it's on DST or not if you expand on "geodata for the selected location". It also gives you sun paths and shadow lengths and solar eclipse info if you are interested.
https://www.suncalc.org/#/40.3549,-3.5815,5/2017.06.21/15:37/1/0
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 27, 2018, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 27, 2018, 01:53:08 PMKeep it simple. You basically require sunrise at equinox to be at 6 AM, that minimizes your unwanted hours. That means putting noon as close to 11.59 AM as practical - that is, observing as-drawn time zone of closest (15 deg)*x meridian.
Some shift may occur since you define sunrise in 2 slightly different ways in (3)(a) and (3)(b), something like optimal noon at 12.15 PM - but that would be totally absorbed by (4).
The difference in 3(a) and 3(b) should add a little bit of a longitudinal adjustment to it...but admittedly not a huge one at least as regards to CONUS.
I was also toying around with some alternative criteria...which would justify the fun of building a nifty macro-driven spreadsheet or bit of R code. It wouldn't be as much fun if it were simplified. :)
Well, here are some possibilities
(weight 10) minimum of darkness after 8.30 AM
(weight 1) minimum of darkness after 7.30 or 8 AM
(weight 0.5) minimum of darkness after 6.30 AM
(weight 1) minimum of sunlight before 5 AM
(weight 2) minimum of darkness before 5 PM
(weight 0.2) minimum of darkness before 6.30 PM
(weight 0.2) minimum of sunlight after 10 PM
Alternatively, just use t^2 as a weight factor for unwanted lighting conditions.
But everything will eventually boil down to "what is acceptable morning span"
MikeTheActuary expresses the formula better than anyone else has.
As to CT vs ET or whatever. I don't care that much. I work a day job and that is not going to change. My child is grown and does not catch a school bus. I'm really not that much of an outdoor person. The only real difference in time zones comes down to TV and TV sports.
If you live in ET or PT, "prime time" is 8-11 and Carson's pale imitators are 11:35. If you live in CT or MT, then it is 7-10 and 10:35. Both have their advantages. There is something to being unrushed which ET gives you, but there is also something to being able to finish prime time and start the later shows w/o giving up 8 hours.
Sports are an issue. It is great to get out west and see sports on weekdays in the early afternoon and on weekends to have games as early as 9 AM
Quote from: kalvado on April 27, 2018, 02:24:48 PMWell, here are some possibilities
(weight 10) minimum of darkness after 8.30 AM
(weight 1) minimum of darkness after 7.30 or 8 AM
(weight 0.5) minimum of darkness after 6.30 AM
(weight 1) minimum of sunlight before 5 AM
(weight 2) minimum of darkness before 5 PM
(weight 0.2) minimum of darkness before 6.30 PM
(weight 0.2) minimum of sunlight after 10 PM
Alternatively, just use t^2 as a weight factor for unwanted lighting conditions.
But everything will eventually boil down to "what is acceptable morning span"
True.
Or.... another set of critieria could be to maximize the number of hours that are "correct", say along these lines:
(using 24 hour times)
0030 = night
0130 = night
0230 = night
0330 = night
0430 = night
0530 = night or twilight
0630 = twilight or daylight
0730 = daylight
...
1630 = daylight
1730 = daylight or twilight
1830 = daylight or twilight
1930 = daylight or twilight
2030 = daylight or twilight or night
2130 = twilight or night
2230 = night
2330 = night
Perhaps give double- or triple-weight to the critical hours of morning commute and after-school+evening commute....
I think the end product with these criteria would end up looking like the 15° "ideal" zones shifted a bit to the west.
Oh yeah; this is SO going to the top of the "fun geek project when I have the time" pile. :D
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 27, 2018, 02:45:33 PM
I think the end product with these criteria would end up looking like the 15° "ideal" zones shifted a bit to the west.
Oh yeah; this is SO going to the top of the "fun geek project when I have the time" pile. :D
Probably slightly bent bands compared to traditional north-south bands - to accommodate for more morning sunlight in shorter winter days
Thanks to some handy sunrise/sunset calculation functions I had tucked away, I now have a spreadsheet built that can be used to tackle the optimization I described in my last post.
I added weight to morning commute / afternoon / evening from what I detailed earlier.
I defined points and "ideal" lightness/darkness as follows:
0030, 0130, 0230, 0330, 0430 should be Night
0530 should be Night or Twilight
0600, 0630, 0645 should be Twilight or Day
0700, 0715, 0730, 0745, 0800, 0830 .... 1530, 1630 should be Day
1700, 1730, 1800, 1830, 1900, 1930, 20,00 should be Day or Twilight
2030 should be Day, Twilight, or Night
2130 should be Twilight or Night
2230, 2300 should be Night
I calculate the status of each of those points for each day of the year. I give one point for each point, each day.
My objective is to maximize the number of points a time zone selection yields.
Here's what I get for a handful of cities (with a caveat that the Excel VBA function I'm using for sunrise/sunset isn't perfect):
City: TimeZone [June sunrise/sunset] [December sunrise/sunset]
St. John's NF: UTC-3 [6/21:0433/2032] [12/21:0816/1642]
Bangor, Maine: UTC-4 [6/21:0449/2024] [12/21:0809/1657]
Washington, DC: UTC-5 [6/21:0443/1937] [12/21:0723/1649]
Toronto, ON: UTC-5 [6/21:0436/2003] [12/21:0748/1643]
Miami, FL: UTC-4 [6/21:0630/2015] [12/21:0803/1835]
Atlanta, GA: UTC-5 [6/21:0528/1952] [12/21:0739/1733]
Indianapolis, IN: UTC-5 [6/21:0517/2016] [12/21:0802/1724]
Thunder Bay, ON: UTC-5 [6/21:0456/2102] [12/21:0846/1705]
Memphis, TN: UTC-6 [6/21:0446/1918] [12/21:0705/1652]
New Orleans, LA: UTC-6 [6/21:0500/1904] [12/21:0652/1705]
Dallas, TX: UTC-6 [6/21:0520/1939] [12/21:0726/1725]
Odessa, TX: UTC-6 [6/21:0545/1958] [12/21:0746/1750]
Denver, CO: UTC-6 [6/21:0532/2031] [12/21:0817/1739]
Saskatoon, SK: UTC-6 [6/21:0446/2132] [12/21:0913/1656]
Salt Lake City, UT: UTC-7 [6/21:0456/2002] [12/21:0749/1703]
Phoenix, AZ: UTC-7 [6/21:0519/1942] [12/21:0729/1725]
Edmonton, AB: UTC-7 [6/21:0404/2107] [12/21:0848/1616]
Los Angeles, CA: UTC-7 [6/21:0542/2008] [12/21:0755/1748]
Seattle, WA: UTC-7 [6/21:0512/2111] [12/21:0855/1721]
San Francisco, CA: UTC-8 [6/21:0448/1935] [12/21:0722/1654]
Anchorage, AK: UTC-9 [6/21:0320/2243] [12/21:1014/1542]
Honolulu HI: UTC-10 [6/21:0551/1916] [12/21:0705/1755]
I think I might need to give a bit more weight to the morning criteria.
I know this will probably get buried, but as someone who goes to bed pretty early (21:00 or just after), I see no point in gratuitous evening daylight and thus favour standard time, which for my location is GMT-6. That would make our June daylight roughly 4:00-19:40 and December 7:25-16:15, and it would eliminate late-evening sleep problems, problems associated with changing the clock, and the oddity of the latest sunrise being in early November.
I played with my algorithm a bit more, aiming for results that, for places on the whole multiples of 15° longitude, the result (before rounding) would be a half-hour later than standard time (a logical compromise for ST and DST), and that at high latitudes things wouldn't get too screwy.
New algorithm:
For each day of the year, for each of the following time points, award the following points:
0030, 0130, 0230, 0330, 0430: 10 points if night
0530: 4 points if night, 4 points if twilight, 2 points if day
0600: 3-1/3 points regardless
0630: 2 points if night, 4 points if twilight, 4 points if day
0645, 0700: 5 points if twilight, 5 points if day
0715: 4 points if twilight, 6 points if day
0730: 2 points if twilight, 8 points if day
0745, 0800, 0830 [and every xx30 until] 1630, 1700: 10 points if day
1730: 1 point if twilight, 9 points if day
1800: 3 points if twilight, 7 points if day
1830: 4 points if twilight, 6 points if day
1900: 1 point if night, 4 points if twilight, 5 points if day
1930: 2 points if night, 4 points if twilight, 4 points if day
2000: 3-1/3 points
2030: 4 points if night, 4 points if twilight, 2 points if day
2130, 2230, 2330: 10 points if night
...which seems to do a pretty good job of balancing "commute in some light", "'extra' daylight in evening in the summer" (sorry former RandomDude!), and "no time change".
If some of the weightings seem a little odd...well, there was trial and error at work. :)
I ran it through the same selection of cities, and quickly observed something: if you don't want an indicated time-zone boundary running through the Northeast Corridor, the "whole hour offsets from UTC" has to be relaxed.
So, here's what my spreadsheet is putting out now (again with the caveat that the sunrise/sunset calculations are imperfect):
St. John's NF: UTC-3.5 [6/21:0403/2002] [12/21:0746/1612] (Current = [6/21: 0503/2102] [12/21: 0746/1612])
Bangor, Maine: UTC-4.5 [6/21:0419/1955] [12/21:0740/1627] (Current = [6/21: 0449/2025] [12/21: 0710/1557])
Washington, DC: UTC-4.5 [6/21:0513/2007] [12/21:0753/1720] (Current = [6/21: 0543/2037] [12/21: 0723/1649])
Toronto, ON: UTC-5.5 [6/21:0406/1933] [12/21:0718/1613] (Current = [6/21: 0536/2103] [12/21: 0748/1643])
Miami, FL: UTC-4.5 [6/21:0600/1945] [12/21:0733/1805] (Current = [6/21: 0630/2015] [12/21: 0703/1735])
Atlanta, GA: UTC-5.5 [6/21:0457/1922] [12/21:0709/1703] (Current = [6/21: 0628/2052] [12/21: 0739/1733])
Indianapolis, IN: UTC-5.5 [6/21:0447/1946] [12/21:0733/1653] (Current = [6/21: 0617/2116] [12/21: 0802/1724])
Thunder Bay, ON: UTC-5.5 [6/21:0425/2032] [12/21:0816/1634] (Current = [6/21: 0456/2102] [12/21: 0746/1605])
Memphis, TN: UTC-5.5 [6/21:0516/1948] [12/21:0735/1722] (Current = [6/21: 0546/2018] [12/21: 0705/1652])
New Orleans, LA: UTC-5.5 [6/21:0530/1935] [12/21:0722/1735] (Current = [6/21: 0600/2004] [12/21: 0652/1705])
Dallas, TX: UTC-5.5 [6/21:0550/2008] [12/21:0756/1755] (Current = [6/21: 0620/2039] [12/21: 0726/1725])
Odessa, TX: UTC-6.5 [6/21:0515/1929] [12/21:0716/1720] (Current = [6/21: 0645/2058] [12/21: 0746/1750])
Denver, CO: UTC-6.5 [6/21:0502/2001] [12/21:0748/1709] (Current = [6/21: 0532/2032] [12/21: 0718/1639])
Saskatoon, SK: UTC-6.5 [6/21:0415/2101] [12/21:0843/1626] (Current = [6/21: 0446/2132] [12/21: 0913/1656])
Salt Lake City, UT: UTC-6.5 [6/21:0527/2032] [12/21:0818/1734] (Current = [6/21: 0556/2102] [12/21: 0749/1703])
Phoenix, AZ: UTC-6.5 [6/21:0549/2011] [12/21:0758/1755] (Current = [6/21: 0519/1942] [12/21: 0729/1725])
Edmonton, AB: UTC-6.5 [6/21:0434/2138] [12/21:0919/1646] (Current = [6/21: 0504/2207] [12/21: 0848/1616])
Los Angeles, CA: UTC-7.5 [6/21:0512/1938] [12/21:0725/1718] (Current = [6/21: 0542/2008] [12/21: 0655/1648])
Seattle, WA: UTC-7.5 [6/21:0441/2041] [12/21:0825/1650] (Current = [6/21: 0511/2111] [12/21: 0755/1620])
San Francisco, CA: UTC-7.5 [6/21:0518/2005] [12/21:0752/1725] (Current = [6/21: 0548/2035] [12/21: 0722/1654])
Anchorage, AK: UTC-8.5 [6/21:0350/2313] [12/21:1044/1611] (Current = [6/21: 0420/2343] [12/21: 1014/1542])
Honolulu HI: UTC-9.5 [6/21:0620/1947] [12/21:0735/1825] (Current = [6/21: 0551/1916] [12/21: 0705/1755])
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 28, 2018, 02:14:02 AM
Thanks to some handy sunrise/sunset calculation functions I had tucked away, I now have a spreadsheet built that can be used to tackle the optimization I described in my last post.
I added weight to morning commute / afternoon / evening from what I detailed earlier.
I defined points and "ideal" lightness/darkness as follows:
0030, 0130, 0230, 0330, 0430 should be Night
0530 should be Night or Twilight
0600, 0630, 0645 should be Twilight or Day
0700, 0715, 0730, 0745, 0800, 0830 .... 1530, 1630 should be Day
1700, 1730, 1800, 1830, 1900, 1930, 20,00 should be Day or Twilight
2030 should be Day, Twilight, or Night
2130 should be Twilight or Night
2230, 2300 should be Night
I calculate the status of each of those points for each day of the year. I give one point for each point, each day.
My objective is to maximize the number of points a time zone selection yields.
Here's what I get for a handful of cities (with a caveat that the Excel VBA function I'm using for sunrise/sunset isn't perfect):
City: TimeZone [June sunrise/sunset] [December sunrise/sunset]
St. John's NF: UTC-3 [6/21:0433/2032] [12/21:0816/1642]
Bangor, Maine: UTC-4 [6/21:0449/2024] [12/21:0809/1657]
Washington, DC: UTC-5 [6/21:0443/1937] [12/21:0723/1649]
Toronto, ON: UTC-5 [6/21:0436/2003] [12/21:0748/1643]
Miami, FL: UTC-4 [6/21:0630/2015] [12/21:0803/1835]
Atlanta, GA: UTC-5 [6/21:0528/1952] [12/21:0739/1733]
Indianapolis, IN: UTC-5 [6/21:0517/2016] [12/21:0802/1724]
Thunder Bay, ON: UTC-5 [6/21:0456/2102] [12/21:0846/1705]
Memphis, TN: UTC-6 [6/21:0446/1918] [12/21:0705/1652]
New Orleans, LA: UTC-6 [6/21:0500/1904] [12/21:0652/1705]
Dallas, TX: UTC-6 [6/21:0520/1939] [12/21:0726/1725]
Odessa, TX: UTC-6 [6/21:0545/1958] [12/21:0746/1750]
Denver, CO: UTC-6 [6/21:0532/2031] [12/21:0817/1739]
Saskatoon, SK: UTC-6 [6/21:0446/2132] [12/21:0913/1656]
Salt Lake City, UT: UTC-7 [6/21:0456/2002] [12/21:0749/1703]
Phoenix, AZ: UTC-7 [6/21:0519/1942] [12/21:0729/1725]
Edmonton, AB: UTC-7 [6/21:0404/2107] [12/21:0848/1616]
Los Angeles, CA: UTC-7 [6/21:0542/2008] [12/21:0755/1748]
Seattle, WA: UTC-7 [6/21:0512/2111] [12/21:0855/1721]
San Francisco, CA: UTC-8 [6/21:0448/1935] [12/21:0722/1654]
Anchorage, AK: UTC-9 [6/21:0320/2243] [12/21:1014/1542]
Honolulu HI: UTC-10 [6/21:0551/1916] [12/21:0705/1755]
I think I might need to give a bit more weight to the morning criteria.
This is amazing work. Thank you.
If I had to make adjustments to this, I would put in a grand rule of whole number hours from UTC only
and winter solstice sunrise between 0700 and 0759 [excluding Alaska], which would do the following to your list:
Cities listed in absolute order of sunrise, from UTC, on the winter solstice:
ATL STD TIME
St. John's NF: UTC-4 [6/21:0333/1932] [12/21:0716/1542]
EST
Miami, FL: UTC-5 [6/21:0530/1915] [12/21:0703/1735]
Bangor, Maine: UTC-5 [6/21:0349/1924] [12/21:0709/1557]
Washington, DC: UTC-5 [6/21:0443/1937] [12/21:0723/1649]
Atlanta, GA: UTC-5 [6/21:0528/1952] [12/21:0739/1733]
Toronto, ON: UTC-5 [6/21:0436/2003] [12/21:0748/1643]
New Orleans, LA: UTC-5 [6/21:0600/2004] [12/21:0752/1805]
CST
Indianapolis, IN: UTC-6 [6/21:0417/1916] [12/21:0702/1624]
Memphis, TN: UTC-6 [6/21:0446/1918] [12/21:0705/1652]
Dallas, TX: UTC-6 [6/21:0520/1939] [12/21:0726/1725]
Thunder Bay, ON: UTC-6 [6/21:0356/2002] [12/21:0746/1605]
Odessa, TX: UTC-6 [6/21:0545/1958] [12/21:0746/1750]
MST
Denver, CO: UTC-7 [6/21:0432/1931] [12/21:0717/1639]
Phoenix, AZ: UTC-7 [6/21:0519/1942] [12/21:0729/1725]
Salt Lake City, UT: UTC-7 [6/21:0456/2002] [12/21:0749/1703]
Los Angeles, CA: UTC-7 [6/21:0542/2008] [12/21:0755/1748]
PST
Saskatoon, SK: UTC-8 [6/21:0246/1932] [12/21:0713/1456]
San Francisco, CA: UTC-8 [6/21:0448/1935] [12/21:0722/1654]
Edmonton, AB: UTC-8 [6/21:0304/2007] [12/21:0748/1516]
Seattle, WA: UTC-8 [6/21:0412/2011] [12/21:0755/1621]
HAWAII TIME
Honolulu HI: UTC-10 [6/21:0551/1916] [12/21:0705/1755]
ALASKA TIME
Anchorage, AK: UTC-9 [6/21:0320/2243] [12/21:1014/1542]
(Hopefully my adjustments did not mess up your calculaions Mike, please check my work.)
Quote from: mrsman on April 29, 2018, 08:14:48 PM
PST
Saskatoon, SK: UTC-8 [6/21:0246/1932] [12/21:0713/1456]
San Francisco, CA: UTC-8 [6/21:0448/1935] [12/21:0722/1654]
Edmonton, AB: UTC-8 [6/21:0304/2007] [12/21:0748/1516]
Seattle, WA: UTC-8 [6/21:0412/2011] [12/21:0755/1621]
Saskatoon looks a little out of wack. Currently in Saskatoon dawn begins at 03:56 and dusk ends at 22:20 during the summer solstice. Under your proposal, dawn begins at 01:56 and dusk ends at 20:20. Saskatoon being that far north, dusk shouldn't be ending at 8:20PM during the summer.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 30, 2018, 10:09:24 AM
Quote from: mrsman on April 29, 2018, 08:14:48 PM
PST
Saskatoon, SK: UTC-8 [6/21:0246/1932] [12/21:0713/1456]
San Francisco, CA: UTC-8 [6/21:0448/1935] [12/21:0722/1654]
Edmonton, AB: UTC-8 [6/21:0304/2007] [12/21:0748/1516]
Seattle, WA: UTC-8 [6/21:0412/2011] [12/21:0755/1621]
Saskatoon looks a little out of wack. Currently in Saskatoon dawn begins at 03:56 and dusk ends at 22:20 during the summer solstice. Under your proposal, dawn begins at 01:56 and dusk ends at 20:20. Saskatoon being that far north, dusk shouldn't be ending at 8:20PM during the summer.
Effect of hard anchoring latest sunrise time. Shift of sunrise time is most noticeable in areas further north. Ignoring civil dusk part and some other fine print - if you have X ours of daylight in winter and X hours of night in summer, and hard-anchor sunrise to a certain time T, shift of dawn time is (12-X) hours. X is 8.5-9 hours i in northern part of US, and 3-3.5 shift is almost tolerable. further north it breaks down.
Lawmakers in South Carolina are trying to get an advisory referendum on the November ballot to ask voters if they want to end spring forward and fall back and observe year-round daylight saving time.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-carolina/articles/2018-04-25/voters-may-decide-future-of-daylight-saving-time-in-november
Seems like more and more state legislators are favoring the idea of year-round daylight savings time. This is a positive development, as getting rid of daylight saving time would completely limit state choice on this issue. Under the current system, all 50 states have the choice to either observe DST or stay on standard time year-round. Given that choice, 2 states have decided to remain on standard time year round (Arizona and Hawaii). So why should we force the 48 states that have decided to be on DST to go back to standard time? Also, it would be a mistake to force Arizona and Hawaii to go to year-round DST. Even though they are well in the minority in not observing DST, they should have the right to remain on standard time if they feel like it's the best thing for their state. So if year-round DST passes and a state senator is up in arms about the kids getting on the bus in the dark, then that individual state can debate whether they want to stay on year-round DST or go to year-round standard time.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 30, 2018, 11:27:19 AM
Lawmakers in South Carolina are trying to get an advisory referendum on the November ballot to ask voters if they want to end spring forward and fall back and observe year-round daylight saving time.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-carolina/articles/2018-04-25/voters-may-decide-future-of-daylight-saving-time-in-november
Seems like more and more state legislators are favoring the idea of year-round daylight savings time. This is a positive development, as getting rid of daylight saving time would completely limit state choice on this issue. Under the current system, all 50 states have the choice to either observe DST or stay on standard time year-round. Given that choice, 2 states have decided to remain on standard time year round (Arizona and Hawaii). So why should we force the 48 states that have decided to be on DST to go back to standard time? Also, it would be a mistake to force Arizona and Hawaii to go to year-round DST. Even though they are well in the minority in not observing DST, they should have the right to remain on standard time if they feel like it's the best thing for their state. So if year-round DST passes and a state senator is up in arms about the kids getting on the bus in the dark, then that individual state can debate whether they want to stay on year-round DST or go to year-round standard time.
Making it short: currently, federal agency has the power to determine time zone for the state (or part thereof). Look like states want some of that power in their hands.
^The federal government simply sets the duration of DST under the Uniform Time Act of 1966. The act was last amended in 2005 when Busch increased Daylight Saving Time by 4 weeks. Ultimately, amending the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make DST year-round wouldn't be giving more power to the states (they would still decide if they observe DST or not), but abolishing DST entirely would most certainly be taking power away from the states (states would be forced into standard time... like it or not).
Kind of hard to believe that prior to 1987, the clocks would have just gone ahead yesterday (last Sunday in April). I think the current US DST schedule makes the change too soon, but the end of April was quite late.
The easiest way to observe permanent DST is to move one time zone east and not observe DST in that zone. Saskatchewan already does this; it is essentially in the Mountain zone with permanent DST. By being on CST year round, they are basically on permanent MDT. Depending on how you look at it, Arizona does the same thing. By observing MST year round, they are essentially on PDT.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 30, 2018, 05:29:46 PM
Kind of hard to believe that prior to 1987, the clocks would have just gone ahead yesterday (last Sunday in April). I think the current US DST schedule makes the change too soon, but the end of April was quite late.
Agreed. IMO, DST should begin the first Sunday of April and end the second-to-last Sunday of October.
Quote from: kalvado on April 30, 2018, 10:24:11 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 30, 2018, 10:09:24 AM
Quote from: mrsman on April 29, 2018, 08:14:48 PM
PST
Saskatoon, SK: UTC-8 [6/21:0246/1932] [12/21:0713/1456]
San Francisco, CA: UTC-8 [6/21:0448/1935] [12/21:0722/1654]
Edmonton, AB: UTC-8 [6/21:0304/2007] [12/21:0748/1516]
Seattle, WA: UTC-8 [6/21:0412/2011] [12/21:0755/1621]
Saskatoon looks a little out of wack. Currently in Saskatoon dawn begins at 03:56 and dusk ends at 22:20 during the summer solstice. Under your proposal, dawn begins at 01:56 and dusk ends at 20:20. Saskatoon being that far north, dusk shouldn't be ending at 8:20PM during the summer.
Effect of hard anchoring latest sunrise time. Shift of sunrise time is most noticeable in areas further north. Ignoring civil dusk part and some other fine print - if you have X ours of daylight in winter and X hours of night in summer, and hard-anchor sunrise to a certain time T, shift of dawn time is (12-X) hours. X is 8.5-9 hours i in northern part of US, and 3-3.5 shift is almost tolerable. further north it breaks down.
The point of the exercise is to pick one time constraint. In my example, I forced sunrise on the winter solstice to always be between 7:00 and 7:59. But the exercise can also be done with respect to sunset or high noon as well or by focusing on the effect at the summer solstice or the equinoxes. Since most of the DST complaints tend to involve dark mornings, I figured the most important factor for people was being sure that school kids weren't in the dark so the sun has to rise before 8:00. But other factors may take precedence.
IMO pick one time and stick with it. School can always start later to avoid the dark mornings.
It's also interesting to see Miami:
Miami, FL: UTC-5 [6/21:0530/1915] [12/21:0703/1735]
if it went on permanent DST would look like:
Miami, FL: UTC-4 [6/21:0630/2015] [12/21:0803/1835] which actually does extend sunshine during the winter season till almost 7:00 PM. The problem is that the western part of the state will have a very late sunrise duing the winter, close to 9:00 am.
Assume an early riser is awake from 5AM-9PM and a late riser is from 8AM-midnight. Under standard time during the winter solstice, a late riser in Boston experiences 434 minutes of darkness during their waking hours compared to just 352 minutes of darkness for the early riser. Now if permanent DST was enacted, a late riser in Boston would only experience 374 minutes of darkness during their waking hours and the early riser would still experience the same 352 minutes of darkness. Permanent DST would minimize the amount of darkness people receive during their waking hours in the winter. As you can see, even with permanent DST, late risers in Boston miss out on 22 minutes of light vs. their earlier riser counterparts, but that's a lot better than missing out on 82 minutes of light. Obviously, the farther west you go, the later the sunrise gets which helps ensure that it's still dark when a late riser awakens (which is a good thing, because there is so precious little sun in the winter that you don't want to waste it sleeping!). By the time you get to Syracuse, both late risers and early risers experience the same minutes of darkness during their waking hours during the winter.
Another foreseeable issue is that some time zones (including our Eastern Time Zone) are wider than 1/24 of the earth. That is to say, the extremities cannot both have a sunrise between 7:00 and 7:59. I can see this being an issue with Indiana and Maine.
Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2018, 02:00:20 PM
Another foreseeable issue is that some time zones (including our Eastern Time Zone) are wider than 1/24 of the earth. That is to say, the extremities cannot both have a sunrise between 7:00 and 7:59. I can see this being an issue with Indiana and Maine.
Indiana can go to Central. It would split Kentucky in half, and hbelkins would still be in Eastern.
Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2018, 02:00:20 PM
Another foreseeable issue is that some time zones (including our Eastern Time Zone) are wider than 1/24 of the earth. That is to say, the extremities cannot both have a sunrise between 7:00 and 7:59. I can see this being an issue with Indiana and Maine.
More like an issue with people having to suck it up and stop bitching about dawn being 10 minutes later than they would love to.
One hour granularity of clock settings allows only that much of tweaking. Complains about day being too short in winter may be well founded on exact data - but tweaking clock is not going to resolve it.
Just FYI: Hawaii have no such issues, neither does southern Mexico..
Quote from: tradephoric on May 01, 2018, 11:41:12 AM
Assume an early riser is awake from 5AM-9PM and a late riser is from 8AM-midnight. Under standard time during the winter solstice, a late riser in Boston experiences 434 minutes of darkness during their waking hours compared to just 352 minutes of darkness for the early riser. Now if permanent DST was enacted, a late riser in Boston would only experience 374 minutes of darkness during their waking hours and the early riser would still experience the same 352 minutes of darkness. Permanent DST would minimize the amount of darkness people receive during their waking hours in the winter. As you can see, even with permanent DST, late risers in Boston miss out on 22 minutes of light vs. their earlier riser counterparts, but that's a lot better than missing out on 82 minutes of light. Obviously, the farther west you go, the later the sunrise gets which helps ensure that it's still dark when a late riser awakens (which is a good thing, because there is so precious little sun in the winter that you don't want to waste it sleeping!). By the time you get to Syracuse, both late risers and early risers experience the same minutes of darkness during their waking hours during the winter.
Clearly you've never had issues with waking up and getting yourself out of bed when it's dark outside. Larks don't need the light in the morning because their body clocks are already oriented to get up early (and in tune with society). Owls, on the other hand,
need the sun to tell them it's time to get up. I don't usually start feeling awake until a couple HOURS after sunrise. Of course, it doesn't help that my apartment is situated backwards: my living room gets the morning sun, and my bedroom gets the evening sun, resulting in each side getting the sun when it is not needed and lacking it when it is.
The reverse is true for functioning in the evenings: Larks start falling asleep after sunset, but Owls can stay awake easily.
I honestly don't understand the obsession with daylight any more. What difference does it make if it's light out when I'm sitting at my desk, watching the news and using my computer? When I was in college and didn't have classes until 9-11, it made more sense.
I also don't find the semiannual clock changes to be a burden like many seem to. My computer and phone adjust automatically. My bedroom clock is as simple as flipping the DST switch. My watch (which is really my bathroom clock now, since I haven't used it as a watch in years; it does come in handy for setting the other clocks, though), microwave, and car clocks are all trivially easy to set. Stove is slightly less convenient, but still not hard. The only one I really don't like to deal with is the bird clock, and that's more because it's analog (literally every other clock I own is digital) and keeping the bird sounds in sync with the hours is cumbersome. Plus I'm waking up to a blaring alarm every weekday regardless of whether the time just changed or not, and it's easy enough to not lose an hour of sleep if you instead decide to be awake one hour less that weekend (I usually adjust to the time changes around 8 Saturday, though my clocks are usually changed between 2-5).
Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2018, 02:29:46 PM
...microwave...(and)...Stove...
Because the Microwave is over the stove, I try my dammest to keep the two in sync. It probably takes me 5 minutes total to get them the way I like it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2018, 02:34:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2018, 02:29:46 PM
...microwave...(and)...Stove...
Because the Microwave is over the stove, I try my dammest to keep the two in sync. It probably takes me 5 minutes total to get them the way I like it.
I have projection clock in a bedroom, which also have a frontside display. Those 2 clocks are completely independent, and they drift at different rates.
At least you can press buttons on both stove and microwave at the same time if your hands are long enough...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2018, 02:34:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2018, 02:29:46 PM
...microwave...(and)...Stove...
Because the Microwave is over the stove, I try my dammest to keep the two in sync. It probably takes me 5 minutes total to get them the way I like it.
I like to keep them all in sync, or as close to in sync as possible. My first step of the time change is to re-set the seconds on my watch to the computer and correct any drift on the minutes while changing the hour. Then I set everything else to the watch. The clocks in the living room, stove, microwave, and car can all do that by hitting "OK" or the last button to change the hour/minute right as the minute changes. The bird clock, meanwhile, requires that I take the battery out for a minute and finish setting it only on an even hour, and is prone to drift quicker than the others. Alas, my bedroom clock can't be synced up. Its seconds are relative to when it was first plugged in (or at least the last time the battery ran out when transporting it between home and college), and there's nothing I can do to change that.
The stove and microwave tend not to be able to drift to the degree as my other clocks can due to power outages. I don't know why someone hasn't yet invented stoves or microwaves that don't lose their time when the power goes out.
Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2018, 02:56:59 PM
The stove and microwave tend not to be able to drift to the degree as my other clocks can due to power outages. I don't know why someone hasn't yet invented stoves or microwaves that don't lose their time when the power goes out.
Because we need something to hate just to vent that feeling?
I specifically hate clock on my stove which keeps time during the power outage - but it does not advance while there is no power. If power goes out at 10.00 and comes back at 10.15, damn thing is 15 minutes late until I reset it.
Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2018, 02:56:59 PM
...I don't know why someone hasn't yet invented stoves or microwaves that don't lose their time when the power goes out.
Seriously. 2 AA batteries would fix that issue.
My other 'mistake' when I bought my range and microwave. I got different brands. Didn't think of it at the time, but when I installed them one clock uses green numerals, one uses orange. It was just 'off' I guess I could say. Of course, now, I don't even notice it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2018, 02:34:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2018, 02:29:46 PM
...microwave...(and)...Stove...
Because the Microwave is over the stove, I try my dammest to keep the two in sync. It probably takes me 5 minutes total to get them the way I like it.
My microwave's clock is permanently off. It functions only to time the cooking and as an extra timer. Where it could display time of day, it is blank instead. No more resetting it after power failures or for DST, no more OCD catastrophe because it's not exactly in synch with the wall clock.
I put together a list of dawn/dusk times for the top 20 metro regions in America. I wanted to consider the lighting effects that winter DST would have on early birds (wake at 05:00, go to bed at 21:00) and night owls (wake at 08:00, go to bed at midnight). Running DST during the winter greatly minimizes the total minutes Awake in Darkness (AID) and the minutes Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to standard time.
(https://i.imgur.com/bNDzuPH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/YiicpCs.png)
*The early bird in all 20 metro regions is never sleeping in light (SIL) regardless if it's running DST or Standard time. OTOH, night owls are sleeping in light (SIL) in all 20 metro regions when running Standard time during the winter.
*Detroit would experience the latest dawn out of the top 20 metro regions if the nation observed DST during the winter. The dawn would begin in Detroit at 8:26AM.
Perhaps a bird clock should not be changed for DST. I have a grandfather clock and also a table clock manufactured in the nineteenth century. Both require weekly winding. I no longer change them. They are on standard time year round. Back when I did change them, the more difficult operation was going back to standard time in the autumn. They did not keep good time after that.
Quote from: kalvado on May 01, 2018, 03:29:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2018, 02:56:59 PM
The stove and microwave tend not to be able to drift to the degree as my other clocks can due to power outages. I don't know why someone hasn't yet invented stoves or microwaves that don't lose their time when the power goes out.
Because we need something to hate just to vent that feeling?
I specifically hate clock on my stove which keeps time during the power outage - but it does not advance while there is no power. If power goes out at 10.00 and comes back at 10.15, damn thing is 15 minutes late until I reset it.
I don't get long-duration outages often. Mostly it's just the ones that last for a second or two - long enough that I need to turn the computer on and set the clocks again, but not long enough for the living room clock (which has the same issue) to be noticeably off.
The problem with the permanent DST theory is that many night owls (like myself) have to get up before 8AM regardless of whether it meshes with our preferences.
It's easy to stay up well past dusk. It's hard to get up well before dawn. As such, late winter sunrises are counterproductive. I'm going to stay up past sunset year-round, and that's not a problem - that's how I like it. Trying to align the sun with my preferred schedule, on the other hand, is a problem, because it would reinforce my owlish habits and make me late for work.
Daylight really has no impact on when I wake up. There are really only two things that determine when I get up -- an alarm clock or my bladder.
It's also worth noting that Lark/Owl preferences are based
relative to the Sun, not the clock. One's body clock doesn't care what number is currently displayed on some device; it resets based on sunrise. Thus, moving the clock doesn't align the Sun closer to Owl-preferred times, because the Owl-preferred (clock) times will just shift if you do. It does, however, move society to be more in line with Lark-preferred (solar) times.
Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2018, 10:00:57 PM
The problem with the permanent DST theory is that many night owls (like myself) have to get up before 8AM regardless of whether it meshes with our preferences.
It's easy to stay up well past dusk. It's hard to get up well before dawn. As such, late winter sunrises are counterproductive. I'm going to stay up past sunset year-round, and that's not a problem - that's how I like it. Trying to align the sun with my preferred schedule, on the other hand, is a problem, because it would reinforce my owlish habits and make me late for work.
Definitely. It would be nice if I had the luxury of sleeping in until 8! That said, most office jobs favor Larks, not Owls.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:29:56 AM
Daylight really has no impact on when I wake up. There are really only two things that determine when I get up -- an alarm clock or my bladder.
I have days where I'm so tired that I instinctively hit the snooze button even without waking up. At least that's what I assume happens, since I have no other explanation for why I wake up at one of the snooze increments with no memory of having dealt with the alarm earlier.
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2018, 01:10:29 PM
I have days where I'm so tired that I instinctively hit the snooze button even without waking up. At least that's what I assume happens, since I have no other explanation for why I wake up at one of the snooze increments with no memory of having dealt with the alarm earlier.
Hear hear - this morning was one of them for me.
Worse...when I hit the off button with no memory of it.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 01, 2018, 04:51:47 PM
I put together a list of dawn/dusk times for the top 20 metro regions in America. I wanted to consider the lighting effects that winter DST would have on early birds (wake at 05:00, go to bed at 21:00) and night owls (wake at 08:00, go to bed at midnight). Running DST during the winter greatly minimizes the total minutes Awake in Darkness (AID) and the minutes Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to standard time.
If you keep the definition of the night owl the same (wake at 8:00, goes to bed at midnight), the early bird would have to wake up at 01:00 and go to sleep at 17:00 before standard time in the winter would minimize the total minutes Awake In Darkness (AID) and minutes Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to DST. Conversely, if you kept the definition of the early bird the same (wake at 05:00, go to bed at 21:00), the night owl would have to wake up at 11:00 and go to bed at 03:00 before standard time in the winter would minimize the AID and SIL minutes. The point is under reasonable waking hour definitions, year-round DST would do a much better job at maximizing the waking hours of sunlight American's receive in the winter.
I did the same analysis for the Summer Solstice and you get much the same results. DST drastically reduces the minutes American's are Awake in Darkness (AID) or Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to standard time.
(https://i.imgur.com/82X4X2L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rTK7Ocw.png)
Quote from: tradephoric on May 01, 2018, 04:51:47 PM
*The early bird in all 20 metro regions is never sleeping in light (SIL) regardless if it's running DST or Standard time.
I wanted to highlight the point at which an early bird would start to Sleep in Light (SIL) during the winter. The early birds who wake up at 03:03 and go to bed at 19:03 would then start to be sleeping in light for 1 minute, since the dusk would end in Tampa at 19:04 running DST. Only at that point does Standard Time in the winter minimize the cumulative SIL and AID numbers for the early birds. But short of people who wake up before 3:03AM, Daylight Saving Time in the winter would only increase the amount of daylight night owls get during their waking hours while having no impact on the SIL and AID numbers of the early birds.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 02, 2018, 02:30:54 PMDST drastically reduces the minutes American's are Awake in Darkness (AID) or Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to standard time.
The problem isn't the raw AID or SIL figures, but when and what they are: morning or evening. AID in the morning is the night owl's worst enemy, whereas SIL in the morning is the night owl's best friend. Likewise SIL in the evening is a little problem for night owls, whereas AID in the evening is little problem for night owls.
A night owl won't wake up at 8am if they are awake in the dark at that point. Also, while a night owl might want to wake up at 8am (or later), they often can't and have to be up earlier, increasing their AID in the morning in winter.
Quote from: english si on May 02, 2018, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on May 02, 2018, 02:30:54 PMDST drastically reduces the minutes American's are Awake in Darkness (AID) or Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to standard time.
The problem isn't the raw AID or SIL figures, but when and what they are: morning or evening. AID in the morning is the night owl's worst enemy, whereas SIL in the morning is the night owl's best friend. Likewise SIL in the evening is a little problem for night owls, whereas AID in the evening is little problem for night owls.
A night owl won't wake up at 8am if they are awake in the dark at that point. Also, while a night owl might want to wake up at 8am (or later), they often can't and have to be up earlier, increasing their AID in the morning in winter.
On the other hand, evening AID in winter is almost a given - and not that big of a problem for anyone. Already awake, lights/TV/whatnot is on...
Quote from: kalvado on May 02, 2018, 04:32:37 PMOn the other hand
Not particularly - it's an extension of what I say about night owls and AID in the evening - that AID in the evening isn't really a problem.
Incidentially, just over halfway between equinox and solstice (I know day length is decelerating), civil twilight ending at just after 9 meant it wasn't dark ~45 minutes ago. Surely that's late enough? There's 7 weeks of day length increasing still to come and it feels as if DST is more about stopping too-early dawns (currently sun up at 0530, with twilight extending before that). Nautical twilight has just now ended at about 10, and will return in 6 hours (Astronomical twilight still has an hour to go, and will return at 3am - however it's pretty meaningless as its dark anyway)
Currently, I'm waking up naturally around half 7 currently (if the weather isn't grey, then earlier) after about two hours SIL, whereas in winter getting up at 9 with only an hour SIL was a chore and I was far less refreshed. Bedtime is about the same late hour either way.
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2018, 01:10:29 PM
It's also worth noting that Lark/Owl preferences are based relative to the Sun, not the clock. One's body clock doesn't care what number is currently displayed on some device; it resets based on sunrise. Thus, moving the clock doesn't align the Sun closer to Owl-preferred times, because the Owl-preferred (clock) times will just shift if you do. It does, however, move society to be more in line with Lark-preferred (solar) times.
Yeah, you basically nailed the explanation of why moving the clock to favor owls is counterproductive.
Owls
like sleeping in light and being awake in the dark. We don't want those time periods minimized. Adopting winter DST only makes things worse for the larks, while the supposed benefit to owls isn't really a benefit at all.
There seems to be enough legislators who are seriously questioning the antiquated practice of changing our clocks twice a year, now the question becomes what time to stick with. I think that answer is obvious. Have you ever met someone from Boston say "damn it, I wish dawn started at 3:32AM during the summer, because dawn starting at 4:32AM is just too damn late!" . Similarly, what golfer in Minneapolis is saying "damn it, I wish it was already pitch dark out at 8:40PM, because I hate being able to play this extra round of golf after dinner!" I don't hear anybody really complaining about DST during the summer. None of the top 20 metro regions dawn/dusk times seem too out of wack.
Now if we were on standard time year-round, dawn in LA would begin at 4:12AM and dusk would end at 7:36PM. Imagine being the guy struggling through 2 hours of LA traffic after getting off their 9-5 job. Dude finally gets home and has 36 minutes of daylight to enjoy. Got outside chores to do after dinner? Well I guess their weekend is shot.
Now since daylight is so scarce in the winter and nobody will be happy regardless of what time is picked, shouldn't whatever time works best in the summer be chosen year round? Obviously i believe most people would prefer DST time over standard time during the summer. But it's important to note that individual states can opt out of DST and stay on standard-time. That reason alone is why going to year-round DST makes so much more sense than abolishing DST completely (regardless if you think DST is actually better or not, because at least the individual states can decide for themselves and not have to be told what to do by the federal government). No way in hell are states going to abolish DST.
Quote from: english si on May 02, 2018, 05:03:15 PM
Currently, I'm waking up naturally around half 7 currently
For those unfamiliar with British time-telling, this means 7:30. In Germanic or Slavic countries, such a phrase would mean 6:30, but the Brits do it the other way around.
For those unfamiliar with American time-telling, this would be worded "half past 7".
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
Amen!
Quote from: kphoger on May 02, 2018, 06:06:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
Amen!
That's what Saskatchewan did (and also Iceland, I'm pretty sure), and it definitely makes more sense than trying to work out year-round DST.
The problem is that a lot of states in the US aren't necessarily in a good place to do this. Take Utah, for example. If Utah moved to year-round CST, in winter it would be one hour ahead of Colorado to the east (MST), but
two hours ahead of Nevada to the west (PST).
Quote from: US 89 on May 02, 2018, 06:53:22 PM
If Utah moved to year-round CST, in winter it would be one hour ahead of Colorado to the east (MST), but two hours ahead of Nevada to the west (PST).
I do concede your point that some places aren't well-suited to switching one time zone east; namely the western portions of any given time zone.
But Utah wouldn't suddenly, as an isolated incident, switch time zones. Considering the state's relative location, they
certainly wouldn't leapfrog Colorado to adopt CST. It would be more likely they'd adopt PST year-round, as neighboring Arizona already does. Come to think of it, CST in Utah would create a random two-hour time change
heading south! That would be an oddity indeed!
In any case, for the purposes of the discussion, we can only assume that if Utah switched, Nevada and Colorado and other neighboring states would switch as well.
Quote from: kphoger on May 02, 2018, 06:06:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
Amen!
I agree 100%.
But at the same time, calling it year-round DST more succinctly expresses to the general population what is actually happening: more evening daylight in the winter. It's also far more likely people would approve and accept the change. If you told me New York State was switching to Atlantic Time, I'd just about erupt. DST is so engrained in our culture that I'd expect DST
on top of Atlantic Time. In other words, I'd react as if it was a year-round overhaul. Call it year-round DST, however, and I'll know instantly that only winter will be impacted.
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
It requires an act of Congress or approval from the USDOT for a state to change time zones. However, there is a provision in the Uniform Time Act of 1966 that allows a state to opt out of DST. That's why amending the Uniform Time Act to extend DST year-round is the easiest legislative solution to this problem. The states would have the power to decide what time to observe, and it wouldn't be subject to approval from the federal government.
Maine and Massachusetts have legislation essentially approving a move to the Atlantic time zone, but it hasn't happened yet because it's contingent on other Atlantic states to move with them (most notably New Hampshire). The Atlantic States moving zones would just complicate things further, as now the continental United States would observe 5 different time zones during the winter (Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific) and essentially 4 different time zones during the summer (as the Atlantic states would no longer observe DST and basically tie back in with the eastern timezone states during the summer).
This state might be the first in the U.S. to join this time zone. But why?http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article181021281.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2018, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2018, 01:10:29 PM
I have days where I'm so tired that I instinctively hit the snooze button even without waking up. At least that's what I assume happens, since I have no other explanation for why I wake up at one of the snooze increments with no memory of having dealt with the alarm earlier.
Hear hear - this morning was one of them for me.
Worse...when I hit the off button with no memory of it.
That's why I keep my alarm clock outside of my arm's reach from bed. I have to physically get up to shut it off. ;-)
Quote from: webny99 on May 02, 2018, 09:09:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 02, 2018, 06:06:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
Amen!
I agree 100%.
But at the same time, calling it year-round DST more succinctly expresses to the general population what is actually happening: more evening daylight in the winter. It's also far more likely people would approve and accept the change. If you told me New York State was switching to Atlantic Time, I'd just about erupt. DST is so engrained in our culture that I'd expect DST on top of Atlantic Time. In other words, I'd react as if it was a year-round overhaul. Call it year-round DST, however, and I'll know instantly that only winter will be impacted.
It would officially become AST, which, when compared to EDT, is like calling a pancake a hotcake; it's the same thing. However, AST is the legal, official term. Don't know if all of NY state would switch to AST; if DST is eliminated altogether, I could see western NY (Buffalo and Rochester DMA's) staying on EST year round.
Quote from: webny99 on May 02, 2018, 08:09:27 PM
Quote from: US 89 on May 02, 2018, 06:53:22 PM
If Utah moved to year-round CST, in winter it would be one hour ahead of Colorado to the east (MST), but two hours ahead of Nevada to the west (PST).
I do concede your point that some places aren't well-suited to switching one time zone east; namely the western portions of any given time zone.
But Utah wouldn't suddenly, as an isolated incident, switch time zones. Considering the state's relative location, they certainly wouldn't leapfrog Colorado to adopt CST. It would be more likely they'd adopt PST year-round, as neighboring Arizona already does. Come to think of it, CST in Utah would create a random two-hour time change heading south! That would be an oddity indeed!
Arizona is on MST year round, not PST. It just so happens that MST = PDT in the summer. So if UT adopted CST, there would be a permanent one-hour time change at the UT-AZ border, not 2 hours. I only brought up the CST thing because that was actually a real proposal by some state legislator.
There's no way Utah would ever adopt PST. It's either the current system or standard time year round (which would keep UT and AZ on the same time year round).
Also, I wish that time changes between AZ and UT/NM were signed. It's equivalent to crossing a time zone west, but since they are both Mountain time there is no sign for the time change. I remember showing up an hour early for a tour of Glen Canyon Dam for precisely this reason.
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2018, 01:10:29 PM
One's body clock doesn't care what number is currently displayed on some device; it resets based on sunrise.
Does it though? Check the time on this post. Nine years of working in a casino has me going to bed at 5am and getting up at 1pm. Any time I go on vacation it is
hard to adjust to being on a 'normal' schedule, and by the last few days I find myself staying up to 5am anyway. This is not a natural sleep pattern by any means, and yet, by repetition, here it sits.
The Jargon File calls it phase (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/P/phase.html)–since computer programmers (especially academics) really have no need for face-to-face interaction with anyone (writing code is easier over the internet!) they end up with some fantastically messed-up schedules.
If daylight savings time addles you that badly, just get a second-shift job.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2018, 04:27:32 AMDoes it though?
Yes - this is a proven scientific fact that sunlight affects wake up times - not only do people on the western edges of timezones wake up later than people on the eastern edge, but people will wake up earlier in summer than in winter if given free-reign.
QuoteThis is not a natural sleep pattern by any means, and yet, by repetition, here it sits.
True, but some people are more adaptable than others to that. I'd imagine that the first few weeks were problematic.
It also helps that your pattern is so far off normal. If it's just a little shift (say having to wake up at 6, when you want to wake up at 8), then its far harder as it is so extreme.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2018, 04:27:32 AMsince computer programmers (especially academics) really have no need for face-to-face interaction with anyone (writing code is easier over the internet!) they end up with some fantastically messed-up schedules.
YMMV. Speaking as a software developer working on a team with no other members in the Southeast, I feel like my job was easier (certainly more enjoyable) back when I actually did have face-to-face interaction with my team. And thankfully I haven't been asked to start working midnight-to-9am to align myself with the other developers; I'd go find another job instead.
Quote from: US 89 on May 03, 2018, 12:26:13 AM
Arizona is on MST year round, not PST.
Oops :D :pan:
QuoteThere's no way Utah would ever adopt PST. It's either the current system or standard time year round (which would keep UT and AZ on the same time year round).
Considering a PST state (Nevada) is a lot closer than a CST state (Nebraska), the former is still more likely, even if neither are remotely plausible.
Quote from: english si on May 03, 2018, 07:12:35 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2018, 04:27:32 AMDoes it though?
Yes - this is a proven scientific fact that sunlight affects wake up times - not only do people on the western edges of timezones wake up later than people on the eastern edge, but people will wake up earlier in summer than in winter if given free-reign.
+1.
It is much easier to get up in the summer, and I find myself rousing with the sun by default, even if I go back to sleep afterwards.
QuoteQuoteThis is not a natural sleep pattern by any means, and yet, by repetition, here it sits.
It also helps that your pattern is so far off normal. If it's just a little shift (say having to wake up at 6, when you want to wake up at 8), then its far harder
Yeah, I'd imagine being
completely off from the average is actually much easier to maintain than a 4-5 or even 2-3 hour shift. I can envision myself successfully maintaining night shift, but I can't envision myself maintaining 5AM to 9PM.
California is pushing for year-round DST.
Quote
Last year, the California Legislature passed a bipartisan resolution asking Congress to approve a third option for states – permanent daylight saving time. South Bay Congressman Ro Khanna is now spearheading that effort in Washington, D.C.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/05/daylight-saving-time-is-here-to-stay-in-california/
Florida is pushing for year-round DST.
QuoteLawmakers in Florida are tired of the whole "fall back" and "spring forward" rigamarole. So they've approved a bill to keep Daylight Saving Time going throughout the year in their state.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/us/florida-year-round-daylight-saving-time-trnd/index.html
Maine is pushing to change to Atlantic Time (which would effectively be the same as Eastern time w/year-round DST).
QuoteLD 203 would exempt Maine from federal provisions observing Eastern daylight saving time for eight months of the year and move Maine to the Atlantic Standard Time Zone year-round. Practically speaking, that would put Maine an hour ahead of other eastern states, into the time zone shared by Puerto Rico and Canada's maritime provinces, for part of the year.
http://bangordailynews.com/2017/04/27/politics/maine-house-supports-time-zone-switch-dumping-daylight-saving-time/
Massachusetts is pushing to change to Atlantic Time (which would effectively be the same as Eastern time w/year-round DST):
QuoteIn their final report released this past week, a special state commission recommended that Massachusetts switch time zones "under certain circumstances," effectively adopting daylight saving time all year round. The move – which would have the Bay State join Nova Scotia, Puerto Rico, and others in Atlantic Standard Time – would come with costs and benefits.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/11/05/new-england-atlantic-time-zone
South Carolina wants to put the issue to the voters:
QuoteSouth Carolina lawmakers say they want to hear from voters about whether to observe year-round daylight saving time.
The referendum would ask voters if they want to end spring forward and fall back and observe year-round daylight saving time. If the bill is approved, lawmakers would send a joint resolution to Congress requesting a change depending on what the voters decide in November.
https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/future-of-daylight-saving-time-may-go-to-south-carolina/article_334bcac8-48a2-11e8-b19c-5374dd6266ac.html
Louisiana lawmakers consider ending DST; one option being going to year-round DST:
QuoteRep. Mark Wright of Covington presented a proposal to the House Commerce Committee Tuesday that would create a task force to study the impacts of Daylight Saving Time. That proposal was passed favorably to the House floor. Wright and the proposal's author, Rep. Julie Stokes, feel the change in hours is unhealthy and can even lead to injury.
Wright says there are two options for how the adjustment would work. Louisiana would either fall back an hour and stay on that time year-round. This is what Arizona and Hawaii do. Or, the state could stay on Daylight Saving Time (the current time) year-round. Wright says the latter option may be better because Louisianans actually spend most of the year on that time.
http://www.wafb.com/story/38086267/la-lawmakers-consider-getting-rid-of-daylight-saving-time
Arizona already observes year-round standard time.
Hawaii already observes year-round standard time.
I just want to point out that it is actually possible to get up on time in the morning (whatever "on time" means in the context of your own schedule) without an alarm clock. The key is to determine how many hours of sleep you need in order to wake up fully rested (usually eight), and then go to bed early enough that you actually get this much sleep. I personally haven't used an alarm clock in 20 years.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 10:39:37 AM
California is pushing for year-round DST.
Quote
Last year, the California Legislature passed a bipartisan resolution asking Congress to approve a third option for states – permanent daylight saving time. South Bay Congressman Ro Khanna is now spearheading that effort in Washington, D.C.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/05/daylight-saving-time-is-here-to-stay-in-california/
Florida is pushing for year-round DST.
QuoteLawmakers in Florida are tired of the whole "fall back" and "spring forward" rigamarole. So they've approved a bill to keep Daylight Saving Time going throughout the year in their state.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/us/florida-year-round-daylight-saving-time-trnd/index.html
Maine is pushing to change to Atlantic Time (which would effectively be the same as Eastern time w/year-round DST).
QuoteLD 203 would exempt Maine from federal provisions observing Eastern daylight saving time for eight months of the year and move Maine to the Atlantic Standard Time Zone year-round. Practically speaking, that would put Maine an hour ahead of other eastern states, into the time zone shared by Puerto Rico and Canada's maritime provinces, for part of the year.
http://bangordailynews.com/2017/04/27/politics/maine-house-supports-time-zone-switch-dumping-daylight-saving-time/
Massachusetts is pushing to change to Atlantic Time (which would effectively be the same as Eastern time w/year-round DST):
QuoteIn their final report released this past week, a special state commission recommended that Massachusetts switch time zones "under certain circumstances," effectively adopting daylight saving time all year round. The move – which would have the Bay State join Nova Scotia, Puerto Rico, and others in Atlantic Standard Time – would come with costs and benefits.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/11/05/new-england-atlantic-time-zone
South Carolina wants to put the issue to the voters:
QuoteSouth Carolina lawmakers say they want to hear from voters about whether to observe year-round daylight saving time.
The referendum would ask voters if they want to end spring forward and fall back and observe year-round daylight saving time. If the bill is approved, lawmakers would send a joint resolution to Congress requesting a change depending on what the voters decide in November.
https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/future-of-daylight-saving-time-may-go-to-south-carolina/article_334bcac8-48a2-11e8-b19c-5374dd6266ac.html
Louisiana lawmakers consider ending DST; one option being going to year-round DST:
QuoteRep. Mark Wright of Covington presented a proposal to the House Commerce Committee Tuesday that would create a task force to study the impacts of Daylight Saving Time. That proposal was passed favorably to the House floor. Wright and the proposal's author, Rep. Julie Stokes, feel the change in hours is unhealthy and can even lead to injury.
Wright says there are two options for how the adjustment would work. Louisiana would either fall back an hour and stay on that time year-round. This is what Arizona and Hawaii do. Or, the state could stay on Daylight Saving Time (the current time) year-round. Wright says the latter option may be better because Louisianans actually spend most of the year on that time.
http://www.wafb.com/story/38086267/la-lawmakers-consider-getting-rid-of-daylight-saving-time
Arizona already observes year-round standard time.
Hawaii already observes year-round standard time.
What's complicated about this, as has already been pointed out, is that states can choose whether or not to observe DST, but the USDOT determines which time zone any county or state is in, and Congress decides the time frame of DST for those who choose to observe it. States can't actually choose to observe year-round DST, they would have to have the USDOT agree to move them east one time zone and then decide not to observe DST.
Add Connecticut to the list
HARTFORD, CT (WFSB)-
One state representative is looking into whether or not Connecticut should end daylight savings time.
Rep. Kurt Vail (R-52) gave Eyewitness News an inside look at his proposed legislation.
"A constituent came to me in my district and said, "˜what can you do about daylight saving time so that we have more light in the afternoon as opposed to the morning in the winter hours,'" Vail said.
Vail proposed a bill this legislative session that would do away with the bi-annual time change altogether and have it be daylight saving time all year long in Connecticut
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 03, 2018, 11:11:39 AMI personally haven't used an alarm clock in 20 years.
You might not have, but this isn't true for everyone.
I've tried your method, it doesn't work for me - not least as going to bed isn't the same as falling asleep. I've tried many things to get it to make sleep and bed mean the same thing, but to little avail - if I go to bed too early, it just means I'm less tired at my body clock's desired sleep time and thus continue to struggle - the two best ways for me to be awake at 3am is to try and stay awake until 3, or to go to bed at 9 and try to go to sleep early!
The problem of late risers is biology, not some moral failing to be fixed by different behaviour.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 11:35:39 AM
States can't actually choose to observe year-round DST, they would have to have the USDOT agree to move them east one time zone and then decide not to observe DST.
Very true. The Sunshine Protection Act passed in Florida is meaningless unless US Congress amends the Uniform Time Act to make DST year-round. But you have some of the biggest most powerful states (California and Florida) publicly supporting year-round DST in their legislators. That is what can push Congress to act. In addition, the Atlantic states are desperately looking for more evening sunlight in the winter as evidenced by the fact they keep talking about switching to the Atlantic time zone. The Atlantic states would instantly favor year-round DST if enacted by Congress, and that whole talk of them changing time zones would end.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 03, 2018, 11:38:10 AM
Add Connecticut to the list
HARTFORD, CT (WFSB)-
One state representative is looking into whether or not Connecticut should end daylight savings time.
Rep. Kurt Vail (R-52) gave Eyewitness News an inside look at his proposed legislation.
"A constituent came to me in my district and said, "˜what can you do about daylight saving time so that we have more light in the afternoon as opposed to the morning in the winter hours,'" Vail said.
Vail proposed a bill this legislative session that would do away with the bi-annual time change altogether and have it be daylight saving time all year long in Connecticut
Really? ONE person came to him about daylight and he wants to change the rules for everyone?
Does that mean one constituent can go to him requesting the speed limit be 125 mph, and he'll write up legislation for that too?
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 12:02:21 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 11:35:39 AM
States can't actually choose to observe year-round DST, they would have to have the USDOT agree to move them east one time zone and then decide not to observe DST.
Very true. The Sunshine Protection Act passed in Florida is meaningless unless US Congress amends the Uniform Time Act to make DST year-round. But you have some of the biggest most powerful states (California and Florida) publicly supporting year-round DST in their legislators. That is what can push Congress to act. In addition, the Atlantic states are desperately looking for more evening sunlight in the winter as evidenced by the fact they keep talking about switching to the Atlantic time zone. The Atlantic states would instantly favor year-round DST if enacted by Congress, and that whole talk of them changing time zones would end.
I can see New England changing to Atlantic. I don't understand Florida changing, though; Florida is in the western part of the time zone.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 11:35:39 AM
What's complicated about this, as has already been pointed out, is that states can choose whether or not to observe DST, but the USDOT determines which time zone any county or state is in, and Congress decides the time frame of DST for those who choose to observe it. States can't actually choose to observe year-round DST, they would have to have the USDOT agree to move them east one time zone and then decide not to observe DST.
As discussed above, looks like year-long DST is actually a legal backdoor to allow states moving into a different timezone on their own and without major overhaul of federal legislation on the subject.
Quote from: 1 on May 03, 2018, 12:18:33 PM
I can see New England changing to Atlantic. I don't understand Florida changing, though; Florida is in the western part of the time zone.
Florida is quite far south, probably in the area where benefits of DST are diminishing. What they are actually up to is shifting their nominal workday with respect to solar day, and that makes sense from my perspective - midday for most people is fairly past 11.59AM.
Quote from: 1 on May 03, 2018, 12:18:33 PM
I can see New England changing to Atlantic. I don't understand Florida changing, though; Florida is in the western part of the time zone.
Florida doesn't want to change time zones, they just want to observe year-round DST. There is a slight distinction. The Atlantic states changing time zones vs. observing year-round DST is just semantics.... it would accomplishes the same dawn/dusk times for those states. But the problem is if the Atlantic states switch time zones and the Uniform Time Act isn't amended to make DST year-round, then we have a situation where the continental United States would be observing 5 time-zones during the winter and only 4 time-zones during the summer. That just adds extra confusion, and most American's would STILL have to change their clocks (short of people living in the Atlantic states, Arizona, and Hawaii).
The Atlantic states switching time zones without Congress amending the Uniform Time Act would be a worst-case scenario for Americans.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 03, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
I just want to point out that it is actually possible to get up on time in the morning without an alarm clock. The key is to determine how many hours of sleep you need in order to wake up fully rested (usually eight), and then go to bed early enough that you actually get this much sleep.
If your schedule (and planning) is such that you are regularly able to get 8 hours sleep, kudos to you. I use make do with 6 1/2 to 7, depending on the night.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 03, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
I just want to point out that it is actually possible to get up on time in the morning (whatever "on time" means in the context of your own schedule) without an alarm clock. The key is to determine how many hours of sleep you need in order to wake up fully rested (usually eight), and then go to bed early enough that you actually get this much sleep. I personally haven't used an alarm clock in 20 years.
To fall asleep, you have to be tired. If
your schedule dictates "early to bed, early to rise" on a consistent basis, I could see why you might not need an alarm clock. But for others who work odd shifts, or fly a lot, it can be difficult to simply fall asleep exactly X-hours before they need to wake up. In my last job, I sometimes had to wake up at 0430. This would dictate being
asleep by 2030 the night before. This can be very difficult if I worked a night shift the day before, or maybe flew in from out of town and didn't land until late the night before.
Point being that alarms have their place, unless you have total control over your schedule.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 12:27:06 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 03, 2018, 12:18:33 PM
I can see New England changing to Atlantic. I don't understand Florida changing, though; Florida is in the western part of the time zone.
Florida doesn't want to change time zones, they just want to observe year-round DST. There is a slight distinction. The Atlantic states changing time zones vs. observing year-round DST is just semantics.... it would accomplishes the same dawn/dusk times for those states. But the problem is if the Atlantic states switch time zones and the Uniform Time Act isn't amended to make DST year-round, then we have a situation where the continental United States would be observing 5 time-zones during the winter and only 4 time-zones during the summer. That just adds extra confusion, and most American's would STILL have to change their clocks (short of people living in the Atlantic states, Arizona, and Hawaii). The Atlantic states switching time zones without Congress amending the Uniform Time Act would be a worst-case scenario for Americans.
What kind of amendment to Uniform Time Act you would see? There are already 8 time zones spelled out in that law, including what is effectively AST.
^Marco Rubio already introduced the Sunshine Protection Act of 2018 to Congress on March 12, 2018. The bill would repeal the temporary period for daylight saving time found in Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 1966.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2537/text/is
Here's a list of 11 states and my rational to why year-round DST would be beneficial to them. Keep in mind that state legislators in many of these states have already shown support for year-round DST.
Increases in winter tourism dollars:
Florida
California
South Carolina
Later afternoon sun during the winter:
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine
Be in SYNC with the rest of the country
Arizona
Hawaii
Do you agree with this list? Are there any other states that would benefit from year-round DST? On the flip side, what states would most negatively be impacted by year-round DST? I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 01:58:19 PM
Here's a list of 11 states and my rational to why year-round DST would be beneficial to them.
[...]
Be in SYNC with the rest of the country
Arizona
Hawaii
Can you decipher that?
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 01:30:21 PM
^Marco Rubio already introduced the Sunshine Protection Act of 2018 to Congress on March 12, 2018. The bill would repeal the temporary period for daylight saving time found in Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 1966.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2537/text/is
Except that year-round DST would be awful for the northern tier of states and also for states that are at the far western edges of their time zone. It would push winter sunrises obscenely late in the morning.
The better solution is for areas that want year-round DST to get the DOT to move them east one time zone and then stop observing DST.
Oddly enough, I think it's the northern states that would be most negatively impacted by year-round DST, because we have enough variation in daylight where winter mornings are unacceptably dark on daylight time but summer sunrise is very early with standard time. Quite frankly, I don't understand why there's suddenly this big push to end changing the clocks. Did this somehow get harder in recent years? I don't see how. I'd hardly call it obsolete, either; while the original energy-saving argument no longer applies, I'd assert that the other benefits the clock changes bring with respect to daylight optimization are worth it. Plus the idea of it being light out past 5:30 (I consider civil twilight to still be light out) in winter is just plain wrong, and quite frankly, in the northern areas where you're inside all winter unless you like to ski, I don't really see the point.
As I've mentioned, permanent DST mainly benefits morning Larks, and quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of Larks bending the world to suit their whims. It's bad for my physical and mental health. I was flirting with the idea of someday changing my hours at work to be 8-4 instead of 8:30-4:30 if I can ever get myself in and out of bed on time consistently (to avoid traffic congestion that gets more annoying every single year), but that won't be possible with year-round DST. In fact, I'd need to change my hours to 9-5 and have a hellish commute in summer (switching between the two by season isn't an option as that would likely be interpreted as flex time, which is strictly verboten for NYSDOT employees). State government is already Lark-oriented enough and this would just make that worse. I'm already having a hard time imagining how I'll keep up this schedule for the next 36 years as it is. Not to mention the effects on scraping ice, which is hard enough. Ice scrapers are just plain not effective if the ice is stuck on hard enough. I've had days where it takes me half an hour or more (though 10 minutes is more common). Ice scrapers also tend to leave streaks of ice behind unless the sun has mostly melted it anyways.
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 02:25:15 PMNot to mention the effects on scraping ice, which is hard enough. Ice scrapers are just plain not effective if the ice is stuck on hard enough. I've had days where it takes me half an hour or more (though 10 minutes is more common). Ice scrapers also tend to leave streaks of ice behind unless the sun has mostly melted it anyways.
What I do is spraying some tap water on windows.
Cold tap water to avoid stress, and half a gallon to a gallon is enough to loosen even worst buildup.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 02:18:39 PM
The better solution is for areas that want year-round DST to get the DOT to move them east one time zone and then stop observing DST.
It just doesn't seem practical for 11 states to observe standard time (ie. residents never change their clocks) while the other 39 states observe daylight saving time (ie. residents change their clocks two times a year). Not only would visitors have to know what time zone a state is in, they would have to know if the state observes DST or not. It's one thing with Arizona and Hawaii being on standard time year-round, but it's just getting too complicated if 9 other states throughout different parts of the country join them.
Even if a state does get approval to change time-zones, what happens if the state doesn't like the change and wants to change back? They risk the USDOT denying their request to change back, and could be stuck in a time zone they don't want to be in. Why would a state want to leave that decision up to the federal government? It will be hung up in committee for years. Think I'm kidding? There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to Indiana time. It took USDOT 2 years to respond to Governor Branigin's petition to place all of Indiana back in the Central Time Zone. Once you get the federal government involved in anything, it's going to turn into a convoluted mess.
QuoteHaving the state split in two time zones was inconvenient, however, so Governor Roger D. Branigin petitioned the USDOT to place all of Indiana back in the Central Time Zone a year later.
Over the next two years, the USDOT conducted several hearings in response to Governor Branigan's petition. Citizens of northwest and southwest Indiana appeared to favor the Central Time Zone with observance of DST, while those from other areas of the state favored the Eastern Time Zone with no observance of DST. The USDOT chose to divide Indiana between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone. Six counties near Chicago (Lake, Porter, LaPorte, Jasper, Newton, and Starke) and six counties near Evansville (Posey, Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer, Gibson, and Pike) were placed in the Central Time Zone with observance of DST. The remainder of the state was placed in the Eastern Time Zone; the state was given special dispensation to exempt parts of itself from DST.
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 02:25:15 PMI'd hardly call it obsolete, either; while the original energy-saving argument no longer applies, I'd assert that the other benefits the clock changes bring with respect to daylight optimization are worth it. Plus the idea of it being light out past 5:30 (I consider civil twilight to still be light out) in winter is just plain wrong.
Can you explain how standard time in the winter optimizes daylight? Standard time is clearly not optimal if daylight optimization is based on minimizing the minutes American's are "˜sleeping in light' during the winter. Common sense dictates that if there is precious little sunlight during the winter and a lack of sunlight makes people depressed, then sleeping through daylight would not help alleviate their winter depression. And for many American's people get home from work and it's already pitch dark out. How does that not sound depressing to you? It's not surprising that people in Maine wants to move to Atlantic time considering the sun sets there before 4PM during the winter.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 02:18:39 PM
The better solution is for areas that want year-round DST to get the DOT to move them east one time zone and then stop observing DST.
It just doesn't seem practical for 11 states to observe standard time (ie. residents never change their clocks) while the other 39 states observe daylight saving time (ie. residents change their clocks two times a year). Not only would visitors have to know what time zone a state is in, they would have to know if the state observes DST or not. It's one thing with Arizona and Hawaii being on standard time year-round, but it's just getting too complicated if 9 other states throughout different parts of the country join them.
Even if a state does get approval to change time-zones, what happens if the state doesn't like the change and wants to change back? They risk the USDOT denying their request to change back, and could be stuck in a time zone they don't want to be in. Why would a state want to leave that decision up to the federal government? It will be hung up in committee for years. Think I'm kidding? There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to Indiana time. It took USDOT 2 years to respond to Governor Branigin's petition to place all of Indiana back in the Central Time Zone. Once you get the federal government involved in anything, it's going to turn into a convoluted mess.
QuoteHaving the state split in two time zones was inconvenient, however, so Governor Roger D. Branigin petitioned the USDOT to place all of Indiana back in the Central Time Zone a year later.
Over the next two years, the USDOT conducted several hearings in response to Governor Branigan's petition. Citizens of northwest and southwest Indiana appeared to favor the Central Time Zone with observance of DST, while those from other areas of the state favored the Eastern Time Zone with no observance of DST. The USDOT chose to divide Indiana between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone. Six counties near Chicago (Lake, Porter, LaPorte, Jasper, Newton, and Starke) and six counties near Evansville (Posey, Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer, Gibson, and Pike) were placed in the Central Time Zone with observance of DST. The remainder of the state was placed in the Eastern Time Zone; the state was given special dispensation to exempt parts of itself from DST.
So there are two competing priorities, each of which has merits. The first is that the fewer variances we have from the current norm of DST observance, the easier it is for everybody to understand what time it is everywhere else. The second is the physical reality that for places that are farther south and/or east in any given time zone, more (or total) DST makes sense and for places that are farther north and/or west in any given time zone, less (or none) DST makes sense. While both are in the Central Time Zone, more DST makes a lot of sense for Pensacola but is a horrible idea for Bismarck.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 03:28:23 PMCan you explain how standard time in the winter optimizes daylight? Standard time is clearly not optimal if daylight optimization is based on minimizing the minutes American's are "˜sleeping in light' during the winter.
Why do people have to be awake in daylight and asleep when dark? We didn't even do that when we didn't have cheap artificial light!
QuoteCommon sense dictates that if there is precious little sunlight during the winter and a lack of sunlight makes people depressed, then sleeping through daylight would not help alleviate their winter depression.
Which makes the idiotic anti-science assumption that we can't use sunlight when asleep. That might be 'common', but it's not 'sense' - rather it's 'nonsense'.
SAD is often alleviated by having sun-imitating lamps in the morning as the lack of morning sleeping through daylight in winter is a cause of SAD!
Optimal daylight is something like dawn around 6am and sunset about 8pm - this gives morning sun to allow people to wake up properly, and evening sun to do outdoor activities after work. There isn't enough sun in winter for this, so we sacrifice the economy-boosting evening activities for the health and sanity of the populous by turning the clocks back to Standard Time. In summer there's plenty of sun (I'm watching the streetlights light up at 10 to 9, and they will go off at about 5:15 tomorrow morning) and so we can shift an hour from the morning and put it on the evening - not because morning sun isn't important (it is), but that sun after 6pm is more useful than sun before 6am - just as sun before 7am is more useful than sun after 7pm.
Quote from: english si on May 03, 2018, 03:53:44 PM
Optimal daylight is something like dawn around 6am and sunset about 8pm - this gives morning sun to allow people to wake up properly, and evening sun to do outdoor activities after work. There isn't enough sun in winter for this, so we sacrifice the economy-boosting evening activities for the health and sanity of the populous by turning the clocks back to Standard Time.
During the winter, dawn begins in Bangor, Maine at 6:35AM and dusk ends at 4:30PM. If what you say is true - that the optimum dawn is around 6AM and that we are willing to sacrifice evening outdoor activities during the winter so that people can wake up properly - then why has Maine's legislator essentially approve a move to Atlantic time? The only reason it hasn't changed time zones yet is because the legislation is contingent on other Atlantic states joining them in the move. I just think there is a larger contingency of people who prefer later sunsets during the winter than you are acknowledging (the people in Maine and Massachusetts being a prime example).
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 10:39:37 AM
Arizona already observes year-round standard time.
And due to that, should Big Rig Steve drive through that state while DST is in force elsewhere (like now), I'd state my forum time is "Pacific" instead of "Mountain" which AZ uses year-round. Steve hasn't moved from Central for over a week now, though.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 03:39:45 PM
The second is the physical reality that for places that are farther south and/or east in any given time zone, more (or total) DST makes sense and for places that are farther north and/or west in any given time zone, less (or none) DST makes sense. While both are in the Central Time Zone, more DST makes a lot of sense for Pensacola but is a horrible idea for Bismarck.
I love diving into specific examples like this. Currently during the winter, dawn in Pensacola begins at 6:15AM and dusk ends at 5:19PM. With year-round DST, dawn would begin at 7:15AM and dusk would end at 6:19PM. I don't think many people in Pensacola would complain about an extra hour of sunlight during the winter evenings, especially considering Pensacola relies heavily on tourist dollars in the winter. And dawn beginning at 7:15AM really doesn't sound excessively late.
Currently dawn in Bismarck during the winter begins at 7:49AM and dusk ends at 5:32PM. With year-round DST, dawn would begin at 8:49AM and dusk would end at 6:32PM. If given the option to run year-round standard time or year-round DST, I think North Dakota may decide to run year-round standard time. But we leave it in the state's hands to decide what is best for it. Honestly nobody is complaining about the dawn/dusk times in Bismarck during the summer. During DST dawn begins at 5:09AM and dusk ends at 10:20PM. Would people of Bismarck really care that much if they went to standard time in the summer and dawn began at 4:09AM and dusk ended at 9:20PM in the summer? That's still plenty of evening sunshine. See under the current system states only decide whether DST makes sense for them during the summer. If they also now must consider how year-round DST would affect the dawn/dusk times during the winter, they may choose to get rid of DST altogether and just stick with standard time year-round. It would sort itself out.
If you're going to change the Northeast to AST/permanent DST/UTC-4, it would make sense for all of the major metro areas to join in on it. If you draw a hard line at the CT/NY border, you would have a major cf for commuters taking Metro-North and/or commuting to and from NYC. You'd have to change time zones going to and from work. Leave at 8 AM in CT, get to work at 8 AM in NY. Then on the way home, leave work at 5 in NY, get home to CT and it's already 7:00. And it would be hard for those who travel between Boston/New York/Philly/DC. The time zone line should pass in an area west of these areas; essentially along or just west of I-81, then curving around through VA south of the DC area and meeting the VA/NC border just west of the Richmond area and following it to the coast.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 04:17:43 PMIf what you say is true - that the optimum dawn is around 6AM and that we are willing to sacrifice evening outdoor activities during the winter so that people can wake up properly - then why has Maine's legislator essentially approve a move to Atlantic time?
The House's 'only if New Hampshire and Mass do it' clause is designed to give it the impression of wanting to do it, while pushing the actual decision to places further west (and thus more reluctant).
The Senate's amendment about a referendum is a handy buck pass too 'well you the people voted for it, so you can't blame us for you not knowing that there is something more depressing than 4pm sunsets: 8am sunrises!' if they vote in favour of the bill and by some disaster the obstacles others have put up have been overcome and Maine moves to AST. That the two legislatures did different wrecking amendments gives another obstacle of their own making to stop them having to actually go through with it, while still looking as if they are on the case wrt the problem of dark evenings in winter.
So while their collective wisdom is pandering to idiots who think a few minutes of light after work is going to mean they get to do all sorts of outdoor activities after work in winter (and those who, like some of the reps voting in favour seem to think from the press clippings I've gleaned*, believe this will increasing the length of daylight experienced) in order to get votes, they won't have to deal with voters turning on them for changing the clocks as it won't happen.
Add in that the legislatures passed it knowing full well that Governor Page views it as "insane", that its supporters need a "therapy session" and that he will certainly veto the bill, with there not being enough support for an override. It's very clear that any vote in favour of the bill was done in the knowledge that they would not be held responsible for any of the negative effects as it would not be enacted (even before we get to the Federal level) - it's all politics and not policy.
*eg bill co-sponsor Kathleen Dillingham "It also is to address health benefits that an extra hour of usable daylight can provide." - how is twilight from 6:30-7:30am not usable if you are finishing work early enough that twilight from 4:30-5:30 is? It's again this bollocks that you can't use sun before work, and especially not when asleep despite the science saying otherwise.
Quote from: english si on May 03, 2018, 05:54:18 PM
Add in that the legislatures passed it knowing full well that Governor Page views it as "insane", that its supporters need a "therapy session" and that he will certainly veto the bill, with there not being enough support for an override. It's very clear that any vote in favour of the bill was done in the knowledge that they would not be held responsible for any of the negative effects as it would not be enacted (even before we get to the Federal level) - it's all politics and not policy.
What about the Florida legislator passing the Sunshine Protection Act? Governor Rick Scott already signed it on March 9, 2018 and the issue is now going to the US Congress. I guess if the Florida legislator felt like Rick Scott would veto the bill, they were mistaken. You really don't think the US Congress would amend the Uniform Time Act again? They just amended it in 2005 under Bush, so I think anything is possible.
What english si said. I suspect most supporters of year-round DST haven't wholly thought through the implications of the change and, given the way many Americans are, I wouldn't be surprised if some people really did think that the amount of daylight would get longer simply because sunset would be later!
It doesn't help that America tends to value economic activity above all else, so if there's even a tiny chance that people will be spending more money due to it, legislatures will be for it.
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 08:24:13 PM
It doesn't help that America tends to value economic activity above all else, so if there's even a tiny chance that people will be spending more money due to it, legislatures will be for it.
This Merica!
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 08:24:13 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if some people really did think that the amount of daylight would get longer simply because sunset would be later!
It's too confusing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4EUTMPuvHo&t=60s
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 11:35:39 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on May 03, 2018, 10:39:37 AM
California is pushing for year-round DST.
Quote
Last year, the California Legislature passed a bipartisan resolution asking Congress to approve a third option for states – permanent daylight saving time. South Bay Congressman Ro Khanna is now spearheading that effort in Washington, D.C.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/05/daylight-saving-time-is-here-to-stay-in-california/
Florida is pushing for year-round DST.
QuoteLawmakers in Florida are tired of the whole "fall back" and "spring forward" rigamarole. So they've approved a bill to keep Daylight Saving Time going throughout the year in their state.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/us/florida-year-round-daylight-saving-time-trnd/index.html
Maine is pushing to change to Atlantic Time (which would effectively be the same as Eastern time w/year-round DST).
QuoteLD 203 would exempt Maine from federal provisions observing Eastern daylight saving time for eight months of the year and move Maine to the Atlantic Standard Time Zone year-round. Practically speaking, that would put Maine an hour ahead of other eastern states, into the time zone shared by Puerto Rico and Canada's maritime provinces, for part of the year.
http://bangordailynews.com/2017/04/27/politics/maine-house-supports-time-zone-switch-dumping-daylight-saving-time/
Massachusetts is pushing to change to Atlantic Time (which would effectively be the same as Eastern time w/year-round DST):
QuoteIn their final report released this past week, a special state commission recommended that Massachusetts switch time zones "under certain circumstances," effectively adopting daylight saving time all year round. The move – which would have the Bay State join Nova Scotia, Puerto Rico, and others in Atlantic Standard Time – would come with costs and benefits.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/11/05/new-england-atlantic-time-zone
South Carolina wants to put the issue to the voters:
QuoteSouth Carolina lawmakers say they want to hear from voters about whether to observe year-round daylight saving time.
The referendum would ask voters if they want to end spring forward and fall back and observe year-round daylight saving time. If the bill is approved, lawmakers would send a joint resolution to Congress requesting a change depending on what the voters decide in November.
https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/future-of-daylight-saving-time-may-go-to-south-carolina/article_334bcac8-48a2-11e8-b19c-5374dd6266ac.html
Louisiana lawmakers consider ending DST; one option being going to year-round DST:
QuoteRep. Mark Wright of Covington presented a proposal to the House Commerce Committee Tuesday that would create a task force to study the impacts of Daylight Saving Time. That proposal was passed favorably to the House floor. Wright and the proposal's author, Rep. Julie Stokes, feel the change in hours is unhealthy and can even lead to injury.
Wright says there are two options for how the adjustment would work. Louisiana would either fall back an hour and stay on that time year-round. This is what Arizona and Hawaii do. Or, the state could stay on Daylight Saving Time (the current time) year-round. Wright says the latter option may be better because Louisianans actually spend most of the year on that time.
http://www.wafb.com/story/38086267/la-lawmakers-consider-getting-rid-of-daylight-saving-time
Arizona already observes year-round standard time.
Hawaii already observes year-round standard time.
What's complicated about this, as has already been pointed out, is that states can choose whether or not to observe DST, but the USDOT determines which time zone any county or state is in, and Congress decides the time frame of DST for those who choose to observe it. States can't actually choose to observe year-round DST, they would have to have the USDOT agree to move them east one time zone and then decide not to observe DST.
One thing to consider is that as of now, standard time is only slightly more than 4 months a year (or 1/3 of the year). So the majority of the year is already at DST. It would then seem appropriate that if the changing of the clocks were fully abandoned, it would not be missed. Most places will probably shift their time to being towards summer time (especially eastern ends of the current time zone), but those on the western end will probably stay on winter time.
So Maine will move to Eastern Daylight Time / Atlantic Standard Time. And Arizona will continue to be at Pacific Daylight Time / Mountain Standard Time.
So end the time change. The whole country will be at fixed time. Then move the boundaries of the time zones as appropriate to fit the needs of the population.
And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives. If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later. In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 08:24:13 PM
I suspect most supporters of year-round DST haven't wholly thought through the implications of the change...
I can think of no negative implications, especially as it personally concerns me.
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 12:05:24 AM
And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives. If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later. In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.
We are for a lot of important things. Work schedules, for one. Good luck changing school hours, only to have the new hours conflict with parents' unchanged work schedules.
Daylight savings time effectively automatically changes all schedules, a lot easier than changing them one by one.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2018, 11:30:50 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 08:24:13 PM
I suspect most supporters of year-round DST haven't wholly thought through the implications of the change...
I can think of no negative implications, especially as it personally concerns me.
You must be able to wake up at or after 8:30 year round. Not all of us have that luxury.
Quote from: oscar on May 04, 2018, 12:00:08 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 12:05:24 AM
And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives. If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later. In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.
We are for a lot of important things. Work schedules, for one. Good luck changing school hours, only to have the new hours conflict with parents' unchanged work schedules.
Daylight savings time effectively automatically changes all schedules, a lot easier than changing them one by one.
Especially since schools would have
already changed thanks to research showing that teenagers are naturally night owls. They don't because of concerns regarding activities and intersections with parent schedules. Workplaces are also very resistant to changing their schedules.
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 12:05:24 AM
In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.
I believe that solar noon should be as close to 12:00 as possible. In theory, I believe that, if our work and school and leisure schedules don't conform nicely to solar noon being close to 12:00, then we should change our schedules rather than shift 12:00 to something other than solar noon. After all, there's nothing inherently difficult about waking up at 5 AM or going to sleep at 9 PM; it's only difficult for many of us because of what the sun is doing around those times. In theory, I believe this. In theory.
BUT. Even in this day and age, we most certainly
are tied in to specific times for most things. At least I am, and so are most of the people I know. Work starts at a specific time, school starts and ends at specific times, church starts at a specific time, the bus stops running at a specific time, the grocery store opens and the bank closes at specific times, etc, etc, etc. And all those times are related to each other: the bus stops running because most people are off work, the store doesn't open earlier because most people haven't gotten up yet, church starts at a time appropriate to its ending in time for lunch, and so on. You can't just up and decide to get up at 11 AM and go to bed at 3 AM if you have a day job and kids in school. Not that anyone suggested that, of course, but it's just as impossible for most of us to adjust our schedule by even one hour.
Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2018, 02:39:07 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 04, 2018, 12:00:08 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 12:05:24 AM
And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives. If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later. In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.
We are for a lot of important things. Work schedules, for one. Good luck changing school hours, only to have the new hours conflict with parents' unchanged work schedules.
Daylight savings time effectively automatically changes all schedules, a lot easier than changing them one by one.
Especially since schools would have already changed thanks to research showing that teenagers are naturally night owls. They don't because of concerns regarding activities and intersections with parent schedules. Workplaces are also very resistant to changing their schedules.
While there are many jobs with fixed schedules like retail and factory many knowledge base jobs allow for flexible schedules. Where I currently work, so long as you work core hours of 10 - 3, you can work any shift that gives you 8 hours plus 30 minutes for lunch. So I can work any schedule from 6:30 - 3 to 10 - 6:30. Many jobs allow you to work extra hours to allow for additional flexibility like alternate Fridays off and maybe telecommuting.
Again the discussion amounts to adjusting time by an hour, not having people disrupt their schedule completely.
Wrt school, I don't see how any working adult can accommodate drop off and pick up on the same day. If the school day is 8:30 - 3 and your commute is 30 minutes, you only have time for 5.5 hours of work. You need to share the responsibility with a spouse or a neighbor.
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2018, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2018, 11:30:50 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 08:24:13 PM
I suspect most supporters of year-round DST haven't wholly thought through the implications of the change...
I can think of no negative implications, especially as it personally concerns me.
You must be able to wake up at or after 8:30 year round. Not all of us have that luxury.
As stated earlier, my wake-up times are generally geared to either my alarm or my bladder. If not for my alarm waking me considerably earlier than 8:30 on work days, I'd probably sleep until 11 or 12.
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 03:26:25 PM
While there are many jobs with fixed schedules like retail and factory many knowledge base jobs allow for flexible schedules. Where I currently work, so long as you work core hours of 10 - 3, you can work any shift that gives you 8 hours plus 30 minutes for lunch. So I can work any schedule from 6:30 - 3 to 10 - 6:30.
I don't think I know a single person who has a schedule like this.
(Actually, when I changed positions at work last year, I got to choose my hours. But they had to be 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and I do not get to change them at my every whim.)
Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2018, 02:39:07 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 04, 2018, 12:00:08 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 12:05:24 AM
And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives. If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later. In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.
We are for a lot of important things. Work schedules, for one. Good luck changing school hours, only to have the new hours conflict with parents' unchanged work schedules.
Daylight savings time effectively automatically changes all schedules, a lot easier than changing them one by one.
Especially since schools would have already changed thanks to research showing that teenagers are naturally night owls. They don't because of concerns regarding activities and intersections with parent schedules. Workplaces are also very resistant to changing their schedules.
I wasn't - 05:00-21:00 sleep schedule since grade school here! (To be specific, I've been getting up well before 06:00 daily since third grade [2000], and I've been going to bed at 21:00 since I was 13 and fresh out of eighth grade [2006].)
I know this will get buried as my last post on page 19 was, but there is exactly zero benefit in having DST for my daily schedule. I prefer waking up around or slightly before sunrise, and I prefer going to bed long after dusk; if I were to have the same sunrise and sunset times year-round, I'd pick 06:00-18:00. (Besides, that would align clock noon perfectly with solar noon, though that's beside the point.)
Prolonged periods of daylight into the evening and late-night hours would have course be beneficial to night owls and many of those who don't need as much sleep, but for someone like me who gets up and goes to bed at the same, relatively early time each day, it would actually be better for me to be on standard time year-round. Sunsets approaching 20:00 are already getting annoying during my late-evening "walk around the house listening to the radio" sessions, being that I feel some songs (such as Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield" and Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers' "Don't Come Around Here No More") are best listened to at night, and also for the sole reason of the discrepancy created between the time on the clock and the shade of the sky around me. My bedtime from early childhood to age 9-10 was 20:00, and it's still ingrained in my mind that that's late at night.
Granted, being in Wisconsin, the latitude itself kind of screws me over in terms of preferred sunrise and sunset times, but for my own selfish whims I'd rather they work in favour of my own schedule as opposed to the more evening-centric daily cycle on which society seems to run.
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 03:26:25 PM
While there are many jobs with fixed schedules like retail and factory many knowledge base jobs allow for flexible schedules. Where I currently work, so long as you work core hours of 10 - 3, you can work any shift that gives you 8 hours plus 30 minutes for lunch. So I can work any schedule from 6:30 - 3 to 10 - 6:30. Many jobs allow you to work extra hours to allow for additional flexibility like alternate Fridays off and maybe telecommuting.
Again the discussion amounts to adjusting time by an hour, not having people disrupt their schedule completely.
Wrt school, I don't see how any working adult can accommodate drop off and pick up on the same day. If the school day is 8:30 - 3 and your commute is 30 minutes, you only have time for 5.5 hours of work. You need to share the responsibility with a spouse or a neighbor.
And many office jobs don't. On my internship, the company policy was 8-5 for the main shift, no exceptions. And "8" meant 7:45, in order to allow people with different shifts to communicate in the office when needed.
At NYSDOT, one can choose their start time on half-hour increments between 7 and 9. Compressed work weeks are available, though the rules were just tightened from what they had been, and the number of employees eligible to participate has been reduced. Employers all over the place are rolling back options like telework and flex time. The trend is clearly heading back to "sit at your desk and work these specified hours".
Quote from: 20160805 on May 04, 2018, 06:17:39 PMI know this will get buried as my last post on page 19 was, but there is exactly zero benefit in having DST for my daily schedule. I prefer waking up around or slightly before sunrise, and I prefer going to bed long after dusk; if I were to have the same sunrise and sunset times year-round, I'd pick 06:00-18:00. (Besides, that would align clock noon perfectly with solar noon, though that's beside the point.)
<snip>
Granted, being in Wisconsin, the latitude itself kind of screws me over in terms of preferred sunrise and sunset times, but for my own selfish whims I'd rather they work in favour of my own schedule as opposed to the more evening-centric daily cycle on which society seems to run.
Move to Singapore! As it's right by the equator, it has minimal disturbance from 12 hour daylight for a major, well-off, city. Of course, this isn't a very practical solution, but nor are the others people are throwing at night owls...
As for evening-centric, while society wants us awake from around equinox sunrise to several hours after equinox sunset, DST is about shrinking the evening and lengthening the bit before morning and there's a very vocal subset that wants that anti-evening setup to be permanent. Meanwhile to abolish DST the other way doesn't have a vocal movement - society doesn't want to lengthen the evening: the push for standard time comes about as
a reaction to the push to make sunrises later in winter to make the day less evening centric.
Plus it's far easier to miss out on TV and parties because you want to go to bed early, than constantly have the threat of being fired because the expectation of waking up early and being in work while it's still not light.
As this thread gies on, I get stronger and stronger impression that DST is primarily a way to address 1 hour time zones being too wide and introduce sort of a halfway zone. Then naturally those at one edge of time zone like it more than those on the other edge as DST us geared towards eastern portion of the zone.
Add "do not touch the clock" group (including me) into the mix, and it all starts adding up... Maybe introducing non-dst Western half zones and DST eastern half zones is what we need? Mess would be an inevitable byproduct, like it would be for any other change though.
Quote from: kalvado on May 05, 2018, 06:16:29 AM
As this thread gies on, I get stronger and stronger impression that DST is primarily a way to address 1 hour time zones being too wide and introduce sort of a halfway zone. Then naturally those at one edge of time zone like it more than those on the other edge as DST us geared towards eastern portion of the zone.
Add "do not touch the clock" group (including me) into the mix, and it all starts adding up... Maybe introducing non-dst Western half zones and DST eastern half zones is what we need? Mess would be an inevitable byproduct, like it would be for any other change though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%2B00:20 (that's UTC+00:20, or UTC+00:19:32.13)
UTC-00:25:21, UTC+01:24, and UTC+04:51 were also used at various times in history.
Quote from: 1 on May 05, 2018, 06:17:54 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%2B00:20 (that's UTC+00:20, or UTC+00:19:32.13)
UTC-00:25:21, UTC+01:24, and UTC+04:51 were also used at various times in history.
Not really relevant. Of course when there was little sybc between different parts of the world, any tiwn could set it own time zone with little effect on anything. Railroad brought the need for country and region wide sync; and global air travel, phone and radio made it more global.
What was lost in process is ability to finely match clock settings to local features (longitude and latitude, but also probably climate and relief), and this thread is about getting that ability back in one way or the other
About a week ago, I proposed one algorithm (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22229.msg2322741#msg2322741) that could be used to assign areas to time zones: awarding a score to whether it is daylight/twilight/nighttime at certain times of the day, awarding points based on that (with a bias towards mornings being of greater sensitivity than evenings), and then seeking to maximize the score throughout the year.
I had the chance to run that algorithm for the "key city" for every TV market in the continental U.S.
If I impose a requirement that every time zone be an even number of hours off from UTC (e.g. EDT=UTC-4, CDT=UTC-5...), I get a map that looks something like this. (Done with Excel's internal mapping, which leaves a lot to be desired...)
(https://n1en.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/map1.png)
(Most of the "missing" counties in CONUS are an artifact of Excel's limited mapping capabilities. Eureka County, NV is still part of the Denver DMA.)
Some of the TZ boundaries implied are inconveniently located. So I tried again, imposing an alternate requirement that every time zone be a "half off" from even deviations from UTC (e.g. UTC -4½, UTC -5½...), and got this result:
(https://n1en.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/map2.png)
...which actually bears a passing resemblance to the original railroad time zone proposal. The "half off" offsets also is consistent with the popular difference of opinion over whether we should go to "just standard time" or "just daylight saving time" if we were to do away with the time change.
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
I agree. Though it sounds absurd to think that Ontario, OR could be in Central Standard Time.
For the record, I'm totally opposed to permanent DST here (though I think eliminating DST would work well in some more southern states, like Florida who is trying to do it). To me: Mountain Time with DST > Permanent MDT/CST > Permanent MST. I fear that if anything changes in Idaho, it would be a change to permanent MST which would suck IMO.
Quote from: doorknob60 on May 08, 2018, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
I agree. Though it sounds absurd to think that Ontario, OR could be in Central Standard Time.
For the record, I'm totally opposed to permanent DST here (though I think eliminating DST would work well in some more southern states, like Florida who is trying to do it). To me: Mountain Time with DST > Permanent MDT/CST > Permanent MST. I fear that if anything changes in Idaho, it would be a change to permanent MST which would suck IMO.
Most of Idaho really belongs in the Pacific time zone. The ideal Mountain/Pacific line is 112.5 degrees west longitude, which is just west of Pocatello. Boise is more or less halfway between the ideal Mountain/Pacific line and Pacific time zone center (120 degrees west). So in a way, if Idaho abolished DST, southwest Idaho and eastern Oregon would essentially be on permanent DST. The current system is more like permanent DST in the winter and double DST in the summer.
Quote from: US 89 on May 08, 2018, 08:36:55 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on May 08, 2018, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Year-round DST, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense. Just move one time zone over without DST, and you'll have the same effect.
I agree. Though it sounds absurd to think that Ontario, OR could be in Central Standard Time.
For the record, I'm totally opposed to permanent DST here (though I think eliminating DST would work well in some more southern states, like Florida who is trying to do it). To me: Mountain Time with DST > Permanent MDT/CST > Permanent MST. I fear that if anything changes in Idaho, it would be a change to permanent MST which would suck IMO.
Most of Idaho really belongs in the Pacific time zone. The ideal Mountain/Pacific line is 112.5 degrees west longitude, which is just west of Pocatello. Boise is more or less halfway between the ideal Mountain/Pacific line and Pacific time zone center (120 degrees west). So in a way, if Idaho abolished DST, southwest Idaho and eastern Oregon would essentially be on permanent DST. The current system is more like permanent DST in the winter and double DST in the summer.
I know, and that's the way I like it. That's why I worry it might go away :-D But I think it works better for most people than the other options would. Visiting places like Las Vegas or Los Angeles that are similar longitude but in Pacific Time is always a downgrade for me.
Quote from: kphoger on May 04, 2018, 03:44:45 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 03:26:25 PM
While there are many jobs with fixed schedules like retail and factory many knowledge base jobs allow for flexible schedules. Where I currently work, so long as you work core hours of 10 - 3, you can work any shift that gives you 8 hours plus 30 minutes for lunch. So I can work any schedule from 6:30 - 3 to 10 - 6:30.
I don't think I know a single person who has a schedule like this.
(Actually, when I changed positions at work last year, I got to choose my hours. But they had to be 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and I do not get to change them at my every whim.)
And for purposes of our discussion regarding DST that flexibility as mentioned in your parentheses is sufficient. If you currently work an 8-4:30 schedule and are allowed the choice (even if only once in your career) to adjust that even by 1 hour to 7-3:30 or 9-5:30, then you have enough flexibility to work around yearround DST.
If you currently work 8-4:30 in a place that changes time every season that's equivalent to working 9-5:30 during the winter months. And if assuming your state becomes permanent DST or permanent standard time, you will then have the choice of keeping your summer schedule (but face dark mornings in the winter), keeping your winter schedule (but have less daylight after work in the summer), or splitting the difference by going 8:30-5. As all the other activities in your life will also become fixed, you can then pick the schedule that works for you.
And as far as my workplace goes, while there is a lot of flexibility in choosing your time, once its set that is your time and you cannot change it randomly. I am set at a 8-4:30 schedule*, but many co-workers are either on an earlier or a later shift and we know that. If someone asks me "Where's John?" I can say he doesn't come in until 9:30.
* But if we go on permanent DST, I can put in a request to move the time more to my liking within the constrains mentioned in my previous post.
Chile comes off DST this weekend, unless the government decides to change it yet again.
Quote from: mrsman on May 09, 2018, 07:53:47 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 04, 2018, 03:44:45 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 03:26:25 PM
While there are many jobs with fixed schedules like retail and factory many knowledge base jobs allow for flexible schedules. Where I currently work, so long as you work core hours of 10 - 3, you can work any shift that gives you 8 hours plus 30 minutes for lunch. So I can work any schedule from 6:30 - 3 to 10 - 6:30.
I don't think I know a single person who has a schedule like this.
(Actually, when I changed positions at work last year, I got to choose my hours. But they had to be 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and I do not get to change them at my every whim.)
And for purposes of our discussion regarding DST that flexibility as mentioned in your parentheses is sufficient. If you currently work an 8-4:30 schedule and are allowed the choice (even if only once in your career) to adjust that even by 1 hour to 7-3:30 or 9-5:30, then you have enough flexibility to work around yearround DST.
If you currently work 8-4:30 in a place that changes time every season that's equivalent to working 9-5:30 during the winter months. And if assuming your state becomes permanent DST or permanent standard time, you will then have the choice of keeping your summer schedule (but face dark mornings in the winter), keeping your winter schedule (but have less daylight after work in the summer), or splitting the difference by going 8:30-5. As all the other activities in your life will also become fixed, you can then pick the schedule that works for you.
And as far as my workplace goes, while there is a lot of flexibility in choosing your time, once its set that is your time and you cannot change it randomly. I am set at a 8-4:30 schedule*, but many co-workers are either on an earlier or a later shift and we know that. If someone asks me "Where's John?" I can say he doesn't come in until 9:30.
* But if we go on permanent DST, I can put in a request to move the time more to my liking within the constrains mentioned in my previous post.
I work 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM. That's what I chose, and that's what I have to stick with. Similar to you, but with no carve-out for DST.
But it doesn't really mean anything to say I chose that schedule. My wife's schedule doesn't depend on mine. Church activities don't depend on my schedule. My friends' schedules don't depend on mine. Etc.
My wife's schedule, however,
does depend on what a typical work schedule is for other people. Therefore, she works from approximately 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Because she and I are getting up between 6 and 7 AM, then, our children also get up around that time; therefore they go to bed between 8 and 9 PM. It's annoying to have to try and get young children to go to bed when it's still light out.
Quote from: mrsman on May 09, 2018, 07:53:47 AM
And for purposes of our discussion regarding DST that flexibility as mentioned in your parentheses is sufficient. If you currently work an 8-4:30 schedule and are allowed the choice (even if only once in your career) to adjust that even by 1 hour to 7-3:30 or 9-5:30, then you have enough flexibility to work around yearround DST.
If you currently work 8-4:30 in a place that changes time every season that's equivalent to working 9-5:30 during the winter months. And if assuming your state becomes permanent DST or permanent standard time, you will then have the choice of keeping your summer schedule (but face dark mornings in the winter), keeping your winter schedule (but have less daylight after work in the summer), or splitting the difference by going 8:30-5. As all the other activities in your life will also become fixed, you can then pick the schedule that works for you.
And as far as my workplace goes, while there is a lot of flexibility in choosing your time, once its set that is your time and you cannot change it randomly. I am set at a 8-4:30 schedule*, but many co-workers are either on an earlier or a later shift and we know that. If someone asks me "Where's John?" I can say he doesn't come in until 9:30.
* But if we go on permanent DST, I can put in a request to move the time more to my liking within the constrains mentioned in my previous post.
I think it's safe to say that most employers that aren't going the whole hog with flex time will NOT allow people to change their schedule on the current DST dates (I know at NYSDOT at least, the trend is towards
reducing the amount of flexibility employees have in setting their schedule, not increasing it). Plus the rest of the world won't move, which could mean a person couldn't use that option even if they had it. Leaving work an hour later to avoid waking up in darkness may sound like an awesome idea, but not if it means commuting home in peak rush hour, missing the news, having a harder time scheduling appointments or with family, etc.
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2018, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 09, 2018, 07:53:47 AM
And for purposes of our discussion regarding DST that flexibility as mentioned in your parentheses is sufficient. If you currently work an 8-4:30 schedule and are allowed the choice (even if only once in your career) to adjust that even by 1 hour to 7-3:30 or 9-5:30, then you have enough flexibility to work around yearround DST.
If you currently work 8-4:30 in a place that changes time every season that's equivalent to working 9-5:30 during the winter months. And if assuming your state becomes permanent DST or permanent standard time, you will then have the choice of keeping your summer schedule (but face dark mornings in the winter), keeping your winter schedule (but have less daylight after work in the summer), or splitting the difference by going 8:30-5. As all the other activities in your life will also become fixed, you can then pick the schedule that works for you.
And as far as my workplace goes, while there is a lot of flexibility in choosing your time, once its set that is your time and you cannot change it randomly. I am set at a 8-4:30 schedule*, but many co-workers are either on an earlier or a later shift and we know that. If someone asks me "Where's John?" I can say he doesn't come in until 9:30.
* But if we go on permanent DST, I can put in a request to move the time more to my liking within the constrains mentioned in my previous post.
I think it's safe to say that most employers that aren't going the whole hog with flex time will NOT allow people to change their schedule on the current DST dates (I know at NYSDOT at least, the trend is towards reducing the amount of flexibility employees have in setting their schedule, not increasing it). Plus the rest of the world won't move, which could mean a person couldn't use that option even if they had it. Leaving work an hour later to avoid waking up in darkness may sound like an awesome idea, but not if it means commuting home in peak rush hour, missing the news, having a harder time scheduling appointments or with family, etc.
The idea is that everyone probably has some part of their schedule that is fixed and then everything else can be moved around that. For me it's an early morning religious service 6:30-7 that I attend before work. Then I commute and I arrive at work at 8. Work 8 hours + lunch until 4:30 and then commute home. My work schedule was of my choosing and I chose the time that was convenient with the religious service. [The religious service was chosen to be convenient to most people's work schedules, but obviously it doesn't work for everyone.]
I can safely say that if the religious service were moved 30 min earlier or 30 min later, I would probably adjust my work schedule accordingly. But if the religious service moved really late such that I would have to start work after 9 am, I would probably regrettable forego attending the religious service and attend an after-work religious service instead.
And the idea isn't that I will change my schedule every 6 months - if permanent DST is imposed, I will probably stay on my current schedule and face some dark winter mornings.
And that's OK and probably more convenient then actually being forced to change my schedule every November and March by the govt.
Am I seriously the only person who finds changing the clocks to be more convenient than things like dragging myself out of bed in pitch darkness (even when it's light out, it's pretty hard) or trying to scrape ice off the windshield when the sun hasn't had a chance to warm things up?
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2018, 08:55:40 PM
Am I seriously the only person who finds changing the clocks to be more convenient than things like dragging myself out of bed in pitch darkness (even when it's light out, it's pretty hard) or trying to scrape ice off the windshield when the sun hasn't had a chance to warm things up?
No you're not the only one. Especially now, as almost half my clocks set themselves anyway.
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2018, 08:55:40 PM
Am I seriously the only person who finds changing the clocks to be more convenient than things like dragging myself out of bed in pitch darkness (even when it's light out, it's pretty hard) or trying to scrape ice off the windshield when the sun hasn't had a chance to warm things up?
I prefer DST as well. A sunrise before 5am in the summer is ridiculous, especially since sunset would be at 8pm. But if we did permanent DST, then winter sunrise would be as late as 9am with a sunset of 6pm. With summer DST, winter daylight lasts from 8 to 5, and summer daylight lasts from 5 to 9, which is a much better arrangement overall.
EDIT: those times are for Salt Lake City. The time of daylight is going to vary significantly depending on latitude.
I don't see how any Northeasterner can enjoy DST. Right when the Sun starts coming up, you spring forward and thrown into the dark again. Throws of your rhythms. Should be timed and adjusted to prevent that whiplash, if we are going to insist on keeping this antiquated notion.
I'll throw out there again my idea of a nationwide time zone for the 48 contiguous states ... GMT-6.5.
Neither coast will be off by more than 90 minutes.
Quote from: US 89 on May 09, 2018, 10:19:01 PMI prefer DST as well. A sunrise before 5am in the summer is ridiculous, especially since sunset would be at 8pm.
A sunrise before 5am isn't that absurd - I don't think I'm going to notice the difference in 12 days time when I have that, compared to now (this is on DST) at quarter past 5. Either way it's still really early, though it does mean that I'm well awake at 7am.
I'm not sure a 5am standard time sunrise necessarily means a 8pm standard time sunset. With my 4am standard time sunrises, I then get 8pm standard time sunsets. Which translates as 5am-9pm on summer time. 9pm sunsets are going to be better for parents with young kids than 4am sunrises as at least parents would like to be up at 9pm!
QuoteBut if we did permanent DST, then winter sunrise would be as late as 9am with a sunset of 6pm.
Lucky - if sunrise here is moved to 9 (rather than just after 8) due to being on summer time mid-winter, sunset would be just before 5 (rather than just before 4).
Quote from: english si on May 10, 2018, 03:34:32 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 09, 2018, 10:19:01 PMI prefer DST as well. A sunrise before 5am in the summer is ridiculous, especially since sunset would be at 8pm.
A sunrise before 5am isn't that absurd - I don't think I'm going to notice the difference in 12 days time when I have that, compared to now (this is on DST) at quarter past 5. Either way it's still really early, though it does mean that I'm well awake at 7am.
I'm not sure a 5am standard time sunrise necessarily means a 8pm standard time sunset. With my 4am standard time sunrises, I then get 8pm standard time sunsets. Which translates as 5am-9pm on summer time. 9pm sunsets are going to be better for parents with young kids than 4am sunrises as at least parents would like to be up at 9pm!
QuoteBut if we did permanent DST, then winter sunrise would be as late as 9am with a sunset of 6pm.
Lucky - if sunrise here is moved to 9 (rather than just after 8) due to being on summer time mid-winter, sunset would be just before 5 (rather than just before 4).
What people don't realize is that sunrise-sunset times change with latitude quite a bit, and what is described as oh-so-absolutely intolerable by someone to the south could be a very good case scenario few hundred miles to the north. Now Europe is in general more northern than US, with London in particular being to the north of Winnipeg, and Glasgow - quite a bit to the north of Edmonton...
Quote from: kalvado on May 10, 2018, 07:57:24 AM
Quote from: english si on May 10, 2018, 03:34:32 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 09, 2018, 10:19:01 PMI prefer DST as well. A sunrise before 5am in the summer is ridiculous, especially since sunset would be at 8pm.
A sunrise before 5am isn't that absurd - I don't think I'm going to notice the difference in 12 days time when I have that, compared to now (this is on DST) at quarter past 5. Either way it's still really early, though it does mean that I'm well awake at 7am.
I'm not sure a 5am standard time sunrise necessarily means a 8pm standard time sunset. With my 4am standard time sunrises, I then get 8pm standard time sunsets. Which translates as 5am-9pm on summer time. 9pm sunsets are going to be better for parents with young kids than 4am sunrises as at least parents would like to be up at 9pm!
QuoteBut if we did permanent DST, then winter sunrise would be as late as 9am with a sunset of 6pm.
Lucky - if sunrise here is moved to 9 (rather than just after 8) due to being on summer time mid-winter, sunset would be just before 5 (rather than just before 4).
What people don't realize is that sunrise-sunset times change with latitude quite a bit, and what is described as oh-so-absolutely intolerable by someone to the south could be a very good case scenario few hundred miles to the north. Now Europe is in general more northern than US, with London in particular being to the north of Winnipeg, and Glasgow - quite a bit to the north of Edmonton...
Then why change something that works in the South just to satisfy someone a *thousand miles away or more* to the north?
Seems like if someone can't deal with the sunlight variations, they should move to an area that works better for them.
Quote from: Rothman on May 10, 2018, 12:10:42 AM
I don't see how any Northeasterner can enjoy DST. Right when the Sun starts coming up, you spring forward and thrown into the dark again. Throws of your rhythms.
At our latitude, it literally only takes a few weeks to regain that hour. It certainly couldn't occur at a better time of year, and it makes for *more or less* ideal daylight usage in the summer
and the winter. In the grand scheme of things, losing that hour is mildly annoying, but doesn't by any means outweigh the positive implications.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2018, 08:42:01 AM
Then why change something that works in the South just to satisfy someone a *thousand miles away or more* to the north?
Seems like if someone can't deal with the sunlight variations, they should move to an area that works better for them.
Is that an argument for, or against DST? :sombrero: I can see it both ways.
Clock sync to 60 min increments is done in the interest of non-local commerce (remember railroads initiating all these?); so interests of those *thousand miles away or more* are in the game.
Now looks like most people don't mind individual states selecting their own time zone and DST rules (at least to some extent, multiple DST dates within same economic area would be a problem) without regards to preferences of other state which are *thousand miles away or more*.
And (personal opinion below) I don't quite buy those arguments about DST back-and-forth being oh-so-crucial as I do have some perspective from living further north where you wake up in a dark November to February, no matter DST or not; and you wake up in broad sunlight in summer - also regardless of DST or not. And I do think that 1-hour move is really uncomfortable. But this is just me.
Quote from: webny99 on May 10, 2018, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 10, 2018, 12:10:42 AM
I don't see how any Northeasterner can enjoy DST. Right when the Sun starts coming up, you spring forward and thrown into the dark again. Throws of your rhythms.
At our latitude, it literally only takes a few weeks to regain that hour. It certainly couldn't occur at a better time of year, and it makes for *more or less* ideal daylight usage in the summer and the winter. In the grand scheme of things, losing that hour is mildly annoying, but doesn't by any means outweigh the positive implications.
Those weeks are brutal and intolerable and not ideal.
Quote from: kalvado on May 10, 2018, 10:46:24 AM
I don't quite buy those arguments about DST back-and-forth being oh-so-crucial as I do have some perspective from living further north where you wake up in a dark November to February, no matter DST or not; and you wake up in broad sunlight in summer - also regardless of DST or not. And I do think that 1-hour move is really uncomfortable. But this is just me.
Bingo. If you have a routine of getting up at 6:30AM every morning then you are probably already waking up in pitch darkness during the winter solstice. Of the top 20 major metros in America, dawn begins before 6:30AM in only LA, Riverside, and San Diego (all southern cities). Dawn doesn't begin before 6:30AM in any major northern city. If you really need daylight to wake up, then you shouldn't live in a northern city during the winter. Now a lack of daylight in the winter is offset with an abundance of daylight during the summer so you do got that to look forward to at least.
Nobody is going to be happy with the sunrise/sunset times in northern cities during the winter because there is so damn little daylight to begin with (not to mention it's brutally cold so you're probably already pretty miserable). That's why the focus should be on what sunrise/sunset times makes people happy during the summer (and let the winter sunrise/sunsets just fall into place from there).
So just because it's a dark morning on the day with the latest sunrise means we should have
more days like that just because some people are too lazy to change clocks? Many clocks are automatic or have some kind of DST switch these days, and digital clocks aren't that hard to set. Unless everything's analog for you, I'm not sure what's so hard about it. Of course, shifting my bedtime the night before to prepare (since I tend to stay up a couple hours later on Friday/Saturday than the rest of the week, and wake up 3-6 hours later, the shift isn't noticed because my weekend schedule is shifted by a huge amount anyways).
Regarding cold and whatnot, unlike the people down south (and many people up here too), I actually like the seasons. I wouldn't want to live somewhere that was hot year round. It would feel to weird. That's not even getting to the fact that a warm winter probably means an unbearable summer.
Quote from: Rothman on May 10, 2018, 12:10:42 AM
I don't see how any Northeasterner can enjoy DST. Right when the Sun starts coming up, you spring forward and thrown into the dark again. Throws of your rhythms. Should be timed and adjusted to prevent that whiplash, if we are going to insist on keeping this antiquated notion.
That's why I'd go back to the way it was before Bush changed it.
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2018, 01:56:51 PM
So just because it's a dark morning on the day with the latest sunrise means we should have more days like that just because some people are too lazy to change clocks? Many clocks are automatic or have some kind of DST switch these days, and digital clocks aren't that hard to set. Unless everything's analog for you, I'm not sure what's so hard about it. Of course, shifting my bedtime the night before to prepare (since I tend to stay up a couple hours later on Friday/Saturday than the rest of the week, and wake up 3-6 hours later, the shift isn't noticed because my weekend schedule is shifted by a huge amount anyways).
Regarding cold and whatnot, unlike the people down south (and many people up here too), I actually like the seasons. I wouldn't want to live somewhere that was hot year round. It would feel to weird. That's not even getting to the fact that a warm winter probably means an unbearable summer.
Quote from: Rothman on May 10, 2018, 12:10:42 AM
I don't see how any Northeasterner can enjoy DST. Right when the Sun starts coming up, you spring forward and thrown into the dark again. Throws of your rhythms. Should be timed and adjusted to prevent that whiplash, if we are going to insist on keeping this antiquated notion.
That's why I'd go back to the way it was before Bush changed it.
OK, lets look at it from the other side.
So just because someone cannot make themselves to observe simple schedule, we should have
more people suffer like that just because some people are too lazy to behave? Unless you have unstructured job where you're doing something different and at different time every single day, it is fairly easy and natural to live on a 24-hour schedule. Unless everything's messy around you, I'm not sure what's so hard about it.
Of course, you don't put value in scheduling as your weekend schedule is shifted by a huge amount anyways. Shifting your bedtime the night before to prepare (since you tend to stay up a couple hours later on Friday/Saturday than the rest of the week, and wake up 3-6 hours later, the shift isn't noticed) - but don't enforce that slap in the face on others who try (or have to) live more organized and healthier life.
:sombrero:
I tried to be symmetric here..
It's not laziness. I've had problems with insomnia and waking up for as long as I've been alive. I suspect it's delayed sleep phase syndrome. On the few occasions I've pulled all-nighters, I've noticed that I actually function fairly well on a 36 hour day.
It doesn't help that my work is contrary to my circadian rhythm. It's much easier to keep a schedule when it matches your natural rhythm than when it doesn't.
My Asperger's Syndrome may also contribute. My sense to time is all screwed up, so I'm reliant on clocks to tell me what time it is no matter how long ago the last time change was.
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2018, 01:56:51 PM
So just because it's a dark morning on the day with the latest sunrise means we should have more days like that just because some people are too lazy to change clocks?
People living above the 40th parallel (northern states) are going to be miserable during the winter no matter what the dawn/dusk times are. It's apparent you value more sun in the morning to function, but then you are ignoring those who get depressed when the sun sets so early during the winter. The people who want later sunrises are ignoring people like you who want more sunlight in the morning to function. Ultimately, someone is going to get shafted.
People living below the 35th parallel (southern states) aren't so miserable in the winter because they get a little more sunlight throughout the day and the weather can be quite pleasant. So why not pick dawn/dusk times in the winter that works best for the southern states? It just so happens Florida is the state pushing hardest for permanent DST. In addition, Arizona has already decided that year-round standard time works best for them. So, we are left with California, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. What do these states want? I imagine most of these states would favor year-round DST as it would likely inject more winter tourism dollars into their economies. More sunlight into the evenings means more money spent by those northern tourists. And are those northern tourists who usually get up at 6AM for work still getting up at 6AM while they are on their week-long winter vacation in Florida? Potentially, these "morning people" would transform into "night owls" during their week-long vacation and would benefit from the later sunsets while they are on the beach.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 10, 2018, 01:47:10 AM
I'll throw out there again my idea of a nationwide time zone for the 48 contiguous states ... GMT-6.5.
Neither coast will be off by more than 90 minutes.
That would mean for me in CT that on June 21st the sun would rise at 2:45 AM and set at 6:00 PM, and on December 21st the sun would rise at 5:49 AM and set at 2:50 PM. No way that would fly.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 10, 2018, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 10, 2018, 01:47:10 AM
I'll throw out there again my idea of a nationwide time zone for the 48 contiguous states ... GMT-6.5.
Neither coast will be off by more than 90 minutes.
That would mean for me in CT that on June 21st the sun would rise at 2:45 AM and set at 6:00 PM, and on December 21st the sun would rise at 5:49 AM and set at 2:50 PM. No way that would fly.
It would work beautifully if your working day is adjusted to 6.30-3.00 or so, and school starts at 6.00
There is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees, for the maples want more sunlight and the oaks ignore their pleas.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 10, 2018, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2018, 01:56:51 PM
So just because it's a dark morning on the day with the latest sunrise means we should have more days like that just because some people are too lazy to change clocks?
People living above the 40th parallel (northern states) are going to be miserable during the winter no matter what the dawn/dusk times are. It's apparent you value more sun in the morning to function, but then you are ignoring those who get depressed when the sun sets so early during the winter. The people who want later sunrises are ignoring people like you who want more sunlight in the morning to function. Ultimately, someone is going to get shafted.
People living below the 35th parallel (southern states) aren't so miserable in the winter because they get a little more sunlight throughout the day and the weather can be quite pleasant. So why not pick dawn/dusk times in the winter that works best for the southern states? It just so happens Florida is the state pushing hardest for permanent DST. In addition, Arizona has already decided that year-round standard time works best for them. So, we are left with California, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. What do these states want? I imagine most of these states would favor year-round DST as it would likely inject more winter tourism dollars into their economies. More sunlight into the evenings means more money spent by those northern tourists. And are those northern tourists who usually get up at 6AM for work still getting up at 6AM while they are on their week-long winter vacation in Florida? Potentially, these "morning people" would transform into "night owls" during their week-long vacation and would benefit from the later sunsets while they are on the beach.
I'm pretty sure it was pointed out that seasonal affective disorder is more about TOTAL amount of sunlight, rather than amount after work. In any case, that might be a good reason why offices need windows. I certainly find being in a glorified artificial cave depressing.
Tourism is certainly a reason that I have to fear permanent DST that I don't think about enough. Tourist traffic on I-87 is unbearable in the summer. Would this cause similar traffic in the winter as well?
As for favoring southern states, I have two words for that, which I will not write down here. Let's just say that I already believe that the south is favored too much and leave it at that.
Instead of moving our clocks twice a year, move the Earth to a binary star system. Twice the suns = twice the amount of daylight. Now that's how you save daylight.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 10, 2018, 09:13:46 PM
Instead of moving our clocks twice a year, move the Earth to a binary star system. Twice the suns = twice the amount of daylight. Now that's how you save daylight.
No chance to get support for that from current administration. But converting moon to a smaller star may get some traction.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 10, 2018, 03:03:43 PMPeople living above the 40th parallel (northern states) are going to be miserable during the winter no matter what the dawn/dusk times are.
Very true (from above the 50th) - though at least here I get summer happy, which I'm not sure I would living long term somewhere further south where the sunrise is post-6am in summer (with DST). The winter isn't that bad as then everyone is tired and semi-hibernating - the worst bit is actually the fall due to changing clocks back too late - and unlike Miami, etc I get later sunrises and earlier sunsets in Dec/Jan than just before the clocks go back.
I don't have much of a problem with Floridians effectively working much earlier relative to solar noon (or the general US trend for that compared to the UK) - I'm not in Florida, and if I was, I'd be on vacation anyway. I will point out that post-8am sunrises are very depressing and they won't like them, even if it means they get half an hours' worth of light after work those winter days, rather than none.
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2018, 08:15:22 PMI'm pretty sure it was pointed out that seasonal affective disorder is more about TOTAL amount of sunlight, rather than amount after work.
If any end of the day matters more for SAD, it's the morning.
Certainly sleep-related conditions are worse at the west edges of time zones than the east, suggesting a lack of evening light isn't bad for the body/brain.
Apparently nobody else ever likes darkness or has trouble sleeping when it's still light out past bedtime. You guys talk about my 16:15 December sunsets like they're the devil or something.
I'd like to wake up just before dawn and go to bed well after dusk; 06:00-18:00 daylight hours are just plain optimized to my personal preferences. And when we worry about night owls not having enough light after work (which contradicts the point of being a night owl, doesn't it?, as they'd now be known as "morning owls"), we ignore the fact that there are some people who don't want to be forced to stay awake until 22:30. And if I stay awake until 22:30, I get only about six hours of sleep, causing me to be cranky and lethargic the next day, and if this is a year-round thing, I'd probably get fired.
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2018, 08:15:22 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on May 10, 2018, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2018, 01:56:51 PM
So just because it's a dark morning on the day with the latest sunrise means we should have more days like that just because some people are too lazy to change clocks?
People living above the 40th parallel (northern states) are going to be miserable during the winter no matter what the dawn/dusk times are. It's apparent you value more sun in the morning to function, but then you are ignoring those who get depressed when the sun sets so early during the winter. The people who want later sunrises are ignoring people like you who want more sunlight in the morning to function. Ultimately, someone is going to get shafted.
People living below the 35th parallel (southern states) aren't so miserable in the winter because they get a little more sunlight throughout the day and the weather can be quite pleasant. So why not pick dawn/dusk times in the winter that works best for the southern states? It just so happens Florida is the state pushing hardest for permanent DST. In addition, Arizona has already decided that year-round standard time works best for them. So, we are left with California, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. What do these states want? I imagine most of these states would favor year-round DST as it would likely inject more winter tourism dollars into their economies. More sunlight into the evenings means more money spent by those northern tourists. And are those northern tourists who usually get up at 6AM for work still getting up at 6AM while they are on their week-long winter vacation in Florida? Potentially, these "morning people" would transform into "night owls" during their week-long vacation and would benefit from the later sunsets while they are on the beach.
I'm pretty sure it was pointed out that seasonal affective disorder is more about TOTAL amount of sunlight, rather than amount after work. In any case, that might be a good reason why offices need windows. I certainly find being in a glorified artificial cave depressing.
Tourism is certainly a reason that I have to fear permanent DST that I don't think about enough. Tourist traffic on I-87 is unbearable in the summer. Would this cause similar traffic in the winter as well?
As for favoring southern states, I have two words for that, which I will not write down here. Let's just say that I already believe that the south is favored too much and leave it at that.
Actually, depending on the person, it's been mentioned several times they just wanted later daylight.
I doubt tourism would go up much because of winter and school schedules, and if tourism were to go up, it would be going up all over the northern climates and not limited to any one particular area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2018, 08:46:53 AM
I doubt tourism would go up much because of winter and school schedules, and if tourism were to go up, it would be going up all over the northern climates and not limited to any one particular area.
I would think that for Northway - 3 hours drive from anywhere else - tourist needs at least a full day - more like several days - to do anything meaningful; and shift of DST/solar time would affect hours of skiing resorts operation (they do need sunlight), and when people are going to/from there within a day - but not a total headcount.
Quote from: english si on May 11, 2018, 07:05:27 AM
post-8am sunrises are very depressing
Worse still are sunrises just before lunchtime, like in Fairbanks AK around the winter solstice.
But DST is useless in Alaska due to the extreme variations in daylight, so thought has been given to abandoning DST there (preferring to synch with non-DST Asian trading partners than with the rest of North America).
Quote from: oscar on May 11, 2018, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: english si on May 11, 2018, 07:05:27 AM
post-8am sunrises are very depressing
Worse still are sunrises just before lunchtime, like in Fairbanks AK around the winter solstice.
But DST is useless in Alaska due to the extreme variations in daylight, so thought has been given to abandoning DST there (preferring to synch with non-DST Asian trading partners than with the rest of North America).
Agree that DST is useless in the main part of Alaska. But they decided to put the whole state in one time zone, and DST is useful in the panhandle. Also there's a whole lot more trade and travel to the Lower 48 than there is to the Asian trading partners.
Quote from: kalvado on May 11, 2018, 12:27:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2018, 08:46:53 AM
I doubt tourism would go up much because of winter and school schedules, and if tourism were to go up, it would be going up all over the northern climates and not limited to any one particular area.
I would think that for Northway - 3 hours drive from anywhere else - tourist needs at least a full day - more like several days - to do anything meaningful; and shift of DST/solar time would affect hours of skiing resorts operation (they do need sunlight), and when people are going to/from there within a day - but not a total headcount.
While volume heading up to the Adirondacks is certainly a major factor in non-commuting congestion (especially since the Northway is essentially a funnel for traffic from Boston, Syracuse, Binghamton, and NYC), shopping traffic can be an issue too. The biggest causes of congesion on my commute (especially since I'm south of the Twin Bridges) are the merges onto I-87 from Wolf Road and, if busy enough to back up to exit 5 (or stuck behind someone who travels slowly in the exit only lane because people in the general purpose lanes are, either because they're cautious, obsessed about not passing on the right, or cutting through the lane with intent to "merge" just before exit 6), also NY 7/NY 2 and the NY 7 freeway.
Quote from: 20160805 on May 11, 2018, 07:20:01 AM
Apparently nobody else ever likes darkness or has trouble sleeping when it's still light out past bedtime. You guys talk about my 16:15 December sunsets like they're the devil or something.
I'd like to wake up just before dawn and go to bed well after dusk; 06:00-18:00 daylight hours are just plain optimized to my personal preferences. And when we worry about night owls not having enough light after work (which contradicts the point of being a night owl, doesn't it?, as they'd now be known as "morning owls"), we ignore the fact that there are some people who don't want to be forced to stay awake until 22:30. And if I stay awake until 22:30, I get only about six hours of sleep, causing me to be cranky and lethargic the next day, and if this is a year-round thing, I'd probably get fired.
It doesn't really happen where I'm from (latest sunset in Albany is 8:36), but yes, that would be an issue for me if it did, especially since my bedroom gets the evening sun. I don't know how people in more northern places do it. I've even been known to put blankets on my face at night just to block out the light from the LEDs that illuminate the grounds outside my apartment sometimes.
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2018, 08:55:40 PM
Am I seriously the only person who finds changing the clocks to be more convenient than things like dragging myself out of bed in pitch darkness (even when it's light out, it's pretty hard) or trying to scrape ice off the windshield when the sun hasn't had a chance to warm things up?
But having to drag myself out of bed in pitch darkness is why I'm
against changing the clocks.
If we didn't have DST, then we wouldn't be setting our clocks an hour ahead
in the spring before spring even begins. So, for example, Wichita's current sunrise time of 6:22 AM would actually be 5:22 AM. When my alarm goes off at 6:00, it would already be light outside and I'd be a lot more eager to get out of bed.
Every year, just when I'm starting to enjoy it being a little bit light outside when my alarm goes off, that happiness gets yanked out from under me, precisely
because DST makes us change our clocks.
DST doesn't even enter into it in the middle of winter, which is when the windshield ice is thick enough to even matter. Because that's not when DST is.
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2018, 02:07:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2018, 08:55:40 PM
Am I seriously the only person who finds changing the clocks to be more convenient than things like dragging myself out of bed in pitch darkness (even when it's light out, it's pretty hard) or trying to scrape ice off the windshield when the sun hasn't had a chance to warm things up?
But having to drag myself out of bed in pitch darkness is why I'm against changing the clocks.
If we didn't have DST, then we wouldn't be setting our clocks an hour ahead in the spring before spring even begins. So, for example, Wichita's current sunrise time of 6:22 AM would actually be 5:22 AM. When my alarm goes off at 6:00, it would already be light outside and I'd be a lot more eager to get out of bed.
Every year, just when I'm starting to enjoy it being a little bit light outside when my alarm goes off, that happiness gets yanked out from under me, precisely because DST makes us change our clocks.
DST doesn't even enter into it in the middle of winter, which is when the windshield ice is thick enough to even matter. Because that's not when DST is.
That's a problem with the extension of the time DST is observed that started in 2007, not with the concept of DST in general.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2018, 08:46:53 AM
I doubt tourism would go up much because of winter and school schedules, and if tourism were to go up, it would be going up all over the northern climates and not limited to any one particular area.
I don't think a northern state like Michigan has the same level of winter tourism as Florida. Florida had nearly 120 million visitors last year, and winter tourism plays a pivotal role in Florida's economy. I believe Florida legislator passed the Sunshine Protection Act largely due to the fact that they believe later sunsets in the winter would pump more money into their economy. A JP Morgan Chase November 2016 study found:
QuoteOur analysis finds the policy is associated with a 0.9 percent increase in daily card spending per capita in Los Angeles at the beginning of DST and a reduction in daily card spending per capita of 3.5 percent at the end of DST. The increase in spending at the beginning of DST is determined by comparing daily card spending per capita in the 30 days before DST starts, to daily card spending per capita in the 30 days after DST starts. The decrease at the end captures a similar window to compare spending in the 30 days before and after the end of DST. Most of the impact stems from responses at the end of DST, when spending on goods drops more than spending on services, and spending during the work week drops more than weekend spending. The magnitude of the spending reductions outweighs increased spending at the beginning of DST.
Once DST begins, there is an increase in purchases, and once DST ends the purchases decline. The theory is that once DST ends, it may affect people's decision to patronize a merchant when it's already dark out after work. The same concept can be applied to tourists. Once it gets dark out, this may affect tourist's decision to patronize a merchant...
QuoteThere are large differences in spending changes across days of the week. Increases in card spending at the beginning of DST are virtually the same for weekdays and weekends in Los Angeles. However, spending during the work week declined significantly more than spending during the weekend at the end of DST. This finding is consistent with the idea that consumers with jobs may have limited time to shop during the work week. If daylight affects the decision to patronize a merchant, we would expect that losing an hour of daylight would have a larger effect when there are fewer hours available. Conversely, since most consumers do not work on the weekends, they have the freedom to engage in commerce over a far greater range of times on Saturdays and Sundays.
Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2018, 02:19:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2018, 02:07:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2018, 08:55:40 PM
Am I seriously the only person who finds changing the clocks to be more convenient than things like dragging myself out of bed in pitch darkness (even when it's light out, it's pretty hard) or trying to scrape ice off the windshield when the sun hasn't had a chance to warm things up?
But having to drag myself out of bed in pitch darkness is why I'm against changing the clocks.
If we didn't have DST, then we wouldn't be setting our clocks an hour ahead in the spring before spring even begins. So, for example, Wichita's current sunrise time of 6:22 AM would actually be 5:22 AM. When my alarm goes off at 6:00, it would already be light outside and I'd be a lot more eager to get out of bed.
Every year, just when I'm starting to enjoy it being a little bit light outside when my alarm goes off, that happiness gets yanked out from under me, precisely because DST makes us change our clocks.
DST doesn't even enter into it in the middle of winter, which is when the windshield ice is thick enough to even matter. Because that's not when DST is.
That's a problem with the extension of the time DST is observed that started in 2007, not with the concept of DST in general.
Depending on what time you wake up, that is...
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2018, 02:07:18 PM
If we didn't have DST, then we wouldn't be setting our clocks an hour ahead in the spring before spring even begins. So, for example, Wichita's current sunrise time of 6:22 AM would actually be 5:22 AM. When my alarm goes off at 6:00, it would already be light outside and I'd be a lot more eager to get out of bed.
But by the summer solstice the sunrise in Wichita would be 5:07 AM without DST. That may not sound too early, but keep in mind Wichita is on the western edge of Central Time and at a relatively southern latitude. Consider the effects no DST would have on northern latitude city on the eastern edge of a time zone (ie. Boston). The sun would rise in Boston at 4:07AM with dawn breaking at 3:32AM. It would be even worse in Maine.... at the very northeastern edge of Maine the sun would rise at 3:36AM with dawn breaking at 2:56AM without DST. That's too ridiculous and would guarantee Maine moving to Atlantic time (or at least petitioning the USDOT to do so).
Quote from: tradephoric on May 11, 2018, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2018, 02:07:18 PM
If we didn't have DST, then we wouldn't be setting our clocks an hour ahead in the spring before spring even begins. So, for example, Wichita's current sunrise time of 6:22 AM would actually be 5:22 AM. When my alarm goes off at 6:00, it would already be light outside and I'd be a lot more eager to get out of bed.
But by the summer solstice the sunrise in Wichita would be 5:07 AM without DST. That may not sound too early, but keep in mind Wichita is on the western edge of Central Time and at a relatively southern latitude. Consider the effects no DST would have on northern latitude city on the eastern edge of a time zone (ie. Boston). The sun would rise in Boston at 4:07AM with dawn breaking at 3:32AM. It would be even worse in Maine.... at the very northeastern edge of Maine the sun would rise at 3:36AM with dawn breaking at 2:56AM without DST. That's too ridiculous and would guarantee Maine moving to Atlantic time (or at least petitioning the USDOT to do so).
Wichita isn't really on the western edge of the time zone. I grew up in Atwood, KS, where dusk in June pushes 10:00 PM. That was insane, and it was impossible to get to sleep on time in the summer. Wichita is also not very far south. The latitude midpoint between Brownsville (TX) and International Falls (MN) is actually about 30 miles
south of Wichita. Use Miami instead of Brownsville, and it gets pushed a few miles farther to the south.
A 5:07 AM sunrise would be awesome, frankly. I've been in European cities when the sunrise was that early, and it was super easy to get up on time and go about your business.
Northern locales do seem to want DST more than southern locales. Longer sunlight in the evening, after all, isn't all that appealing to people who deal with 110° heat in the summer–whereas longer sunlight in the evening
is appealing to people who deal with 4:30 PM sunsets.
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2018, 03:38:39 PM
Northern locales do seem to want DST more than southern locales. Longer sunlight in the evening, after all, isn't all that appealing to people who deal with 110° heat in the summer–whereas longer sunlight in the evening is appealing to people who deal with 4:30 PM sunsets.
Great point. That's probably a big reason why Arizona wants to stick with standard time. Not to mention they probably don't mind being in sync with LA during the summer. Arizona is also on the western edge of the timezone, so it's not entirely surprising that they pick standard time . If permanent DST took hold i could see states like Michigan, Indiana, Utah, and Idaho joining Arizona on standard time (or at least debating it in their legislators). The Dakotas are kind of wacky, because they already have the time-zone splitting the state in the middle.. but the Eastern half of the Dakotas might want to be on standard time as well.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 11, 2018, 04:06:01 PM
That's probably a big reason why Arizona wants to stick with standard time.
Tell someone in Phoenix you'll give them
more sunlight hours to go have fun outside in July. Record their reaction. I want to see it.
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2018, 04:10:22 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on May 11, 2018, 04:06:01 PM
That's probably a big reason why Arizona wants to stick with standard time.
Tell someone in Phoenix you'll give them more sunlight hours to go have fun outside in July. Record their reaction. I want to see it.
Too weak gun control laws in AZ for even planning such an experiment.
But it's certainly not just the desert west that deals with heat.
If my wife and I want to take the kids for a walk in the summer–by the time the sun is low enough that we're not a hot and sweaty mess when we get back, the kids are already supposed to be in bed. I remember a few years ago when we only had two kids, we would put them in a stroller and jog underneath the canal route here in Wichita. We jogged under the highway because of the shade. Even so, in the summer, that meant we sometimes started at the kids' bedtime and got them to bed like 1½ hours late–and my wife still often stripped down to her sports bra to jog in, because it was too hot for a tee shirt.
Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2018, 02:19:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2018, 02:07:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2018, 08:55:40 PM
Am I seriously the only person who finds changing the clocks to be more convenient than things like dragging myself out of bed in pitch darkness (even when it's light out, it's pretty hard) or trying to scrape ice off the windshield when the sun hasn't had a chance to warm things up?
But having to drag myself out of bed in pitch darkness is why I'm against changing the clocks.
If we didn't have DST, then we wouldn't be setting our clocks an hour ahead in the spring before spring even begins. So, for example, Wichita's current sunrise time of 6:22 AM would actually be 5:22 AM. When my alarm goes off at 6:00, it would already be light outside and I'd be a lot more eager to get out of bed.
Every year, just when I'm starting to enjoy it being a little bit light outside when my alarm goes off, that happiness gets yanked out from under me, precisely because DST makes us change our clocks.
DST doesn't even enter into it in the middle of winter, which is when the windshield ice is thick enough to even matter. Because that's not when DST is.
That's a problem with the extension of the time DST is observed that started in 2007, not with the concept of DST in general.
Plus most proposals for ending the changing of the clocks are permanent DST rather than ending DST, so that wouldn't help either.
Daylight encourages people to work; darkness symbolizes work is finished. So getting more daylight in the morning encourages people to start working. Earlier darkness should be welcomed as it indicates the day is done.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 11, 2018, 08:40:46 PM
Daylight encourages people to work; darkness symbolizes work is finished. So getting more daylight in the morning encourages people to start working. Earlier darkness should be welcomed as it indicates the day is done.
Exactly. And when it's still light out until a ridiculously late hour, there's no visual indication that the day is done, so it still feels like only 16:30 even when the clocks all say 21:00. And there's no way in heck my body's going to let me sleep at 16:30.
Truth be told, there are certain times in the year where I would prefer driving to work before dawn. There's an easterly component to my driving and it completely sucks having the sunrise blinding me.
Quote from: 20160805 on May 12, 2018, 09:43:55 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 11, 2018, 08:40:46 PM
Daylight encourages people to work; darkness symbolizes work is finished. So getting more daylight in the morning encourages people to start working. Earlier darkness should be welcomed as it indicates the day is done.
Exactly. And when it's still light out until a ridiculously late hour, there's no visual indication that the day is done, so it still feels like only 16:30 even when the clocks all say 21:00. And there's no way in heck my body's going to let me sleep at 16:30.
It sounds like you guys are promoting DRT - "daylight reduction time". Seeing that 48 out of 50 states observe DST, it appears most of the nation wants more daylight to extend later into their summer evenings. Personally, i don't want it to be dark at 6PM when i get off work in the summer and anybody who does is a "nut job" to me. No offense.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 14, 2018, 07:47:28 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on May 12, 2018, 09:43:55 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 11, 2018, 08:40:46 PM
Daylight encourages people to work; darkness symbolizes work is finished. So getting more daylight in the morning encourages people to start working. Earlier darkness should be welcomed as it indicates the day is done.
Exactly. And when it's still light out until a ridiculously late hour, there's no visual indication that the day is done, so it still feels like only 16:30 even when the clocks all say 21:00. And there's no way in heck my body's going to let me sleep at 16:30.
It sounds like you guys are promoting DRT - "daylight reduction time". Seeing that 48 out of 50 states observe DST, it appears most of the nation wants more daylight to extend later into their summer evenings. Personally, i don't want it to be dark at 6PM when i get off work in the summer and anybody who does is a "nut job" to me. No offense.
Even without DST, dark at 6 PM in the summer is impossible unless you live in one of the few places where solar noon is before 12:00 and it's almost autumn, and even then, it will be mostly but not completely dark.
Quote from: 1 on May 14, 2018, 08:34:36 AM
Even without DST, dark at 6 PM in the summer is impossible unless you live in one of the few places where solar noon is before 12:00 and it's almost autumn, and even then, it will be mostly but not completely dark.
That's why i said they were proposing Daylight "Reduction" Time. The sun would set even an hour before standard time. No thanks.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 14, 2018, 07:47:28 AMIt sounds like you guys are promoting DRT - "daylight reduction time".
That's a massive misnomer. They are no more proposing reducing the amount of daylight than the UK campaign to move to CET 'Lighter Longer' (and even selling it on a lie, they fail miserably) are proposing lengthening the amount of daylight. Daylight Savings makes sense as a name - you save some daylight in the morning to spend in the evening.
It's all tweaking the clock to use the same amount of daylight a different way. Perhaps you can call it 'Daylight Spending' - spending an extra hour of daylight (vs now in summer, where it is saved) in the mornings rather than saving it to use in the evening.
QuotePersonally, i don't want it to be dark at 6PM when i get off work in the summer
Move north then! Get an earlier shift. Other BS that people have said to people complaining about dark winter mornings swapped round. (subtext that this issue of yours is a sign of your moral and mental failing and you need to buck your ideas up...) </sarcasm>
Note that their complaints were 9pm sunsets being too late, not the lack of 6pm ones. Since DST started, I'm certainly regularly going "hang on, it's 5pm, I thought it was earlier".
I agree with you that DST is generally a useful thing, but they have a point that late sunsets are problematic. Personally I think light at 9pm is preferable to light at 4am (using London day lengths), but it's clearly the case that both have problems and neither have benefits. At my latitude, DST makes little sense in summer because the evenings have enough light without saving an hour from the morning to use in the evening. We keep DST, despite it bordering on being too much day in the pm, as it's easier than changing clocks again and we don't need the sun in the morning as we have enough there.
Quoteand anybody who does is a "nut job" to me. No offense.
Being a called a "nut job" by someone bonkers enough to want 8am sunrises is a compliment. No offense.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 14, 2018, 08:42:19 AMThe sun would set even an hour before standard time. No thanks.
Where did they propose that? I don't see any 'daylight borrowing' being proposed!
But lets say they are doing that - how is reducing summer pm daylight any more a reduction of daylight from these campaigns to reducing winter am daylight that you so love? Either you are stupid and actually think that changing the clocks changes the amount of daylight, or you are slandering the idea in an attempt to discredit because you cannot provide a genuine argument against it...
Quote from: english si on May 14, 2018, 08:59:45 AM
Being a called a "nut job" by someone bonkers enough to want 8am sunrises is a compliment. No offense.
In Dolly Parton's America, we work from 9 to 5. I don't see how 8AM sunrises during the winter are that unreasonable. Get up when the sun rises at 8AM and have an hour to get ready and head to work. If it takes you longer than an hour to get to work, then you deserve to be waking up in pitch darkness... you little snowflake.
Again, take a look at the dawn times for the top 20 metro regions in America during the winter solstice if the nation observed year-round DST. The dawn begins before 8AM in many of the metros... PERFECT. Before you respond just watch yourself, claiming that Dolly Parton is wrong would be blasphemy.
(https://i.imgur.com/bNDzuPH.png)
Please don't be so presumptuous as to claim everyone works 9 to 5. I couldn't care less what time the sun comes up or goes down as I wake up long after it has risen and get home long after it sets.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 14, 2018, 11:44:30 AM
In Dolly Parton's America, we work from 9 to 5. I don't see how 8AM sunrises during the winter are that unreasonable. Get up when the sun rises at 8AM and have an hour to get ready and head to work.
I don't know anyone who works from 9 to 5. A 9:00 start time is actually quite late; the average start time is probably around 8:00. I work 7:30 to 4:30 (a 9-hour day, which is also more typical). Because of this, in the winter, it's important that solar noon is as near as possible to actual noon. In summer, that matters a lot less, hence DST for people to enjoy the evening daylight.
Further to that, it's foolish to try to minimize
Awake in Dark and
Sleep in Light for night owls... we LIKE those things.
I think 9-to-5 is more normal in the Eastern Time Zone where everything is shifted an hour ahead relative to Central. In the Central, 8-to-4 is typical (or more likely 8-5 with a one-hour lunch).
Probably 9-to-5 is normal in the Pacific zone as well, because their TV prime time starts at 8 p.m. local, just like in the East.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 14, 2018, 11:44:30 AMI don't see how 8AM sunrises during the winter are that unreasonable.
I have them every year for about a month - I really wouldn't recommend them. It would be perhaps justifiable if there was something fruitful like a couple of hours of sunlight after work to do a genuinely outdoors activity like play a sport*, but even as far south as Miami you only get 90 minutes of light after 5pm.
But to want them with the daylight robbery time (stealing an hour of sunlight needed in the morning to put it in the evening) that you so like, for the petty reason of wanting to eat an evening meal outside in winter, is totally unreasonable.
Eating outside year-round is a lifestyle choice, being permanently sleep-deprived in winter is a health issue.
*though I used to play field hockey once a week, at 8pm, even in winter - flood lights exist!
QuoteIf it takes you longer than an hour to get to work, then you deserve to be waking up in pitch darkness... you little snowflake.
Not sure whether joking, or genuinely a hateful person...
The reason Dolly's day was 9-5 (ie lopsided wrt noon) is that we need pre-work morning sun far more than post-work evening sun.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 14, 2018, 12:37:00 PM
I think 9-to-5 is more normal in the Eastern Time Zone where everything is shifted an hour ahead relative to Central. In the Central, 8-to-4 is typical (or more likely 8-5 with a one-hour lunch).
Probably 9-to-5 is normal in the Pacific zone as well, because their TV prime time starts at 8 p.m. local, just like in the East.
If you're working a 40 hour work week, 9 - 5 is technically illegal. That's 8 hours a day. Federal and State Laws require at least a 30 minute lunch period.
Even if you don't actually take a lunch, they're required to schedule it.
Also, due to congestion issues, 9 - 5 would put incredible stresses on the road network for a short period of time. Most people start work between 7 & 10, and end work between 3:30 and 7.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 14, 2018, 12:37:00 PM
I think 9-to-5 is more normal in the Eastern Time Zone where everything is shifted an hour ahead relative to Central. In the Central, 8-to-4 is typical (or more likely 8-5 with a one-hour lunch).
Probably 9-to-5 is normal in the Pacific zone as well, because their TV prime time starts at 8 p.m. local, just like in the East.
I heard an opposite thing about pacific - they tend to be early in the day. For companies in CA I deal with, tech support hours on the order of 7AM-3PM PST are not uncommon.
There was actually a big article (NYT?) a few years ago where they argued that single time zone across US is quite realistic as many businesses align their hour with NYC anyway.
I only know one person who works 9-5. I find that when people say "9-5" they really mean 8-5, since lunch isn't included in an 8-hour day, it's in addition to eight hours worked. Plus it's common for people to start earlier. Where my Dad works, most people are at their desk by 7!
I'm having a hard time imagining how one could go from rolling out of bed to getting to work in just an hour. Perhaps tradephoric should try becoming a girl to see how the other side lives. I know I could save a ton of time if I didn't have to pluck my eyebrows, shampoo and condition my hair separably, dry my hair, etc., but even then, that's still only getting down to an hour not including commuting. What does trade do, skip breakfast?
Quote from: vdeane on May 14, 2018, 01:19:01 PM
What does trade do, skip breakfast?
He probably flies thru 20 roundabouts never needing to stop at a red light.
Amongst my co-workers here in the Northeast, 9-5 is actually a late start.
Quote from: vdeane on May 14, 2018, 01:19:01 PM
I'm having a hard time imagining how one could go from rolling out of bed to getting to work in just an hour. Perhaps tradephoric should try becoming a girl to see how the other side lives. I know I could save a ton of time if I didn't have to pluck my eyebrows, shampoo and condition my hair separably, dry my hair, etc., but even then, that's still only getting down to an hour not including commuting. What does trade do, skip breakfast?
I cut it fantastically close by waking up at 1pm, leaving the house by 1:50pm, and arriving at work at 2:30, and that's about the best I can do. I shower and everything before I go to bed. If I were to wake up at 1:30, I would still be half-asleep by the time I got in the car.
There's my odd-ball schedule again. Again, I suggest that rather than make adjustments to the clock, if people are having trouble getting enough sleep, maybe change industries to one that favors second-shift work. (It is not just customer-service work that we need people on 2nd for. We do have Excel data-monkeys in the back working 2nd just in case something goes awry with the promotions.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 14, 2018, 02:30:33 PM
I cut it fantastically close by waking up at 1pm, leaving the house by 1:50pm, and arriving at work at 2:30, and that's about the best I can do.
Yikes. I guess I'm more efficient than I thought. I've awoken at 7:00 and made it to work by 7:30 or shortly thereafter*. Generally speaking, though, I like to be up by 6:00 and on the road by 6:30, which isn't infeasible, considering I'm not a real breakfast person and prefer buying something on the way in rather than killing time at home eating.
*This involved an extraordinary (and probably borderline unsafe) amount of speeding, and my commute is only eleven miles.
My alarm goes off at 6:15 AM. I get out of bed at 6:35. Shower, sunscreen, roust the young person, dress, tea, breakfast, roust the young person again, brush teeth, collect apple for snack, put on jacket and shoes, share with young person plans for afternoon and evening, out the door about 8:10, arrive at work at 8:25. Doesn't sound very efficient, I guess. Work 8:30-5:30 with an hour for lunch.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2018, 01:11:38 PM
If you're working a 40 hour work week, 9 - 5 is technically illegal. That's 8 hours a day. Federal and State Laws require at least a 30 minute lunch period.
Even if you don't actually take a lunch, they're required to schedule it.
This is not true. There is no federal law stipulating
any break time. Under federal law, your company could work you 24/7 if they wanted to, as long as they (a) paid you overtime and (b) paid you for any paid breaks they had
already promised you of their own volition (that is, if they offer paid breaks and then refuse to pay you for one of those breaks, then they're in violation of the law). Most states also have no laws on the books about lunch breaks; Kansas is one of those states. Some other states (Illinois, perhaps, I can't remember offhand) require a scheduled break for government employees but not private sector workers. A few out there actually require it for everybody, but those states are the clear minority.
State bill proposes Daylight Saving Time in Tennessee...all the time
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/37373059/state-bill-proposes-daylight-saving-time-in-tennesseeall-the-time
This article seems to contradict itself about 4 times. The headline says a state bill proposes DST in Tennessee... all the time. Then it says Tennessee would join Hawaii and most of Arizona as states that would remain on Daylight Saving Time throughout the year (even though Hawaii and Arizona remain on Standard Time throughout the year). Then it says a state lawmaker has introduced a bill to exempt Tennessee from Daylight Saving Time. Then that same state lawmaker, Rick Tillis, states "I've done a couple of polls and both have run right around 89 percent to stop changing the clocks, stay on Daylight Saving Time year-round".
I'm so confused what Tennessee is planning now. Are people from Tennessee just meant to be confusing people meant to confuse us?
Quote from: tradephoric on May 14, 2018, 05:49:15 PM
State bill proposes Daylight Saving Time in Tennessee...all the time
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/37373059/state-bill-proposes-daylight-saving-time-in-tennesseeall-the-time
This article seems to contradict itself about 4 times. The headline says a state bill proposes DST in Tennessee... all the time. Then it says Tennessee would join Hawaii and most of Arizona as states that would remain on Daylight Saving Time throughout the year (even though Hawaii and Arizona remain on Standard Time throughout the year). Then it says a state lawmaker has introduced a bill to exempt Tennessee from Daylight Saving Time. Then that same state lawmaker, Rick Tillis, states "I've done a couple of polls and both have run right around 89 percent to stop changing the clocks, stay on Daylight Saving Time year-round".
I'm so confused what Tennessee is planning now. Are people from Tennessee just meant to be confusing people meant to confuse us?
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1881
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1849
" As introduced, establishes daylight savings time as the standard time in Tennessee. "
Quote from: vdeane on May 14, 2018, 01:19:01 PMI'm having a hard time imagining how one could go from rolling out of bed to getting to work in just an hour.
Most days, my commute is about 5 feet (30 feet if you count a stop in the bathroom). :D
When I do go into the office, I can be at my desk in about an hour after getting up, if I need to: 45 minutes to shave, shower, dress, and munch upon a breakfast bar; and 15 minutes to walk from the hotel and ride the elevator up. Normally, I allow 90 minutes, for a more civilized morning routine.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 14, 2018, 05:49:15 PM
I'm so confused what Tennessee is planning now. Are people from Tennessee just meant to be confusing people meant to confuse us?
Which is most confusing?(a) The above post
(b) Tennessee
(c) This thread
(d) DST
After some deliberation, I think I'll go with (a) :poke: :rofl:
Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2018, 04:50:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2018, 01:11:38 PM
If you're working a 40 hour work week, 9 - 5 is technically illegal. That's 8 hours a day. Federal and State Laws require at least a 30 minute lunch period.
Even if you don't actually take a lunch, they're required to schedule it.
This is not true. There is no federal law stipulating any break time. Under federal law, your company could work you 24/7 if they wanted to, as long as they (a) paid you overtime and (b) paid you for any paid breaks they had already promised you of their own volition (that is, if they offer paid breaks and then refuse to pay you for one of those breaks, then they're in violation of the law). Most states also have no laws on the books about lunch breaks; Kansas is one of those states. Some other states (Illinois, perhaps, I can't remember offhand) require a scheduled break for government employees but not private sector workers. A few out there actually require it for everybody, but those states are the clear minority.
Just FYI...
New Jersey requires a 30-minute break after 5 hours worked, but only for minors. There is no such requirement for workers 18 and up.
Illinois requires a 20-minute break after 5 hours worked as long as the shift is at least 7½ hours long. For minors, it goes up to 30 minutes for any shift over 5 hours long.
Kansas has no laws requiring a lunch break be offered.
You can find a list of such state laws
here (https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/meal-and-break-laws/). The US Department of Labor
website (http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/screen6.asp) clearly states "the FLSA does not require ... meal or rest periods."
ETA – Found a more useful link for state regs, with a handy-dandy map:
US Dept of Labor - Wage & Hour Division (https://www.dol.gov/whd/state/meal.htm#Kansas). Grey states have no state reg about lunch breaks.
Quote from: webny99 on May 14, 2018, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 14, 2018, 02:30:33 PM
I cut it fantastically close by waking up at 1pm, leaving the house by 1:50pm, and arriving at work at 2:30, and that's about the best I can do.
Yikes. I guess I'm more efficient than I thought. I've awoken at 7:00 and made it to work by 7:30 or shortly thereafter*. Generally speaking, though, I like to be up by 6:00 and on the road by 6:30, which isn't infeasible, considering I'm not a real breakfast person and prefer buying something on the way in rather than killing time at home eating.
*This involved an extraordinary (and probably borderline unsafe) amount of speeding, and my commute is only eleven miles.
I am fantastically inefficient at waking up–I take about 20 minutes of "bootup" time before I can even function as a person. Most of this time is usually spent inhaling a Mountain Dew while attempting to parse what the President did while I was asleep, reading incoming emails, etc.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 16, 2018, 03:46:17 AMI am fantastically inefficient at waking up–I take about 20 minutes of "bootup" time before I can even function as a person.
Ah, but in Tradephoric's totally hypothetical world where everyone works 9-5 and can wake up instantly at dawn, rather than needing at least some post-dawn sleep before the sun resets your body clock, that gives you 40 minutes to get to work...
...which should be plenty of time - if you live further away then Tradephoric says you deserve to get up in the dark for that, just so he can eat dinner outside in mid-winter without artificial light. :crazy:
I too need the boot up time to function properly. I need 20-30 minutes at some point in the morning, where there's quiet and I'm not being disturbed. I can rush get-up and go and do something, but then I need to recharge at some point in the morning. It never helped as a teen that my mum made me eat breakfast before I went to school - or perhaps it did as it gave me a quiet place to sit for 20-30 minutes (that I wouldn't have been allowed otherwise) as that was how long it took me to eat a bowl of cereal in the morning: because I wasn't hungry merely half an hour after I woke up, especially not for carbs (and there's good medical reason for that - cortisol the hormone that wakes you up, causes the body to resist insulin - the hormone that breaks down carbs. And cereal is basically the worst kind of breakfast for that). Getting breakfast on the go is better for me, not least as its easier to have something more protein-based (though that tends to be bread-wrapped here, and I don't do stodgy forms of bread well whatever time of day), but really I'd rather have a sit down (we've lost that culture, especially in white collar jobs, unless staying overnight in a hotel) high-protein breakfast at around 9am, or nothing.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 16, 2018, 03:46:17 AM
I am fantastically inefficient at waking up–I take about 20 minutes of "bootup" time before I can even function as a person.
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. Most people know not to bother me for about the first half an hour after I wake up, because I get cranky
very easily if overstimulated during that time. It's like only the most primitive functions of my brain are operating, and they're almost entirely dedicated to using the bathroom and finding something to eat, then sitting in silence.
I usually budget two hours plus reasonable driving time before morning commitments. This gives me enough time for a cup of coffee (brewed from 100% arabica ground coffee--usually Colombian--in a moka pot), an email/Web forum/news website check, a bowl of oatmeal (one cup oatmeal, two cups 1% milk, 2:24 in 1200-W microwave), one-fourth of a juice glass of orange juice to kill coffee breath, some water, a bowel movement (normally the only one in the day), and a shower.
At this stage in my life, it does not really make a difference to my alertness throughout the day whether I get up just before sunrise or up to a few hours afterward. This is far eclipsed by the short-term effects of a sudden move to an earlier waking schedule--having to get up even an hour earlier than my usual waking time causes problems, which is one reason I would be happy if we got rid of DST-related time changes.
Upthread, I said a person could dispense with an alarm clock if he or she established how much sleep he or she needed and set his or her bedtime accordingly. What I should have also said, but did not, is that this approach depends on a steady schedule to work well. A person who does not stick to the same sleeping schedule 7 days a week but instead relies on the weekends to sleep in will have a hard time breaking dependency on an alarm clock even if he or she budgets the same amount of time for sleeping each night.
I am also a fan of negotiating appointment sex with a willing intimate partner. Spontaneity doesn't mean much if one or both partners is sleep-deprived, or is in the position of having to trade sleeping time for sex.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 16, 2018, 10:36:05 AMUpthread, I said a person could dispense with an alarm clock if he or she established how much sleep he or she needed and set his or her bedtime accordingly.
And upthread I explained that doesn't work for me and why it doesn't. I'm sure others here are similar to me, just as others can do what you can do - then again, as you point out - even you can't do this: its only as it becomes a habit to sleep certain hours that you can and when that changes, you can't cope.
It's a biological condition that we need sunlight to produce the hormones, etc that wake you up, not some scheduling failure that can be fixed with better discipline!
Yes, of course, using the weekends to catch up is a bad habit - but for most of us its one forced on us by having to wake up well before our bodies want to during the week and spending it sleep deprived, especially in winter. And even if we got into the habit of sleeping the same hours at weekends as in the week, we'd still need alarm clocks because the problem isn't routine, but biology.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 16, 2018, 10:36:05 AM
Spontaneity doesn't mean much if one or both partners is sleep-deprived, or is in the position of having to trade sleeping time for sex.
It can also lead to the unfortunate consequence that you're no longer sleepy afterward and actually have a harder time getting to sleep than if you had foregone the sex.
(you knew
someone had to chime in on this)
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 16, 2018, 10:36:05 AM
I usually budget two hours plus reasonable driving time before morning commitments. This gives me enough time for a cup of coffee (brewed from 100% arabica ground coffee--usually Colombian--in a moka pot), an email/Web forum/news website check, a bowl of oatmeal (one cup oatmeal, two cups 1% milk, 2:24 in 1200-W microwave), one-fourth of a juice glass of orange juice to kill coffee breath, some water, a bowel movement (normally the only one in the day), and a shower.
At this stage in my life, it does not really make a difference to my alertness throughout the day whether I get up just before sunrise or up to a few hours afterward. This is far eclipsed by the short-term effects of a sudden move to an earlier waking schedule--having to get up even an hour earlier than my usual waking time causes problems, which is one reason I would be happy if we got rid of DST-related time changes.
Upthread, I said a person could dispense with an alarm clock if he or she established how much sleep he or she needed and set his or her bedtime accordingly. What I should have also said, but did not, is that this approach depends on a steady schedule to work well. A person who does not stick to the same sleeping schedule 7 days a week but instead relies on the weekends to sleep in will have a hard time breaking dependency on an alarm clock even if he or she budgets the same amount of time for sleeping each night.
I am also a fan of negotiating appointment sex with a willing intimate partner. Spontaneity doesn't mean much if one or both partners is sleep-deprived, or is in the position of having to trade sleeping time for sex.
I love how dropping a deuce is a scheduled part of your day. :D
Quote from: 20160805 on May 16, 2018, 04:16:24 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 16, 2018, 10:36:05 AM
I usually budget two hours plus reasonable driving time before morning commitments. This gives me enough time for a cup of coffee (brewed from 100% arabica ground coffee--usually Colombian--in a moka pot), an email/Web forum/news website check, a bowl of oatmeal (one cup oatmeal, two cups 1% milk, 2:24 in 1200-W microwave), one-fourth of a juice glass of orange juice to kill coffee breath, some water, a bowel movement (normally the only one in the day), and a shower.
At this stage in my life, it does not really make a difference to my alertness throughout the day whether I get up just before sunrise or up to a few hours afterward. This is far eclipsed by the short-term effects of a sudden move to an earlier waking schedule--having to get up even an hour earlier than my usual waking time causes problems, which is one reason I would be happy if we got rid of DST-related time changes.
Upthread, I said a person could dispense with an alarm clock if he or she established how much sleep he or she needed and set his or her bedtime accordingly. What I should have also said, but did not, is that this approach depends on a steady schedule to work well. A person who does not stick to the same sleeping schedule 7 days a week but instead relies on the weekends to sleep in will have a hard time breaking dependency on an alarm clock even if he or she budgets the same amount of time for sleeping each night.
I am also a fan of negotiating appointment sex with a willing intimate partner. Spontaneity doesn't mean much if one or both partners is sleep-deprived, or is in the position of having to trade sleeping time for sex.
I love how dropping a deuce is a scheduled part of your day. :D
I love how you drink sugar instead of brushing your teeth to kill bad breath.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 16, 2018, 10:36:05 AM
I usually budget two hours plus reasonable driving time before morning commitments. This gives me enough time for a cup of coffee (brewed from 100% arabica ground coffee--usually Colombian--in a moka pot), an email/Web forum/news website check, a bowl of oatmeal (one cup oatmeal, two cups 1% milk, 2:24 in 1200-W microwave), one-fourth of a juice glass of orange juice to kill coffee breath, some water, a bowel movement (normally the only one in the day), and a shower.
Since everyone is "loving" components of this post: I'm just impressed with the
detail. I could not get my mornings structured down to a science like that. I'm not particularly fond of structure, so I wouldn't want that anyways, but it is impressive nonetheless.
And no, I cannot even attempt to schedule a
specific time for bowel movements :-P
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2018, 10:19:17 PM
And no, I cannot even attempt to schedule a specific time for bowel movements :-P
Me neither, but if I can, I like to do them at work:
Boss makes a dollar,
I make a dime.
That's why I shit
on company time.
Delaying Middle School and High School Start Times Promotes Student Health and Performance: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Position Statement
During adolescence, internal circadian rhythms and biological sleep drive change to result in later sleep and wake times. As a result of these changes, early middle school and high school start times curtail sleep, hamper a student's preparedness to learn, negatively impact physical and mental health, and impair driving safety. Furthermore, a growing body of evidence shows that delaying school start times positively impacts student achievement, health, and safety. Public awareness of the hazards of early school start times and the benefits of later start times are largely unappreciated. As a result, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine is calling on communities, school boards, and educational institutions to implement start times of 8:30 AM or later for middle schools and high schools to ensure that every student arrives at school healthy, awake, alert, and ready to learn.
http://jcsm.aasm.org/viewabstract.aspx?pid=30998
School start times of 7AM-7:30AM seem to be common for middle school and high schools throughout the country. If school start times were shifted later to match the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Position, then the debate of "going to school in dark" argument would be a non-starter. Other research has suggested that high school students should start school as late as 11AM. Maybe 11AM is extreme, but pushing all school start times later by an hour if the nation adopts permanent daylight savings time, that doesn't sound too extreme.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 17, 2018, 10:01:19 AMpushing all school start times later by an hour if the nation adopts permanent daylight savings time, that doesn't sound too extreme.
It's arguably extreme to do anything less than that, given the science here.
In winter, starting an hour later is cancelled out by the clocks being an hour ahead of where they are with the current schedule - as such, while not helping, at least it doesn't hinder as keeping the status quo time would!
Glad to see you are engaging with the science, though.
Quote from: english si on May 17, 2018, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on May 17, 2018, 10:01:19 AMpushing all school start times later by an hour if the nation adopts permanent daylight savings time, that doesn't sound too extreme.
It's arguably extreme to do anything less than that, given the science here.
In winter, starting an hour later is cancelled out by the clocks being an hour ahead of where they are with the current schedule - as such, while not helping, at least it doesn't hinder as keeping the status quo time would!
Glad to see you are engaging with the science, though.
I am not sure if you're familiar with (pretty crazy) logistics of school bus operation in US. And changing that would either require significant spending (more buses, more drivers); or would get an extreme opposition from parents.
Quote from: english si on May 16, 2018, 12:51:26 PMAnd upthread I explained that doesn't work for me and why it doesn't. I'm sure others here are similar to me, just as others can do what you can do - then again, as you point out - even you can't do this: its only as it becomes a habit to sleep certain hours that you can and when that changes, you can't cope.
I agree there are people for whom the alarm-clock-free lifestyle doesn't work, such as those whose ability to adhere to a consistent sleep pattern has been destroyed by meningitis. However, the health benefits of a full night's rest every night are such that I believe it is worth a try.
I did have to change my sleep pattern last week when I had to report for jury duty. I had no difficulty getting up on time after the first night. However, I was carrying a sleep deficit going into the second night and overslept, thus forcing me to rush a bit more in the morning than I would have liked. I arrived just barely on time in the courthouse only to find a crowd waiting for elevators in the ground-floor lobby. I feared being found in contempt for being late, so I didn't feel I had time to wait for the next free elevator. I took the stairs (two steps at a time) to the tenth-floor courtroom for my assigned trial. I started losing my wind around the sixth floor; another juror ended up also climbing the stairs part of the way and told me she could hear my breathing from five floors away.
Things were a bit easier the third night, but it was not until after the fourth night that my colon finally caught up with the new schedule.
Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I did use a bed-shaker alarm but discovered I usually woke up before it went off if I had gone to bed at a reasonable hour the previous evening. I normally budgeted eight hours for sleep and this is about half an hour longer than five times the normal REM sleep cycle length of 1 1/2 hours. On the other hand, if I had stayed up very late working on an assignment due the next day (often as a result of procrastination), chances were good that I would sleep through the bed shaking, and they got even better after a previous night of inadequate sleep.
This experience persuaded me to dispense with alarms altogether, though for one-day commitments requiring me to get up earlier than normal, I have cheated by setting my internal alarm (what a friend calls "power of will") so that I awaken at the end of the last full REM cycle before the time I need to get out of bed, as long as I have had enough sleep the previous night.
Quote from: english si on May 16, 2018, 12:51:26 PMIt's a biological condition that we need sunlight to produce the hormones, etc that wake you up, not some scheduling failure that can be fixed with better discipline!
Getting up early is often framed in moralistic terms, notably in the phrase commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise." However, I don't agree with this framing. In terms of the health outcomes associated with various sleep patterns, being a night owl is not degenerate behavior provided one gets a full night's sleep between the late bedtime and the late rising time. Meanwhile, ensuring that the amount of sleep between the early bedtime and the early rising time is adequate--the implied corollary of Franklin's proverb--is just as consistent with narcissism as it is with moral uprightness.
As for the lack of light signals to help regulate circadian rhythms, this is something that can be counterbalanced to an extent given the technologies now available for producing artificial light and screening ourselves from the sun. The people who are least able to take advantage of such technical measures, and who are therefore at greatest risk of long-term health problems from an upside-down sleeping pattern, are neither early birds nor night owls but rather people who work at night and have to try to sleep during the day.
Quote from: kphoger on May 16, 2018, 01:28:00 PMIt can also lead to the unfortunate consequence that you're no longer sleepy afterward and actually have a harder time getting to sleep than if you had foregone the sex.
(you knew someone had to chime in on this)
I wondered if anyone would actually notice that paragraph.
Quote from: 20160805 on May 16, 2018, 04:16:24 PMI love how dropping a deuce is a scheduled part of your day. :D
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2018, 10:19:17 PMAnd no, I cannot even attempt to schedule a specific time for bowel movements :-P
From the standpoint of good quality of life, the ideal stool is consistently timed (the medically acceptable range is one every three days to three every day, though some consider the sweet spot to be between once a day and once after every meal), has water content between 65% and 75%, is easy to pass (defecating should be just as easy as urinating), and leaves a person feeling he or she has voided his or her bowels completely (no tenesmus). For a fortunate few this is an effortless part of their day-to-day existence; others have to work at it; and still others, owing partly to colon disease, cannot achieve it no matter what they do.
I belong in the second group and rely partly on the laxative effect of coffee and partly on a diet moderately high in fiber (usually around 35 g a day, divided more or less evenly among meals and snacks, with a minimum of five servings from three different vegetables, and one apple before bed every night). When I depart from the ideal, which thankfully is not often, it is generally in the direction of constipation rather than diarrhea. Constipation is the norm in the US for many reasons, including our national diet being rich and low in fiber and far too many of us working excessively long hours. As a result, we have a culture of magazines and other light reading material in bathrooms at home; moreover, when someone actually defecates in a public bathroom, two times out of three the resulting smell is of burnt coffee, which is characteristic of dense stools with low water content.
In my case, part of the motivation for moving bowels in the morning is also to use the shower as a vertical bidet. Not having to rely exclusively on toilet paper helps keep skin irritation and underwear streaks to a minimum.
Quote from: kphoger on May 16, 2018, 04:26:33 PMI love how you drink sugar instead of brushing your teeth to kill bad breath.
I learned the trick many years ago in Madrid, where a typical breakfast is a churro (made with potato flour rather than pastry dough as here, and so savory rather than sweet), a cup of cafe con leche, and a small glass of orange juice, albeit freshly squeezed using a Zumo juicing machine in the customer's field of view.
Quote from: tradephoric on May 17, 2018, 10:01:19 AM
Delaying Middle School and High School Start Times Promotes Student Health and Performance: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Position Statement
During adolescence, internal circadian rhythms and biological sleep drive change to result in later sleep and wake times. As a result of these changes, early middle school and high school start times curtail sleep, hamper a student's preparedness to learn, negatively impact physical and mental health, and impair driving safety. Furthermore, a growing body of evidence shows that delaying school start times positively impacts student achievement, health, and safety. Public awareness of the hazards of early school start times and the benefits of later start times are largely unappreciated. As a result, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine is calling on communities, school boards, and educational institutions to implement start times of 8:30 AM or later for middle schools and high schools to ensure that every student arrives at school healthy, awake, alert, and ready to learn.
http://jcsm.aasm.org/viewabstract.aspx?pid=30998
School start times of 7AM-7:30AM seem to be common for middle school and high schools throughout the country. If school start times were shifted later to match the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Position, then the debate of "going to school in dark" argument would be a non-starter. Other research has suggested that high school students should start school as late as 11AM. Maybe 11AM is extreme, but pushing all school start times later by an hour if the nation adopts permanent daylight savings time, that doesn't sound too extreme.
I've heard this too, but at least from my experience, not true. When I was in high school, if I was given the freedom to pick my own wake/sleep hours without interference from other commitments such as school, it probably would have looked something like 06:00-22:00; the teenage shift was maybe an hour at best.
Furthermore, let's look at how my day would have gone if school
did start at 11:00. Forget school lunch; it's now school supper, served probably around 16:00. The end of the school day wouldn't be until 19:00, which is the start of my "late evening". Transportation to school in the morning would be an issue, forcing me to take the bus until I learned to drive, and besides, when you've got something to do starting in the morning, the hours prior to that are relegated to getting ready for the day, sitting around the house, etc., leaving five to six hours of time in the morning to be completely wasted, and at night there's no time to get anything done either because it's already late-thirty by the time the bus drops me back off at home.
In short, bad idea; my high school's 07:25-14:56 hours were just fine. Middle school (07:25-14:46) was even sweeter; I loved being able to get out of there and back into my own house before 15:00 (the transition from early to late afternoon)!
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2018, 12:12:01 PM
From the standpoint of good quality of life, the ideal stool is consistently timed (the medically acceptable range is one every three days to three every day, though some consider the sweet spot to be between once a day and once after every meal), has water content between 65% and 75%, is easy to pass (defecating should be just as easy as urinating), and leaves a person feeling he or she has voided his or her bowels completely (no tenesmus). For a fortunate few this is an effortless part of their day-to-day existence; others have to work at it; and still others, owing partly to colon disease, cannot achieve it no matter what they do.
I belong in the second group and rely partly on the laxative effect of coffee and partly on a diet moderately high in fiber (usually around 35 g a day, divided more or less evenly among meals and snacks, with a minimum of five servings from three different vegetables, and one apple before bed every night). When I depart from the ideal, which thankfully is not often, it is generally in the direction of constipation rather than diarrhea. Constipation is the norm in the US for many reasons, including our national diet being rich and low in fiber and far too many of us working excessively long hours. As a result, we have a culture of magazines and other light reading material in bathrooms at home; moreover, when someone actually defecates in a public bathroom, two times out of three the resulting smell is of burnt coffee, which is characteristic of dense stools with low water content.
In my case, part of the motivation for moving bowels in the morning is also to use the shower as a vertical bidet. Not having to rely exclusively on toilet paper helps keep skin irritation and underwear streaks to a minimum.
I'll just leave this here...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12813.msg309754#msg309754
Why in the world are we discussing defecation in a thread about DST? :-D
That said, the thing I hate the most is when I just get out of the shower, and then I get the urge.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 17, 2018, 09:48:26 PM
Why in the world are we discussing defecation in a thread about DST? :-D
After 35 pages of largely unproductive discussion, the two concepts are now inherently related :-P
QuoteThat said, the thing I hate the most is when I just get out of the shower, and then I get the urge.
Oh, man. I'm with you. I assume the only thing worse is getting out of the shower on November 5th, setting your clock forward an hour, and then getting the urge :rofl:
Wow, I see this thread has gone right down the shi- oops, i mean toilet.
When DST was extended in 2005, the US Department of Energy reported to Congress that there was 1.3 Tera Watt-hour of energy savings (or 0.5% per each day of Extended Daylight Saving Time). It also mentioned the following regarding regional impacts of extended DST:
Quote...southern portions of the United States exhibited slightly smaller impacts of Extended Daylight Saving Time on energy savings compared to the northern regions, a result possibly due to a small, offsetting increase in household air conditioning usage.
A few points. First, daylight savings opponents often cite that the extension of daylight saving time in 2005 only reduced the county's total electricity use by 0.03 percent. But that is averaging the extended DST electricity savings over the entire year, and not looking at the 0.5% daily savings for each day of extended DST. Point being, 0.5% daily energy savings is significant but opponents want to downplay it by averaging it for the entire year. It's like starting a diet in November and losing 24 lbs by the end of the year. That person "ONLY" averaged a loss of 2 lbs per month... big deal right?
Secondly, while Daylight Saving Time reduces demand for residential lighting, it often increases demand for air conditioning in the summer. But this isn't the case in the winter. In the winter, the reduced demand for residential lighting isn't offset by the increased air-condition usage (ie. people in Florida or Georgia don't require 24/7 cooling in December like they do in July). So, while the Department of Energy found 0.5% of energy savings for each day that Daylight Saving Time was extended back in 2005, these daily savings would potentially be much higher if they are looking at the energy savings for the entire winter (ie. if the nation went to year-round DST).
Anyone mention the problem of after-school activites and sports if you shift the school start time?
Quote from: tradephoric on May 18, 2018, 07:32:30 AM
When DST was extended in 2005, the US Department of Energy reported to Congress that there was 1.3 Tera Watt-hour of energy savings (or 0.5% per each day of Extended Daylight Saving Time). It also mentioned the following regarding regional impacts of extended DST:
Quote...southern portions of the United States exhibited slightly smaller impacts of Extended Daylight Saving Time on energy savings compared to the northern regions, a result possibly due to a small, offsetting increase in household air conditioning usage.
A few points. First, daylight savings opponents often cite that the extension of daylight saving time in 2005 only reduced the county's total electricity use by 0.03 percent. But that is averaging the extended DST electricity savings over the entire year, and not looking at the 0.5% daily savings for each day of extended DST. Point being, 0.5% daily energy savings is significant but opponents want to downplay it by averaging it for the entire year. It's like starting a diet in November and losing 24 lbs by the end of the year. That person "ONLY" averaged a loss of 2 lbs per month... big deal right?
Secondly, while Daylight Saving Time reduces demand for residential lighting, it often increases demand for air conditioning in the summer. But this isn't the case in the winter. In the winter, the reduced demand for residential lighting isn't offset by the increased air-condition usage (ie. people in Florida or Georgia don't require 24/7 cooling in December like they do in July). So, while the Department of Energy found 0.5% of energy savings for each day that Daylight Saving Time was extended back in 2005, these daily savings would potentially be much higher if they are looking at the energy savings for the entire winter (ie. if the nation went to year-round DST).
0.5% value really needs a error bar attached to it. And I would be very surprised if that is a statistically significant difference.
Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2018, 07:41:05 AM
Anyone mention the problem of after-school activites and sports if you shift the school start time?
I refuse to take after-school activities into account in principal. School should be about school, and extracurricular activities can just tag along for the ride as it works out. If a currently after-school activity needs to be shifted to a before-school activity in order to more effectively use daylight, then so be it. We've already reached the point that it's no big deal for athletes to miss multiple days of school in a month in order to compete in weekday out-of-town competitions; if current school day hours are detrimental to students' ability to concentrate, then after-school activities be damned. In my opinion, of course.
Quote from: 20160805 on May 17, 2018, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on May 17, 2018, 10:01:19 AM
Other research has suggested that high school students should start school as late as 11AM. Maybe 11AM is extreme, but pushing all school start times later by an hour if the nation adopts permanent daylight savings time, that doesn't sound too extreme.
let's look at how my day would have gone if school did start at 11:00. Forget school lunch; it's now school supper, served probably around 16:00. The end of the school day wouldn't be until 19:00, which is the start of my "late evening". Transportation to school in the morning would be an issue, forcing me to take the bus until I learned to drive, and besides, when you've got something to do starting in the morning, the hours prior to that are relegated to getting ready for the day, sitting around the house, etc., leaving five to six hours of time in the morning to be completely wasted, and at night there's no time to get anything done either because it's already late-thirty by the time the bus drops me back off at home.
In short, bad idea; my high school's 07:25-14:56 hours were just fine. Middle school (07:25-14:46) was even sweeter; I loved being able to get out of there and back into my own house before 15:00 (the transition from early to late afternoon)!
The town in Mexico that my family regularly goes to has two sets of school hours. Well, actually they vary slightly from school to school, but there are two
main schedules–morning school and evening school. Half the students in town go to school from (and these are approximate times) 8 AM to 1:30 PM, while the other half go from 2:30 PM to 8 PM. Somehow, those evening class students manage to get their homework done, same as the morning class students.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 01:56:28 PM
The town in Mexico that my family regularly goes to has two sets of school hours. Well, actually they vary slightly from school to school, but there are two main schedules–morning school and evening school. Half the students in town go to school from (and these are approximate times) 8 AM to 1:30 PM, while the other half go from 2:30 PM to 8 PM. Somehow, those evening class students manage to get their homework done, same as the morning class students.
What a smart way to saving money on school construction. Because only 1/2 the kids are in school at any one time, Mexico only needs to support 1/2 of the schools as otherwise.
Here when there is school crowding, they just fit more kids in the classroom and put trailers in the playground as classrooms. Some year-round schools are able to get maybe an additional 33% or 50% students, but Mexico can double the capacity of students.
Quote from: mrsman on May 23, 2018, 09:41:53 PMWhat a smart way to saving money on school construction. Because only 1/2 the kids are in school at any one time, Mexico only needs to support 1/2 of the schools as otherwise.
Here when there is school crowding, they just fit more kids in the classroom and put trailers in the playground as classrooms. Some year-round schools are able to get maybe an additional 33% or 50% students, but Mexico can double the capacity of students.
I understand that at one point, in one Denver suburb, they handled school crowding by dividing each grade into thirds. One third would start in September; another third in January; and another third in May. (Not positive about the start months...)
In so doing, they boosted the capacity of each school by 50%.
Quote from: mrsman on May 23, 2018, 09:41:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 01:56:28 PM
The town in Mexico that my family regularly goes to has two sets of school hours. Well, actually they vary slightly from school to school, but there are two main schedules–morning school and evening school. Half the students in town go to school from (and these are approximate times) 8 AM to 1:30 PM, while the other half go from 2:30 PM to 8 PM. Somehow, those evening class students manage to get their homework done, same as the morning class students.
What a smart way to saving money on school construction. Because only 1/2 the kids are in school at any one time, Mexico only needs to support 1/2 of the schools as otherwise.
Here when there is school crowding, they just fit more kids in the classroom and put trailers in the playground as classrooms. Some year-round schools are able to get maybe an additional 33% or 50% students, but Mexico can double the capacity of students.
You do still need twice as many teachers, though (unless you really want them to work five 12-hour shifts a week, which is inhumane, especially for the salaries a teacher commands), so you're only really saving on facility expenses. Payroll and supplies like books, etc. are probably bigger chunks of a school's budget than construction and upkeep of physical buildings.
It has significant disadvantages for the kids, though. Seattle Schools did that for a while during the baby boom. Both shifts are bad times, some way too early and some way too late. Things like clubs and sports teams have trouble getting practice times and game times that work for a reasonable number of people. It's harder to get to know your classmates. It's an expedient but hopefully a short-lived one.
Quote from: kkt on May 24, 2018, 01:20:54 AM
Things like clubs and sports teams have trouble getting practice times and game times that work for a reasonable number of people.
My opinion on this matter was stated in the post that started this sub-topic. ↓ ↓ ↓
It also happens to not be an issue in Mexico, as sports there are community clubs, not school clubs.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 01:56:28 PM
I refuse to take after-school activities into account in principal. School should be about school, and extracurricular activities can just tag along for the ride as it works out. If a currently after-school activity needs to be shifted to a before-school activity in order to more effectively use daylight, then so be it. We've already reached the point that it's no big deal for athletes to miss multiple days of school in a month in order to compete in weekday out-of-town competitions; if current school day hours are detrimental to students' ability to concentrate, then after-school activities be damned. In my opinion, of course.
Quote from: mrsman on May 23, 2018, 09:41:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 01:56:28 PM
The town in Mexico that my family regularly goes to has two sets of school hours. Well, actually they vary slightly from school to school, but there are two main schedules–morning school and evening school. Half the students in town go to school from (and these are approximate times) 8 AM to 1:30 PM, while the other half go from 2:30 PM to 8 PM. Somehow, those evening class students manage to get their homework done, same as the morning class students.
What a smart way to saving money on school construction. Because only 1/2 the kids are in school at any one time, Mexico only needs to support 1/2 of the schools as otherwise.
Here when there is school crowding, they just fit more kids in the classroom and put trailers in the playground as classrooms. Some year-round schools are able to get maybe an additional 33% or 50% students, but Mexico can double the capacity of students.
The high school in my town had split-sessions like that...back in the 1960's! They finally built a middle school (in the late '60s) to reduce it.
While you could 'save' on school costs, it's not an ideal situation. Younger grade classes have greatly different needs than older grade classes. You can't utilize all the space in the room for one subject or one grade. Some rooms, like science labs, would be completely unusable and unsafe for younger kids. In today's age, having classes from 1 - 8 (or whatever) means you need someone to watch the kid while both parents work in the morning, or send them to a day-care, which means they're out of the house for 12 hours or more.
As far as it 'not being an issue in Mexico', is that fact, or is that just seeing that they do it and figuring that it's not an issue. Because if that's not an issue, then there's a whole lot of crime, drugs and suspect activity in Mexico that occurs normally that must not be an issue either.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2018, 01:03:19 PM
As far as it 'not being an issue in Mexico', is that fact, or is that just seeing that they do it and figuring that it's not an issue. Because if that's not an issue, then there's a whole lot of crime, drugs and suspect activity in Mexico that occurs normally that must not be an issue either.
Let me clarify. Class times conflicting with school sports schedules is not an issue in Mexico, because schools in Mexico generally do not have sports teams. I'm not saying Mexican kids don't play sports, just that they don't play
school sports.
Yeah, school sports teams are a largely US phenomenon.
It's almost the summer solstice.... with a hint of light in the east at 3:35 this morning. I was out on deck in the middle of the Cabot Strait.....taking the overnight ferry to Newfoundland. We were at the far eastern end of the Atlantic Time Zone.....just crossing into Newfoundland Time where it became 4:05 am (Newfoundland has one of those half-hour zones) Latitude was 47deg N.....about the same as Quebec City, Duluth, Fargo and Tacoma.
Quote from: ghYHZ on June 11, 2018, 11:36:09 AM
It's almost the summer solstice.... with a hint of light in the east at 3:35 this morning. I was out on deck in the middle of the Cabot Strait.....taking the overnight ferry to Newfoundland. We were at the far eastern end of the Atlantic Time Zone.....just crossing into Newfoundland Time where it became 4:05 am (Newfoundland has one of those half-hour zones) Latitude was 47deg N.....about the same as Quebec City, Duluth, Fargo and Tacoma.
Your experience (minus the ferry) does indeed reflect what I'm seeing in Tacoma. Most of the night is now astronomical twilight, though there's still a couple hours of total darkness just past midnight. Great for my job driving Lyft!
As we approach the summer solstice, the sunset times along the east coast is around 8:30 PM. Here are the current sunset times for major cities along the east coast:
8:14 PM — Miami, FL
8:29 PM - Jacksonville, FL
8:29 PM — Charleston, SC
8:27 PM — Myrtle Beach, SC
8:25 PM — Wilmington, NC
8:24 PM — Virginia Beach, VA
8:35 PM — Washington, DC
8:34 PM — Baltimore, MD
8:29 PM — Dover, DE
8:26 PM — Atlantic City, NJ
8:31 PM — Philadelphia, PA
8:28 PM — New York City
8:27 PM — Bridgeport, CT
8:22 PM — Boston, MA
8:24 PM — Portland, ME
According to the US Census Bureau, 41 million people live in Atlantic coastline counties. Without DST, millions of Americans would see sunsets at 7:30 PM as opposed to 8:30 PM. Do 41 million people really want hour earlier sunsets during the summer? People on the east coast would barely have time to wash their car after work before it's dark out... let alone do any other outdoor task they may need to do after work.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 12, 2018, 08:22:10 AM
As we approach the summer solstice, the sunset times along the east coast is around 8:30 PM. Here are the current sunset times for major cities along the east coast:
8:14 PM — Miami, FL
8:29 PM - Jacksonville, FL
8:29 PM — Charleston, SC
8:27 PM — Myrtle Beach, SC
8:25 PM — Wilmington, NC
8:24 PM — Virginia Beach, VA
8:35 PM — Washington, DC
8:34 PM — Baltimore, MD
8:29 PM — Dover, DE
8:26 PM — Atlantic City, NJ
8:31 PM — Philadelphia, PA
8:28 PM — New York City
8:27 PM — Bridgeport, CT
8:22 PM — Boston, MA
8:24 PM — Portland, ME
According to the US Census Bureau, 41 million people live in Atlantic coastline counties. Without DST, millions of Americans would see sunsets at 7:30 PM as opposed to 8:30 PM. Do 41 million people really want hour earlier sunsets during the summer? People on the east coast would barely have time to wash their car after work before it's dark out... let alone do any other outdoor task they may need to do after work.
People are generally saying one of two things:
1. Keep it the way it is.
2. Permanent DST.
Neither involves moving the summer to Standard Time.
Side note: I never realized that the diagonal slant of the East Coast was exactly the right amount so that the sun would set at almost exactly the same time on the solstice for most places on the coast. (It's closer than it looks; the ones that say 8:3x are slightly inland.)
Quote from: 1 on June 12, 2018, 08:24:58 AM
People are generally saying one of two things:
1. Keep it the way it is.
2. Permanent DST.
Neither involves moving the summer to Standard Time.
IIRC,
20160805, kphoger, and possibly
Rothman have advocated abolishing DST altogether. A number of others have expressed support for DST with the pre-2007 time frame (first Sunday in April to last Sunday in October).
However, you are correct that most people have supported one of the two positions above. I didn't really have an opinion at the beginning of the thread, but now I'm decidedly in favor of (1), despite
tradephoric's efforts. :-P
QuoteSide note: I never realized that the diagonal slant of the East Coast was exactly the right amount so that the sun would set at almost exactly the same time on the solstice for most places on the coast.
Interesting!
Quote from: webny99 on June 12, 2018, 08:44:05 AM
However, you are correct that most people have supported one of the two positions above. I didn't really have an opinion at the beginning of the thread, but now I'm decidedly in favor of (1), despite tradephoric's efforts. :-P
Hey that's an improvement! If you've gone from having no opinion at the beginning of the thread to wanting to keep things the way they are, then you see the folly of abolishing DST entirely. I would be in favor of (1) too if the only two options were these:
1. Keep it the way it is.
2. Abolish DST.
I think when someone say they want to eliminate DST, a lot of the times they really mean they want to eliminate the biannual time changes. There are some people who legitimately want to end DST because they want earlier sunrises, but the vast majority just want to end the antiquated routine of changing their clocks back and forth. While eliminating DST would do that, year-round DST would also do that (and maybe they just haven't considered that as an option).
All I'm in favor of is abolishing the clock changes. I don't care one way or the other whether the final choice is permanent Standard Time or permanent Daylight Time, or even something more unusual like a permanent half-hour shift. Whichever the people like more, I guess.
Just no more twice-annual clock changes.
Please.
Singapore has sunset on the solstice at 19:12 (summer) or 19:04 (winter where the days are 9 minutes shorter) and it does fluctuate around the rest of the year within a roughly half-hour window - they never get the luxury of sunsets as late as 7.30 that tradephoric seems to think is not even making the bare minimum for evening light in summer. Sunrise is similarly at around 7 (ie year-round DST). Their 'problem' is latitude, not the clock, as is Prudhoe Bay (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/prudhoe-bay?month=12)'s and it's the same for the places in between (Charlotte, NC is about halfway between the two latitudes).
I had my last bit of night proper 3 weeks ago and don't get it back for some time. I've had post-9pm sunsets and pre-5am sunrises for 19 days, and have 30 days left to go on that front. Civil twilight is (and will be until the end of the month) from before 4 until after 10. It's pretty meh - if anything, the sun sets too late and saving daylight is unwarranted (in April or September, it's a different story). The 'problem' is not the number on the clock, but the latitude I live at. And it's only a 'problem' for routine - social timetabling strangely operates as if there's no difference between winter and summer, and so the timings are all the same (with a few exceptions) - but our routine naturally wants to change: less sleep and more activity in summer, more sleep and less activity in winter.
Quote from: english si on June 12, 2018, 09:48:01 AM
The 'problem' is not the number on the clock, but the latitude I live at.
This makes me wonder if we shouldn't have two sets of time zones per strip of longitude: one for the southern half of the hemisphere, and one for the northern half. One thing that hasn't been discussed at all is whether the concept of having a time zone take up an entire longitude, from pole to pole, is really the best way to divide the land into time zones. :hmmm:
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 12, 2018, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: english si on June 12, 2018, 09:48:01 AM
The 'problem' is not the number on the clock, but the latitude I live at.
This makes me wonder if we shouldn't have two sets of time zones per strip of longitude: one for the southern half of the hemisphere, and one for the northern half. One thing that hasn't been discussed at all is whether the concept of having a time zone take up an entire longitude, from pole to pole, is really the best way to divide the land into time zones. :hmmm:
Nah. 'The problem' is that people have expectations of where the sun should be based on having personal schedules that are fixed to specific numbers on the clock.
That problem could be fixed if people revised their schedules, rather than seeking to revise their clocks.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 12, 2018, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: english si on June 12, 2018, 09:48:01 AM
The 'problem' is not the number on the clock, but the latitude I live at.
This makes me wonder if we shouldn't have two sets of time zones per strip of longitude: one for the southern half of the hemisphere, and one for the northern half. One thing that hasn't been discussed at all is whether the concept of having a time zone take up an entire longitude, from pole to pole, is really the best way to divide the land into time zones. :hmmm:
My family happens to live on the other side of the earth - and a few adjustments of daylight procedures in both locations made me loose track of what is the time difference between us. It is really messy when someone says "I'll call you after work" - and you know they get home around 6, but you need to google the current time difference..
Now bringing that to many American families would be priceless (as in I am not sure if you would be able to pay the price for that)
making timezone borders more SW to NE instead of north0south may be more like it.. If only that was done 200 years ago...
Quote from: webny99 on June 12, 2018, 08:44:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 12, 2018, 08:24:58 AM
People are generally saying one of two things:
1. Keep it the way it is.
2. Permanent DST.
Neither involves moving the summer to Standard Time.
IIRC, 20160805, kphoger, and possibly Rothman have advocated abolishing DST altogether. A number of others have expressed support for DST with the pre-2007 time frame (first Sunday in April to last Sunday in October).
However, you are correct that most people have supported one of the two positions above. I didn't really have an opinion at the beginning of the thread, but now I'm decidedly in favor of (1), despite tradephoric's efforts. :-P
QuoteSide note: I never realized that the diagonal slant of the East Coast was exactly the right amount so that the sun would set at almost exactly the same time on the solstice for most places on the coast.
Interesting!
This is accurate (at least regarding my own opinion). 19:30 is plenty late enough of a summer sunset for me - plenty of light at both commutes, but not light so late I can't sleep at night. In my ideal pipe-dream custom latitude scenario, my latest sunset would actually be at 18:43 (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_rstablew.pl?ID=AA&year=2018&task=0&place=20160805+Ideal&lon_sign=1&lon_deg=0&lon_min=15&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=20&lat_min=0&tz=0&tz_sign=-1). ;) (Latitude 20*N, clock time-solar time offset of 0)
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 12, 2018, 10:30:28 AM
Nah. 'The problem' is that people have expectations of where the sun should be based on having personal schedules that are fixed to specific numbers on the clock.
That problem could be fixed if people revised their schedules, rather than seeking to revise their clocks.
Exactly! At this point we should have Trump flip a coin in the rose garden of the White House- one side labeled permanent DST and the other labeled standard time. Whatever side it lands on we stick with it and whoever b@#$@S about the new setup will just have to learn to adjust. I'm being a little facetious, because I do think there is benefit going to permanent DST for the simple fact that it would allow individual states to still opt-out of DST entirely (as Arizona and Hawaii currently do). Also, permanent DST wouldn't be that radical of a change since Americans already spend roughly 65% of the year in DST (apart from Arizona and Hawaii, who could continue to stay on standard time if we went to permanent DST). Ok, i'm going to change my idea... Trump should flip a coin that has "permanent DST" labeled on both sides.
So the two times a year when the clocks change, inevitably a certain percentage of traffic signals aren't adjusted to re-sync to the new time. You have school lights flashing when they shouldn't be or school speed limit signs not coming on during school start times. Or the signal is running a "light" traffic dial during the middle of rush hour. It's almost a guarantee that for 2 weeks out of the year, some traffic signals are going to be out of wack (because for each biannual clock change, it takes a week for road agencies to diagnose the problem and then send someone out to reset the clock). Maybe this is another reason why there is a spike in crashes after DST time changes. Yes, there are ways to prevent this from happening in the controller programming, but it requires the controller to be programmed correctly. For a city with thousands of traffic signals, do you really think every traffic signal will be programmed correctly? All it takes is a few signals out of sync to mess up your drive. So if you ever wondered why your drive into work sucked right after a time change, this could be the reason. Just another reason to get rid of the time changes.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 12, 2018, 11:37:28 AM
Whatever side it lands on we stick with it and whoever b@#$@S about the new setup will just have to learn to adjust.
No matter what side it is, 80% of the population will bitch about it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2018, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 12, 2018, 11:37:28 AM
Whatever side it lands on we stick with it and whoever b@#$@S about the new setup will just have to learn to adjust.
No matter what side it is, 80% of the population will bitch about it.
50% of bitching would be about "turning things up side down AGAIN!!"
Quote from: tradephoric on June 12, 2018, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 12, 2018, 10:30:28 AM
Nah. 'The problem' is that people have expectations of where the sun should be based on having personal schedules that are fixed to specific numbers on the clock.
That problem could be fixed if people revised their schedules, rather than seeking to revise their clocks.
Exactly! At this point we should have Trump flip a coin in the rose garden of the White House- one side labeled permanent DST and the other labeled standard time. Whatever side it lands on we stick with it and whoever b@#$@S about the new setup will just have to learn to adjust. I'm being a little facetious, because I do think there is benefit going to permanent DST for the simple fact that it would allow individual states to still opt-out of DST entirely (as Arizona and Hawaii currently do). Also, permanent DST wouldn't be that radical of a change since Americans already spend roughly 65% of the year in DST (apart from Arizona and Hawaii, who could continue to stay on standard time if we went to permanent DST). Ok, i'm going to change my idea... Trump should flip a coin that has "permanent DST" labeled on both sides.
So the two times a year when the clocks change, inevitably a certain percentage of traffic signals aren't adjusted to re-sync to the new time. You have school lights flashing when they shouldn't be or school speed limit signs not coming on during school start times. Or the signal is running a "light" traffic dial during the middle of rush hour. It's almost a guarantee that for 2 weeks out of the year, some traffic signals are going to be out of wack (because for each biannual clock change, it takes a week for road agencies to diagnose the problem and then send someone out to reset the clock). Maybe this is another reason why there is a spike in crashes after DST time changes. Yes, there are ways to prevent this from happening in the controller programming, but it requires the controller to be programmed correctly. For a city with thousands of traffic signals, do you really think every traffic signal will be programmed correctly? All it takes is a few signals out of sync to mess up your drive. So if you ever wondered why your drive into work sucked right after a time change, this could be the reason. Just another reason to get rid of the time changes.
Sorry, but just because you keep saying your way should be the only way isn't going to make it happen. I like the long summer evenings. I am not fond of being woken up by full sun at 5:10 AM, I would like still less being woken up by full sun at 4:10.
Changing the few clocks that still need to be changed manually takes about 10 minutes, twice a year. That's a small price to pay for about four months of daylight at a more useful hour of the day.
Adopting the EU's change dates would be a plus. But abandoning a shift altogether is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned.
People can't easily just change their personal schedule whenever they want. People live in complex societies with many activities that depend on each other. When my work schedule shifts to DST, I need my child's school schedule, the bus schedule, the train schedule, opening hours for grocery stores, restaurants, and dry cleaners to all change at the same time.
For people who don't like changing their clocks, they could keep UTC. No shifting, same time kept all over the world. This is what astronomers and airlines that operate worldwide do. The fact that so few other people keep UTC suggests that most people do care about the sun having some relationship to the clock.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2018, 11:43:55 AM
No matter what side it is, 80% of the population will bitch about it.
Yep. :clap:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2018, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 12, 2018, 11:37:28 AM
Whatever side it lands on we stick with it and whoever b@#$@S about the new setup will just have to learn to adjust.
No matter what side it is, 80% of the population will bitch about it.
From my observation (friends/family/this thread),
less than 80% are complaining about DST as it is currently. Which is why I think it might be the best we can do.
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2018, 12:01:40 PM
Changing the few clocks that still need to be changed manually takes about 10 minutes, twice a year. That's a small price to pay for about four months of daylight at a more useful hour of the day.
Thank you. I, too, fail to see
what is so hard, complicated, etc., about changing the clocks. It's an hour,
one,
single hour. My schedule varies by at least that much from a weekday to a weekend, all the time.
QuoteAdopting the EU's change dates would be a plus. But abandoning a shift altogether is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned.
Any shift is better than no shift. Year-round DST would be bad in the winter, year round standard time would be worse in the summer. The price of maintaining the same time year-round is too high either way.
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2018, 12:01:40 PM
Changing the few clocks that still need to be changed manually takes about 10 minutes, twice a year. That's a small price to pay for about four months of daylight at a more useful hour of the day.
You are downplaying the negative effects that time changes can have on traffic flow. It's not just the 10 minutes it takes to resync the clocks at a traffic control device that was missed during the time change... it's the days it may take for motorists to see the problem, report it to the agency, and then for the agency to dispatch a crew out to resync the clocks. That could take 1 week and 10 minutes... if not longer. The problem of out of sync clocks at traffic control devices after a time change can be alleviated if the system is connected to a central TOC, but not all agencies have the funds to manage such a system. And those systems still require for the signals to be online, and if they are not online during the time change they can still easily get out of sync. I personally see instances of out of sync clocks at traffic control devices for days after a time changes, and I can't imagine it's only a problem around here.
Apart from out of sync clocks, a driver who is driving home from work in daylight on Friday is potentially now driving home in darkness the exact same time the following Monday after the time change. Is there any wonder there's a spike in crashes after a time change? People haven't had time to adjust to driving home from work at night as opposed to the day... and millions of motorists are dealing with this disruptive change all at once. I know the argument is also that people are tired after a time change, which leads to more crashes, but are there spikes in crashes happening during both fall back and spring forward? If there are spikes during both time changes (and I'm not sure of the answer), then that would suggest the spike in crashes could be more than just people being tired after a time change (because people have gained an hour of sleep in one instance). I'll try to find the answer.
OK, admittedly this is the first research paper i stumbled across, but it did report that there was a significant increase in accidents for the Monday immediately following the spring shift to DST
AND significant increase in number of accidents on the Sunday of the fall shift from DST. So is the disruptive changes in lighting conditions or sleep patterns leading to the increases in crashes after a time change? Either way, there are significant increases in crashes after BOTH time changes.
QuoteFatal accidents following changes in daylight savings time: the American experience
Results: There was a significant increase in accidents for the Monday immediately following the spring shift to DST (t=1.92, P=0.034). There was also a significant increase in number of accidents on the Sunday of the fall shift from DST (P<0.002). No significant changes were observed for the other days. A significant negative correlation with the year was found between the number of accidents on the Saturdays and Sundays but not Mondays.
Conclusions: The sleep deprivation on the Monday following shift to DST in the spring results in a small increase in fatal accidents. The behavioral adaptation anticipating the longer day on Sunday of the shift from DST in the fall leads to an increased number of accidents suggesting an increase in late night (early Sunday morning) driving when traffic related fatalities are high possibly related to alcohol consumption and driving while sleepy. Public health educators should probably consider issuing warnings both about the effects of sleep loss in the spring shift and possible behaviors such as staying out later, particularly when consuming alcohol in the fall shift. Sleep clinicians should be aware that health consequences from forced changes in the circadian patterns resulting from DST come not only from physiological adjustments but also from behavioral responses to forced circadian changes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389945700000320
A few studies have suggested that the shock of a time change can be hazardous to your health: https://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/daylight-saving-health.html
It's not a big impact on any one person, but taken across all the areas that do do time-changes......
Quote from: webny99 on June 12, 2018, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2018, 12:01:40 PM
Changing the few clocks that still need to be changed manually takes about 10 minutes, twice a year. That's a small price to pay for about four months of daylight at a more useful hour of the day.
Thank you. I, too, fail to see what is so hard, complicated, etc., about changing the clocks. It's an hour, one, single hour. My schedule varies by at least that much from a weekday to a weekend, all the time.
QuoteAdopting the EU's change dates would be a plus. But abandoning a shift altogether is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned.
Any shift is better than no shift. Year-round DST would be bad in the winter, year round standard time would be worse in the summer. The price of maintaining the same time year-round is too high either way.
Any shift? I can have some fun with that... how about DST on June 21 and standard time the other 364 days of the year (or standard time December 21 and DST the rest of the year)? Or shifting by 12 hours instead of 1, flipping day and night for half the year?
Time for a "most absurd DST schedules" thread.
Quote from: vdeane on June 12, 2018, 01:54:24 PM
Time for a "most absurd DST schedules" thread.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/est.png)
Resetting clocks twice a year is no big deal. My power goes out a lot more often than twice a year, which necessitates resetting all clocks in the house.
Quote from: vdeane on June 12, 2018, 01:54:24 PM
Time for a "most absurd DST schedules" thread.
Standard time: Cloudy, rainy days.
DST: Sunny, nice days.
Quote from: 1 on June 12, 2018, 01:56:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 12, 2018, 01:54:24 PM
Time for a "most absurd DST schedules" thread.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/est.png)
Genius. :spin:
Quote from: vdeane on June 12, 2018, 01:54:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 12, 2018, 12:20:47 PM
Any shift is better than no shift. Year-round DST would be bad in the winter, year round standard time would be worse in the summer. The price of maintaining the same time year-round is too high either way.
Any shift?
When I say
any, I mean it in the sense that the exact date doesn't matter; as long as the entire summer is on DST and the entire winter is on standard time and the shift happens
somewhere in between.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 12, 2018, 01:12:38 PM
OK, admittedly this is the first research paper i stumbled across, but it did report that there was a significant increase in accidents for the Monday immediately following the spring shift to DST AND significant increase in number of accidents on the Sunday of the fall shift from DST. So is the disruptive changes in lighting conditions or sleep patterns leading to the increases in crashes after a time change? Either way, there are significant increases in crashes after BOTH time changes.
QuoteFatal accidents following changes in daylight savings time: the American experience
Results: There was a significant increase in accidents for the Monday immediately following the spring shift to DST (t=1.92, P=0.034). There was also a significant increase in number of accidents on the Sunday of the fall shift from DST (P<0.002). No significant changes were observed for the other days. A significant negative correlation with the year was found between the number of accidents on the Saturdays and Sundays but not Mondays.
Conclusions: The sleep deprivation on the Monday following shift to DST in the spring results in a small increase in fatal accidents. The behavioral adaptation anticipating the longer day on Sunday of the shift from DST in the fall leads to an increased number of accidents suggesting an increase in late night (early Sunday morning) driving when traffic related fatalities are high possibly related to alcohol consumption and driving while sleepy. Public health educators should probably consider issuing warnings both about the effects of sleep loss in the spring shift and possible behaviors such as staying out later, particularly when consuming alcohol in the fall shift. Sleep clinicians should be aware that health consequences from forced changes in the circadian patterns resulting from DST come not only from physiological adjustments but also from behavioral responses to forced circadian changes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389945700000320
That's a barely measurable level of significance. I'd be interested in statistics on how many more fatal accidents there are from rush hours being in darkness more days due to observing DST year-round.
Quote from: 20160805 on June 12, 2018, 10:56:54 AMThis is accurate (at least regarding my own opinion). 19:30 is plenty late enough of a summer sunset for me - plenty of light at both commutes, but not light so late I can't sleep at night. In my ideal pipe-dream custom latitude scenario, my latest sunset would actually be at 18:43 (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_rstablew.pl?ID=AA&year=2018&task=0&place=20160805+Ideal&lon_sign=1&lon_deg=0&lon_min=15&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=20&lat_min=0&tz=0&tz_sign=-1). ;) (Latitude 20*N, clock time-solar time offset of 0)
Good grief - you'll hate living here. It's 22:09 now. The streetlights turned on just a few minutes ago. I can still see a bit of pink in the sky and much of it is light-blue grey, going to dark blue grey. It's dark, but not that dark (it has got noticeably darker the last 15 minutes or so). You could sit outside without artificial light and see other people's faces as you talked.
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2018, 04:29:25 PM
That's a barely measurable level of significance. I'd be interested in statistics on how many more fatal accidents there are from rush hours being in darkness more days due to observing DST year-round.
I disagree with your assumption that there would be more rush hours in darkness if year-round DST was observed. After all, more darkness during AM rushes with permanent DST would be offset by more light during PM rushes. I already showed how permanent DST would minimize the total minutes Awake in Darkness (AID) and the minutes Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to standard time. Minimizing the total minutes Awake in Darkness (AID) also minimizes the amount of minutes that American's are potentially driving in darkness (which in theory should result in fewer fatal crashes... or at the very least a reduced fatality rate).
Quote from: tradephoric on May 01, 2018, 04:51:47 PM
I put together a list of dawn/dusk times for the top 20 metro regions in America. I wanted to consider the lighting effects that winter DST would have on early birds (wake at 05:00, go to bed at 21:00) and night owls (wake at 08:00, go to bed at midnight). Running DST during the winter greatly minimizes the total minutes Awake in Darkness (AID) and the minutes Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to standard time.
(https://i.imgur.com/bNDzuPH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/YiicpCs.png)
*The early bird in all 20 metro regions is never sleeping in light (SIL) regardless if it's running DST or Standard time. OTOH, night owls are sleeping in light (SIL) in all 20 metro regions when running Standard time during the winter.
*Detroit would experience the latest dawn out of the top 20 metro regions if the nation observed DST during the winter. The dawn would begin in Detroit at 8:26AM.
My evening commute is never anything darker than civil twilight (which is basically daylight, really) year round.
Quote from: vdeane on June 12, 2018, 07:17:43 PM
My evening commute is never anything darker than civil twilight (which is basically daylight, really) year round.
Same here, and I work 7:30 to 4:30.
October and December mornings, on the other hand, are almost impossible to commute fully in the light (15 minutes more so here than in Albany).
Year round DST would definitely cause a net increase in dark commutes for me; there's just no way around it. Sure, my evening commutes would have
more light, but they wouldn't improve from fully or mostly dark to fully or mostly light, so the position of the sun is irrelevant.
The PM rush is typically heavier than the AM rush because more people are out and about in the evenings running errands. In that regard it makes sense to favor more daylight during the PM rush. OTOH, the morning commute is full of motorists driving straight to work, worried about if they will make it on time. They aren't stopping at a grocery store before work to buy milk.
Morning routine: A=leave home; B=stop at Starbucks; C=arrive at work (it becomes a direct A-B route if you aren't a coffee drinker).
Afternoon routine: A=leave work; B=stop at the gas station; C=stop at home depot; D=meet friends for happy hour; E=hit the casino; G=call your wife to let her know you are working late
... point is there is a lot more things to do in the evenings and you never really know what errands will have you running around town after work. The friends you met up with after work convince you to hit the casino, but you haven't been there for a few years. Wouldn't you rather have daylight driving that "unfamiliar" route? OTOH, the familiar route you've taken to the job you've been working the past 3 years... you could probably drive that in your sleep. The light is almost wasted in the morning on that direct familiar route.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 13, 2018, 08:36:36 AM
Afternoon routine: A=leave work... E=hit the casino; G
Thank goodness for online gambling. You can gamble while sitting in traffic!
:-D :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2018, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 13, 2018, 08:36:36 AM
Afternoon routine: A=leave work... E=hit the casino; G
Thank goodness for online gambling. You can gamble while sitting in traffic!
:-D :-D
Not enough for some people. I've seen people play a slot machine app on their phone while sitting in front of an actual slot machine they're playing. Apparently they need something to fill the time waiting for the reels to stop.
Assemblyman Kansen Chu, who introduced AB 807 states that "If signed by the governor, the bill will bring California closer to abolishing the outdated practice of switching our clocks in the fall and spring." He doesn't say that it gets California one step closer to abolishing DST, because that isn't Kanen's ultimate goal. Who in LA wants 4:41 AM sunrises and 7:07 PM sunsets during the summer solstice? Those would be the sunrise/sunset times in LA if DST was abolished. Just don't pay that much attention to the poorly worded headline... switch "end of daylight saving time" with "end of clock changes"
End of daylight saving time inches closer in Californiahttp://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article213187609.html
QuoteThe state Senate on Thursday approved a proposal to ask voters to repeal a 70-year-old initiative that set a biannual clock change in California and give lawmakers the power to adjust the time with a two-thirds vote.
"If signed by the governor, the bill will bring California closer to abolishing the outdated practice of switching our clocks in the fall and spring," said Assemblyman Kansen Chu, D- San Jose, who introduced Assembly Bill 807.
QuoteAB 807 allows the Legislature to amend daylight saving time with a two-thirds vote in the future. If voters approve the ballot measure, Chu, or another lawmaker, would need to introduce a new bill to establish a permanent daylight saving time.
The new proposal would have to clear the Senate and the Assembly and receive the governor's signature. Then Congress would have to take action to sanction the law and allow states to adopt a year-round daylight saving time.
Since when does an elected official need a non-binding vote to introduce a bill?
Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation. They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country. None of this year-round DST.
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation.
Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?
Quote from: tradephoric on June 17, 2018, 10:41:00 PM
End of daylight saving time inches closer in California
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article213187609.html
Do all 3 CA's have to approve it? :-D
Quote from: kalvado on June 18, 2018, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation.
Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?
Totally different situation. A more-or-less victimless crime, which was a widely-ignored law, vs. something that by its nature must be decided as a country.
Quote from: GaryV on June 18, 2018, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 17, 2018, 10:41:00 PM
End of daylight saving time inches closer in California
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article213187609.html
Do all 3 CA's have to approve it? :-D
:clap:
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 07:31:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 18, 2018, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation.
Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?
Totally different situation. A more-or-less victimless crime, which was a widely-ignored law, vs. something that by its nature must be decided as a country.
I may have missed it.. Who is the victim of time zone change?
Quote from: kalvado on June 19, 2018, 10:58:31 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 07:31:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 18, 2018, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation.
Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?
Totally different situation. A more-or-less victimless crime, which was a widely-ignored law, vs. something that by its nature must be decided as a country.
I may have missed it.. Who is the victim of time zone change?
Anyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation. They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country. None of this year-round DST.
Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning. I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round. If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless"). If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 19, 2018, 10:58:31 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 07:31:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 18, 2018, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation.
Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?
Totally different situation. A more-or-less victimless crime, which was a widely-ignored law, vs. something that by its nature must be decided as a country.
I may have missed it.. Who is the victim of time zone change?
Anyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.
Then I definitely need to declare myself a victim of a current DST approach, who has to go through extreme pain and suffering due to distortion of sleep cycle and through the torture of sleep deprivation.
The victims of DST are those who have to go through the politician imposed inconvenience of changing their clocks twice a year.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 19, 2018, 03:21:25 PM
The victims of DST are those who have to go through the politician imposed inconvenience of changing their clocks twice a year.
That's an extremely minor inconvenience.
Quote from: 1 on June 19, 2018, 03:22:23 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 19, 2018, 03:21:25 PM
The victims of DST are those who have to go through the politician imposed inconvenience of changing their clocks twice a year.
That's an extremely minor inconvenience.
Yep, but still that is a bigger one than sticking to one set of timing for 12 months a year.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 19, 2018, 02:06:52 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation. They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country. None of this year-round DST.
Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning. I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round. If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless"). If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.
I was saying what California's legal options: either status quo or year-round standard time. What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.
Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 19, 2018, 02:06:52 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation. They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country. None of this year-round DST.
Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning. I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round. If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless"). If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.
I was saying what California's legal options: either status quo or year-round standard time. What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.
Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.
Now with CA attitude to current administration in particular and federal legislation in general, I can envision "we have DST from January 1 to December 31, and those who disagree may feel free to get lost" scenario. It is not way different from some other hot political topics, probably even less of an issue in grand scheme of things. I am not sure what federal government can do in such situation beyond requiring federal employers to report to their office on "official" DST time.
Quote from: kalvado on June 19, 2018, 05:18:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 19, 2018, 02:06:52 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation. They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country. None of this year-round DST.
Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning. I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round. If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless"). If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.
I was saying what California's legal options: either status quo or year-round standard time. What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.
Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.
Now with CA attitude to current administration in particular and federal legislation in general, I can envision "we have DST from January 1 to December 31, and those who disagree may feel free to get lost" scenario. It is not way different from some other hot political topics, probably even less of an issue in grand scheme of things. I am not sure what federal government can do in such situation beyond requiring federal employers to report to their office on "official" DST time.
Sigh. Shall I try again? The dates of transition are determined Federally. States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 19, 2018, 05:18:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 19, 2018, 02:06:52 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation. They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country. None of this year-round DST.
Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning. I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round. If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless"). If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.
I was saying what California's legal options: either status quo or year-round standard time. What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.
Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.
Now with CA attitude to current administration in particular and federal legislation in general, I can envision "we have DST from January 1 to December 31, and those who disagree may feel free to get lost" scenario. It is not way different from some other hot political topics, probably even less of an issue in grand scheme of things. I am not sure what federal government can do in such situation beyond requiring federal employers to report to their office on "official" DST time.
Sigh. Shall I try again? The dates of transition are determined Federally. States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.
Areas can have a different official time and commonly used time. For example, Phenix City, AL and Jackpot, NV.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 06:36:47 PM
Sigh. Shall I try again? The dates of transition are determined Federally. States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.
List of controlled substances is determined Federally. States cannot change that list. Didn't prevent a whole list of states to do as they please.
Quote from: 1 on June 19, 2018, 06:38:25 PM
Areas can have a different official time and commonly used time. For example, Phenix City, AL and Jackpot, NV.
May be easy when area is mostly doing business with a nearby area via surface transportation. Would cause a whole lot of issues with major international airports like LAX and SFO or ports. (Oakland, Long Beach).
Not a big deal for store owner to post hours with time zone for clarity, a bit more involved for the airline to do that on a schedule
Quote from: kalvado on June 19, 2018, 06:54:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 06:36:47 PM
Sigh. Shall I try again? The dates of transition are determined Federally. States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.
List of controlled substances is determined Federally. States cannot change that list. Didn't prevent a whole list of states to do as they please.
Sure. But the marijuana laws are mostly a matter of whether people can buy or use it without being prosecuted. I guess people or states could make up their own time zones, but they'd find it awfully lonely when no one else used the same one. You're free to set your watch to UTC and never have to change it at all, even if you go flying across oceans.
Most law enforcement and prosecutions are a local decision. The states could decide that marijuana use by persons over 21 was not a priority for city, state, and county law enforcement and prosecutors, and that accounted for most of the cases that used to be brought. But marijuana is still on the federal controlled substances list, and if you encounter national park or forest service rangers or TSA or customs and immigration officials with marijuana on you they would probably take it away at the very least, and could prosecute you.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 07:46:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 19, 2018, 06:54:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 06:36:47 PM
Sigh. Shall I try again? The dates of transition are determined Federally. States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.
List of controlled substances is determined Federally. States cannot change that list. Didn't prevent a whole list of states to do as they please.
Sure. But the marijuana laws are mostly a matter of whether people can buy or use it without being prosecuted. I guess people or states could make up their own time zones, but they'd find it awfully lonely when no one else used the same one. You're free to set your watch to UTC and never have to change it at all, even if you go flying across oceans.
Most law enforcement and prosecutions are a local decision. The states could decide that marijuana use by persons over 21 was not a priority for city, state, and county law enforcement and prosecutors, and that accounted for most of the cases that used to be brought. But marijuana is still on the federal controlled substances list, and if you encounter national park or forest service rangers or TSA or customs and immigration officials with marijuana on you they would probably take it away at the very least, and could prosecute you.
Well, California issues licenses to sell cannabis to recreational users and collect tax on these sales - which is still a federal felony. So much for "not a priority".
I can easily see CA doing something similar with their clock settings. Question is what would happen next. If DOT (agency in charge of time zone) decides "enforcement is not a priority"...
In a grand scheme of things, avoiding confusion is the main reason for time zone policies. If relaxing those regulations would avoid extra confusion, I would say spirit of law is upheld - even if letter of the law is not. So it is a matter of how hard can CA push all this.... They may prevail, at least in 1 or 2 out of 3 states :popcorn:
Ideally, local time would be determined on a county by county basis. That way "time" would be most reflective of how people actually live there and not what time zone they are in with resulting unusual sun rise and sun set times.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 20, 2018, 07:50:14 AM
Ideally, local time would be determined on a county by county basis. That way "time" would be most reflective of how people actually live there and not what time zone they are in with resulting unusual sun rise and sun set times.
If you still want 1 hour steps, then county is probably too small of an entity - too much mess with finding out when that 11 AM conference call actually gonna star. However, nothing really prevents individual employers to set up clocks... I mean hours... with respect to existing clocks to reflect local schedules. Including seasonal shifts for emulation of DST, if desired.
The only reason I see against adopting one flat time nationwide is that switching
date in the middle of work day would be an issue.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 12:07:19 PMAnyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.
Both are pretty useless and superfluous hours to have daylight. It's really a matter of preference whether 0430-2030 or 0530-2130 is better. If it was 0430-1930 (ie 7.5 hours either side of 12) vs 0530-2030 then there's more of a case for evening than morning.
Quote from: english si on June 20, 2018, 08:53:01 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 12:07:19 PMAnyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.
Both are pretty useless and superfluous hours to have daylight. It's really a matter of preference whether 0430-2030 or 0530-2130 is better. If it was 0430-1930 (ie 7.5 hours either side of 12) vs 0530-2030 then there's more of a case for evening than morning.
The best part of this discussion is that something people describe as intolerable situation is actually a best case scenario a few hundred miles away at the other edge of time zone or/and further north/south...
Quote from: 1 on June 19, 2018, 06:38:25 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 19, 2018, 05:18:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 19, 2018, 02:06:52 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2018, 12:12:38 AM
Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.
I don't think that's how it works anyway. DST is Federal legislation. They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country. None of this year-round DST.
Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning. I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round. If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless"). If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.
I was saying what California's legal options: either status quo or year-round standard time. What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.
Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.
Now with CA attitude to current administration in particular and federal legislation in general, I can envision "we have DST from January 1 to December 31, and those who disagree may feel free to get lost" scenario. It is not way different from some other hot political topics, probably even less of an issue in grand scheme of things. I am not sure what federal government can do in such situation beyond requiring federal employers to report to their office on "official" DST time.
Sigh. Shall I try again? The dates of transition are determined Federally. States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.
Areas can have a different official time and commonly used time. For example, Phenix City, AL and Jackpot, NV.
Do you really want to have every city and town making up their own time zone, like on the "Principal Cities of the U.S. in 1857" thread? Because that sounds like a disaster to me.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 06:36:47 PM
Sigh. Shall I try again? The dates of transition are determined Federally. States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.
Here is the statute in the Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 that address violations. What processes they would use to ensure compliance is pretty open. Maybe the department of transportation would withhold federal funds until the state gained compliance.
(c) For any violation of the provisions of this section the Inter-violations state Commerce Commission or its duly authorized agent may apply to the district court of the United States for the district in which such violation occurs for the enforcement of this section; and such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce obedience thereto by writ of injunction or by other process, mandatory or otherwise, restraining against further violations of this section and enjoining obedience thereto.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 20, 2018, 01:03:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 06:36:47 PM
Sigh. Shall I try again? The dates of transition are determined Federally. States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.
Here is the statute in the Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 that address violations. What processes they would use to ensure compliance is pretty open. Maybe the department of transportation would withhold federal funds until the state gained compliance.
(c) For any violation of the provisions of this section the Inter-violations state Commerce Commission or its duly authorized agent may apply to the district court of the United States for the district in which such violation occurs for the enforcement of this section; and such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce obedience thereto by writ of injunction or by other process, mandatory or otherwise, restraining against further violations of this section and enjoining obedience thereto.
Looks pretty plain. If a state defied the ICC, the ICC could sue in Federal district court and the court could issue an injuction. If the state defied the injunction, the court could apply penalties to the responsible officials for contempt of court.
There are places that straddle time-zone lines. For example, Porcupine Mountains State Park in Michigan is in both Ontonagon and Gobebic Counties. There are signs that state that the park observes Eastern time.
One would think D.S.T. gets it's semi-annual big test on Thursday. Summer starts at 6:07 AM EDT. The sunset for Hartford, CT will be at 8:30 PM. It will be at 8:26 PM in Portland, ME.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 20, 2018, 01:03:00 PM
Here is the statute in the Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 that address violations. What processes they would use to ensure compliance is pretty open. Maybe the department of transportation would withhold federal funds until the state gained compliance.
(c) For any violation of the provisions of this section the Inter-violations state Interstate Commerce Commission or its duly authorized agent may apply to the district court of the United States for the district in which such violation occurs for the enforcement of this section; and such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce obedience thereto by writ of injunction or by other process, mandatory or otherwise, restraining against further violations of this section and enjoining obedience thereto.
FTFY. The ICC no longer exists, but its time zone responsibilities were transferred to the Department of Transportation (https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/time-act).
Yep, tomorrow is the big day! Anybody who wants to get rid of DST has to convince the people of Connecticut that 7:30 PM sunsets on the longest day of the year is a good thing. Imagine someone living in Connecticut commuting home from NYC... a lot of those people don't get home till 7:30 PM after dealing with NYC traffic. It's even worse for the 2nd largest city in America... without DST the sun would set in LA at 7:07 PM tomorrow. Do the 24 million people living in Southern California really want 7:07 PM sunsets on the longest day of the year? This country will never get rid of DST... the only option if we don't want disruptive time-changes is making DST permanent. And people on this thread have indeed proposed year-round standard time. They have to convince us that 7:07 PM sunsets in LA would be a good thing tomorrow... and the rest of us holding pitchforks will be listening contently.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 20, 2018, 11:30:50 PM
Yep, tomorrow is the big day! Anybody who wants to get rid of DST has to convince the people of Connecticut that 7:30 PM sunsets on the longest day of the year is a good thing.
Or a 4:15 AM sunrise for that matter.
Changing the clocks twice a year is unnecessary and causes unnecessary stress and lowers productivity. There is no reason to do it. I have sleep apnea so it is especially hard for me to adjust my schedule by an hour twice a year. It is an outdated idea that has been obsolete since electric lights became commonplace in homes and businesses. It needs to be done away with and we need to go to year round daylight saving time. It is inhumane to expect every person in the country to adjust their entire schedules, especially their sleep schedules, twice a year. There's simply no point in it. None whatsoever. Do away with it yesterday.
It's Summer now (in the Northern hemisphere, Winter in the Southern one).
About sunset times, today the sunset in my area is as late as 9:41 PM CEST. As always, this is a result of Spain being in the 'wrong' time zone, with DST all-year round... and double DST in the Summer. In my 'forum time' this is 12:41 PM PDT (I should be using Mountain time right now, but since as of this post Big Rig Steve is in Arizona which doesn't observe DST, I use Pacific time to get the correct hour).
Sunrise is at 5:05 AM here, and sunset is 8:25 PM. Almost the same latitude, but in the correct time zone.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 21, 2018, 06:16:44 AM
It's Summer now (in the Northern hemisphere, Winter in the Southern one).
About sunset times, today the sunset in my area is as late as 9:41 PM CEST. As always, this is a result of Spain being in the 'wrong' time zone, with DST all-year round... and double DST in the Summer. In my 'forum time' this is 12:41 PM PDT (I should be using Mountain time right now, but since as of this post Big Rig Steve is in Arizona which doesn't observe DST, I use Pacific time to get the correct hour).
I thought Spain (and the rest of mainland Europe) normally used 24-hour time.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 20, 2018, 11:30:50 PM
Yep, tomorrow is the big day! Anybody who wants to get rid of DST has to convince the people of Connecticut that 7:30 PM sunsets on the longest day of the year is a good thing.
And again, anyone who wants year-round DST has to convince the people of Atlanta that post-8:30 AM sunrises on the winter equinox are a good thing. That ain't happening either.
Unpopular opinion here, I know, but the current situation is honestly about the best we're gonna get.
Quote from: Eth on June 21, 2018, 08:27:08 AM
And again, anyone who wants year-round DST has to convince the people of Atlanta that post-8:30 AM sunrises on the winter equinox are a good thing. That ain't happening either.
Unpopular opinion here, I know, but the current situation is honestly about the best we're gonna get.
Realistically, there are plenty more people still asleep at 8:30AM (when the sun would rise in the winter in Atlanta with year-round DST) compared to those sleeping at 6:30PM (when the sun would set in the winter). If maximizing the waking hours of daylight Americans receive in the winter is a metric for what's best, then year-round DST would absolutely be better than the system we currently have in place. The biggest thing is with permanent DST we wouldn't be dealing with disruptive time changes 2 times a year, which has documented negative consequences to people's health and well-being.
Economically year-round DST would be great. All those people who can't function early in the morning without daylight will just drink more coffee. Just invest in your favorite coffee company and make DST permanent. But the real economic impact is having more daylight after work. People will be more likely to be out and about while it's still light out after work, compared to going straight home when it's already pitch dark. I just looked up the magic Kingdom Park hours and they are from 9AM to Midnight. Seeing that the sun would have already risen before 9AM, even on the shortest day of the year, going to permanent DST would increase the amount of daylight in the park by a full hour each day throughout the winter. That's got to be good for business. You think the Florida legislator just randomly passed the Sunshine Protection Act this year? I don't think so. The tourism industry is big business in Florida and we are talking about a lot of money left on the table by not having later sunsets during the winter.
If Florida goes to AST (I refuse to call it "permanent DST"), the whole Atlantic coast must change, as well as some inland cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh. Florida is on the western edge of the Eastern time zone. It makes no sense for cities hundreds of miles east of Florida, like New York City and Boston, to remain on Eastern while Florida (except the Panhandle) goes to Atlantic.
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 09:14:12 AM
If Florida goes to AST (I refuse to call it "permanent DST"), the whole Atlantic coast must change, as well as some inland cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh. Florida is on the western edge of the Eastern time zone. It makes no sense for cities hundreds of miles east of Florida, like New York City and Boston, to remain on Eastern while Florida (except the Panhandle) goes to Atlantic.
I can see the concept of north-south time zones to be less than perfect, looks like borders have to at an angle.
But then Boston is also bragging about AST,,
Quote from: kalvado on June 21, 2018, 09:16:16 AM
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.).
Have all the lower 48 states shift time zones for the equivalent of year round DST. It will be weird after growing up in the Pacific Time Zone to be living in the Mountain Time Zone, though there are mountains in Washington. :D
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 21, 2018, 09:16:16 AM
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.).
Year round DST is no different by switching to next time zone without DST. Legal differences - maybe, but in terms of clock reading it is exact same thing.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 21, 2018, 10:30:09 AM
Have all the lower 48 states shift time zones for the equivalent of year round DST. It will be weird after growing up in the Pacific Time Zone to be living in the Mountain Time Zone, though there are mountains in Washington. :D
The Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 allows states to opt out of DST. If the time-zones were simply shifted and DST was eliminated, states would no longer have that opt-out option (since DST would presumably no longer exist). At that point if a state wanted to change times they would have to apply for a time-zone change which would have to be approved by the federal government. Taking control away from the states and giving it to the federal government is not the right approach in this case, it rarely is. That's why permanent DST is a better solution.
So what is everyone's sunrise/sunset times for today? In Detroit it rises at 5:55 AM and sets at 9:13 PM. Pretty sweet.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 12:07:11 PM
So what is everyone's sunrise/sunset times for today? In Detroit it rises at 5:55 AM and sets at 9:13 PM. Pretty sweet.
Sunrise was at 6:12 a.m., which is too early for me. (7 a.m. would be perfect). Sunset will be at 8:58 p.m., and I would not mind if it was later, say 9:30.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 12:07:11 PM
So what is everyone's sunrise/sunset times for today? In Detroit it rises at 5:55 AM and sets at 9:13 PM. Pretty sweet.
"Before I woke up"
"When I'll be in the house watching TV"
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 12:07:11 PM
So what is everyone's sunrise/sunset times for today? In Detroit it rises at 5:55 AM and sets at 9:13 PM. Pretty sweet.
Seattle today:
begin civil twilight 4:30 am
sunrise 5:11 am
sunset 9:10 pm
end civil twilight 9:52 pm
It would be okay with me if in addition to regular daylight savings time, we observed double daylight saving time from the 2nd Sunday in May through the first Monday in September (Labor Day in the U.S.). End those super early sunrises in summer. :popcorn:
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 04:56:28 AMobsolete since electric lights became commonplace in homes and businesses.
ie pretty much it was brought in, for basically the reason it came in.
"if we have it light later in summer, we'll use less electricity lighting homes in the evening" was a key argument for DST. :clap:
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 21, 2018, 06:16:44 AM
It's Summer now (in the Northern hemisphere, Winter in the Southern one).
About sunset times, today the sunset in my area is as late as 9:41 PM CEST. As always, this is a result of Spain being in the 'wrong' time zone, with DST all-year round... and double DST in the Summer. In my 'forum time' this is 12:41 PM PDT (I should be using Mountain time right now, but since as of this post Big Rig Steve is in Arizona which doesn't observe DST, I use Pacific time to get the correct hour).
Who is "Big Rig Steve" and why are you so obsessed with him?
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 12:52:09 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 04:56:28 AMobsolete since electric lights became commonplace in homes and businesses.
ie pretty much it was brought in, for basically the reason it came in.
"if we have it light later in summer, we'll use less electricity lighting homes in the evening" was a key argument for DST. :clap:
Which was a good argument until LEDs came to the rescue.
Another reason I heard - and it makes a
little bit more sense - DST reduces peak power consumption around switch dates, allowing power plants to be taken offline for maintenance between winter and AC season. Although graphs which came along with that statement didn't show too much of an effect.
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 12:52:09 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 04:56:28 AMobsolete since electric lights became commonplace in homes and businesses.
ie pretty much it was brought in, for basically the reason it came in.
"if we have it light later in summer, we'll use less electricity lighting homes in the evening" was a key argument for DST. :clap:
Actually the key argument was folks would be healthier if they got some outdoor recreation time after work and in better shape in case they got drafted. Another important argument especially in Britain was that with some sunlight after work they could garden and grow vegetables, and that would be less food that would have to make it past the U-boats during the wars.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 09:05:51 AMRealistically, there are plenty more people still asleep at 8:30AM (when the sun would rise in the winter in Atlanta with year-round DST) compared to those sleeping at 6:30PM (when the sun would set in the winter). If maximizing the waking hours of daylight Americans receive in the winter is a metric for what's best, then year-round DST would absolutely be better than the system we currently have in place.
How many times do we have to say that this is a total nonsense argument as
1) many people need the sun to be up to wake naturally, and daylight when they are asleep is not wasted, but extremely useful.
2) at the other end of the day, we've always gone to bed some time after dark.
Quote from: kalvado on June 20, 2018, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: english si on June 20, 2018, 08:53:01 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 12:07:19 PMAnyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.
Both are pretty useless and superfluous hours to have daylight. It's really a matter of preference whether 0430-2030 or 0530-2130 is better. If it was 0430-1930 (ie 7.5 hours either side of 12) vs 0530-2030 then there's more of a case for evening than morning.
The best part of this discussion is that something people describe as intolerable situation is actually a best case scenario a few hundred miles away at the other edge of time zone or/and further north/south...
The worst part of this discussion is people not reading what was said, and making up the other side's point.
Having had light at both 4:30am and 9:30pm for a good few weeks now (and will have for a few weeks more), neither is intolerable, but neither is worth kicking up a fuss to obtain - both are superfluous.
I'm personally like kkt - I'd rather have light really late rather than really early. But at the same time, adding another two changes each year seems silly (I'd buy something like the original idea of 20 minutes change each fortnight through March-April and back every two weeks through September-October and have an 80 minute shift). For me, DST is mostly meaningless May-July as we don't need the extra hour of sunlight in the evening as we have quite a lot already this far north, and we still have 'too much' in the morning, and to double it (as kkt jokingly(?) suggests) would be completely pointless.
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 01:11:35 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 20, 2018, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: english si on June 20, 2018, 08:53:01 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2018, 12:07:19 PMAnyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.
Both are pretty useless and superfluous hours to have daylight. It's really a matter of preference whether 0430-2030 or 0530-2130 is better. If it was 0430-1930 (ie 7.5 hours either side of 12) vs 0530-2030 then there's more of a case for evening than morning.
The best part of this discussion is that something people describe as intolerable situation is actually a best case scenario a few hundred miles away at the other edge of time zone or/and further north/south...
The worst part of this discussion is people not reading what was said, and making up the other side's point.
Having had light at both 4:30am and 9:30pm for a good few weeks now (and will have for a few weeks more), neither is intolerable, but neither is worth kicking up a fuss to obtain - both are superfluous.
I'm personally like kkt - I'd rather have light really late rather than really early. But at the same time, adding another two changes each year seems silly (I'd buy something like the original idea of 20 minutes change each fortnight through March-April and back every two weeks through September-October and have an 80 minute shift). For me, DST is mostly meaningless May-July as we don't need the extra hour of sunlight in the evening as we have quite a lot already this far north, and we still have 'too much' in the morning, and to double it (as kkt jokingly(?) suggests) would be completely pointless.
Well, no pointing fingers here. It is more about people quoting specific times as intolerable.. You personally, being pretty far north from most of people on this forum, have your own situation, different from that people in US face.
And yes, 1 hour granularity is an issue. People didn't think about 21st century issues when they introduced 24 hour day 3000 years ago..
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 12:07:11 PM
So what is everyone's sunrise/sunset times for today? In Detroit it rises at 5:55 AM and sets at 9:13 PM. Pretty sweet.
For Salt Lake City today, sunrise is at 5:56am and sunset is at 9:03pm. If we didn't use DST, the sunrise would be at 4:56 and sunset would be at 8:02. A 4:56am sunrise time is much too early. But on December 21, sunrise is at 7:49am and sunset is at 5:03pm. If we went on year-round DST, then sunrise would not be until 8:49, which is much too late (and with the mountains in the east, the sun probably wouldn't actually come up until after 9am).
Which is why I prefer the current system. Sure, the start of DST should be pushed back to April, but DST in summer is better than either of the two alternatives.
What are people going to do if it's light out at 10pm? Mow the lawn? Take a walk? I guess they could sit inside and do something, although if they're the type of people that like privacy, they're going to shut the blinds and shades because they don't want people looking inside taking their late evening walks, rendering whatever natural sunlight exists useless and will be turning on the lights anyway.
I'm not exactly seeing a lot of people out at 9pm. Those that are seem to be enjoying themselves, not bitching about how it's getting dark so early. If anything, they enjoy the illumination of fire pits and other nighttime activities.
If people enjoy (and make use of) sunshine in the evening so much, why don't they just get up at dawn and enjoy (and make use of) sunshine then too?
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 11:07:48 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 21, 2018, 10:30:09 AM
Have all the lower 48 states shift time zones for the equivalent of year round DST. It will be weird after growing up in the Pacific Time Zone to be living in the Mountain Time Zone, though there are mountains in Washington. :D
The Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 allows states to opt out of DST. If the time-zones were simply shifted and DST was eliminated, states would no longer have that opt-out option (since DST would presumably no longer exist). At that point if a state wanted to change times they would have to apply for a time-zone change which would have to be approved by the federal government. Taking control away from the states and giving it to the federal government is not the right approach in this case, it rarely is. That's why permanent DST is a better solution.
It used to be up to the states, and it was a clusterf*** with every state having different rules. That's the reason the Uniform Time Code Act was passed in the first place.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2018, 01:28:25 PM
I'm not exactly seeing a lot of people out at 9pm. Those that are seem to be enjoying themselves, not bitching about how it's getting dark so early. If anything, they enjoy the illumination of fire pits and other nighttime activities.
Agreed. I don't get the obsession with "it must be daylight to do anything other than sit at home watching TV". I for one personally enjoy how my Saturday evenings are dark in the winter! It's fun to drive down the road seeing all the businesses illuminated by their lights. Having it be light out at 7-8 pm in late January/February would be weird and feel too much like summer.
tradephoric also doesn't seem to get just how inconvenient it would be to have to spend half an hour every morning scraping the windshield off because the sun didn't come out early enough to start defrosting it. My apartment does not have a garage.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:52:46 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 21, 2018, 06:16:44 AM
It's Summer now (in the Northern hemisphere, Winter in the Southern one).
About sunset times, today the sunset in my area is as late as 9:41 PM CEST. As always, this is a result of Spain being in the 'wrong' time zone, with DST all-year round... and double DST in the Summer. In my 'forum time' this is 12:41 PM PDT (I should be using Mountain time right now, but since as of this post Big Rig Steve is in Arizona which doesn't observe DST, I use Pacific time to get the correct hour).
Who is "Big Rig Steve" and why are you so obsessed with him?
I'm more curious why he's so obsessed with his "forum time".
Quote from: kalvado on June 21, 2018, 12:55:43 PMWhich was a good argument until LEDs came to the rescue.
Another reason I heard - and it makes a little bit more sense - DST reduces peak power consumption around switch dates, allowing power plants to be taken offline for maintenance between winter and AC season. Although graphs which came along with that statement didn't show too much of an effect.
I guess I was a bit too deadpan there. 'DST is obsolete now for the reason that DST exists' is a rather funny notion.
That said, the evidence of reduction in power consumption has been debunked - it's so tiny as to be within the margin of error, and comparing Indiana in the summer the last year of EST year-round vs the first summer with DST gave a tiny increase, rather than a tiny decrease.
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 01:09:54 PMActually the key argument was folks would be healthier if they got some outdoor recreation time after work and in better shape in case they got drafted. Another important argument especially in Britain was that with some sunlight after work they could garden and grow vegetables, and that would be less food that would have to make it past the U-boats during the wars.
It was explicitly (and simply) reduction of fuel consumption in the evenings (so more could be used to fight the war) that the reason for the UK to bring in DST. The first reading of the bill (https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1916/may/08/daylight-saving) began
"That, in view especially of the economy in fuel and its transport that would be effected by shortening the hours of artificial lighting, this House would welcome a measure for the advancement of clock time by one hour during the summer months of this year." and while there was the stuff about gardening and recreation that was about peacetime after the war from someone else (and mostly about them not being in the pub, but rather doing what Victorian paternalism viewed as appropriate behaviour for plebs - certainly not 'just in case they get drafted'*). The main objections to the bill were from the agricultural industry that it would play havoc with the harvesting of crops on farms (or be a completely pointless bit of hassle for workers in that industry - they change their clocks by an hour, and then move their working day to counter the clock change), so the food argument - which wasn't made - would have been refuted by this issue.
*The draft (Military Service Bill (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1916/15/pdfs/ukpga_19160015_en.pdf)) was created and debated the same days as the Summer Time Bill, and it decreed that "every male British subject ... ordinarily resident in Great Britain ... [over 18 and under 41], shall, unless ... within the exceptions set out ... by this act ... be deemed as from the appointed date to have been duly enlisted" - the 'in case they got drafted' shows that you haven't researched this at all - there's no 'in case' about it - unless you were never going to be drafted, you were drafted.
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 06:20:09 AM
I thought Spain (and the rest of mainland Europe) normally used 24-hour time.
Yes, it's that. However I follow regional customs for time and date, and as such here I use 12-hour and month/day instead of my usual 24-hour and day/month. Using my default, sunset time here is 21:41 CEST.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:52:46 PM
Who is "Big Rig Steve" and why are you so obsessed with him?
You don't know Big Rig Steve? He's a trucker who broadcasts his travels around the country on YouTube. Besides that, I decided to set up my own "forum time" which is an exact offset from my real time zone (thus observing European DST). At first I set it to my time zone minus 6 hours (thus aligning with Eastern time most of the year), but at the start of this year I began watching Big Rig Steve, and decided to synchronize my "forum time" with him, so now the offset varies between -6 and -9 hours. I use this for quoting times here. However, the time the forum displays to me is mine with American DST.
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 02:03:29 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 01:09:54 PMActually the key argument was folks would be healthier if they got some outdoor recreation time after work and in better shape in case they got drafted. Another important argument especially in Britain was that with some sunlight after work they could garden and grow vegetables, and that would be less food that would have to make it past the U-boats during the wars.
It was explicitly (and simply) reduction of fuel consumption in the evenings (so more could be used to fight the war) that the reason for the UK to bring in DST. The first reading of the bill (https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1916/may/08/daylight-saving) began "That, in view especially of the economy in fuel and its transport that would be effected by shortening the hours of artificial lighting, this House would welcome a measure for the advancement of clock time by one hour during the summer months of this year." and while there was the stuff about gardening and recreation that was about peacetime after the war from someone else (and mostly about them not being in the pub, but rather doing what Victorian paternalism viewed as appropriate behaviour for plebs - certainly not 'just in case they get drafted'*). The main objections to the bill were from the agricultural industry that it would play havoc with the harvesting of crops on farms (or be a completely pointless bit of hassle for workers in that industry - they change their clocks by an hour, and then move their working day to counter the clock change), so the food argument - which wasn't made - would have been refuted by this issue.
*The draft (Military Service Bill (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1916/15/pdfs/ukpga_19160015_en.pdf)) was created and debated the same days as the Summer Time Bill, and it decreed that "every male British subject ... ordinarily resident in Great Britain ... [over 18 and under 41], shall, unless ... within the exceptions set out ... by this act ... be deemed as from the appointed date to have been duly enlisted" - the 'in case they got drafted' shows that you haven't researched this at all - there's no 'in case' about it - unless you were never going to be drafted, you were drafted.
Please note that Britain did not draft females, so there are a couple of "just in cases" involved: just in case one is a reasonably healthy male not in an essential service. Having more of the population get exercise helps with the "reasonably healthy" part. Furthermore the part of my paragraph that was qualified by "especially in Britain" was the gardening part, not the draft part.
Quote from: US 89 on June 21, 2018, 01:25:26 PMWhich is why I prefer the current system. Sure, the start of DST should be pushed back to April, but DST in summer is better than either of the two alternatives.
Last week of March is alright. The bigger problem is the fall change - should really be late September (maybe early October), but Europe does late October, and North American early November.
But yes, the status quo of changing the clocks seems to be the least-worst scenario.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2018, 01:28:25 PMWhat are people going to do if it's light out at 10pm? Mow the lawn?
I'm not enjoying all the builders start work at around 8am (about 3 hours after dawn) the last few weeks. Thankfully I've already woken, but...
... the answer is 'nothing much'. Daylight at 10pm is just as 'wasted' as daylight at 4am. OK, there are more people outside in an evening than the small hours of the morning, but provided its warm enough, when darkness falls, if you are outside eating or drinking, you just stay out with some form of artificial light rather than go inside and whether that light goes on at 9pm or 10pm makes little difference. It's too late (unless isolated from others, especially young children) to be running around and making lots of noise (same problem as doing building works early in the morning) after about 9 anyway. And its not as if floodlights don't exist and all-weather (because weather is much more the issue than light for outdoor activity) pitches equipped with them are rather common.
Sunrise today here was 04:44, and the sun will set at 21:24. Last 'night' and tonight (and the few surrounding), it got as dark as astronomical twilight between 23:28 and 02:40, with civil twilight or full daylight from 03:56 to 22:12. The street lights turned off at 04:14, and will turn back on at 21:54 today, though civil twilight extends earlier and later than its legal approximation, and it is that that doesn't require artificial light to see.
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 02:28:11 PMFurthermore the part of my paragraph that was qualified by "especially in Britain" was the gardening part, not the draft part.
OK, but they still were talking about gardening as they didn't want the working classes down the pub, rather than some plan to feed Britain during the war. And its still the case that agriculture was the main opposition to Summer Time in 1916 Britain - ie that Summer Time made growing enough food to not need to rely on stuff getting past the U-boats harder (due to pissing about with farm worker's hours).
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 02:03:29 PM
That said, the evidence of reduction in power consumption has been debunked - it's so tiny as to be within the margin of error, and comparing Indiana in the summer the last year of EST year-round vs the first summer with DST gave a tiny increase, rather than a tiny decrease.
I agree that DST during the summer may not reduce energy consumption as reduced lighting is often offset by increased AC costs. But that's not what we are considering. The question now is would there be a reduction in power consumption if the nation went from standard time from November thru March to permanent DST (ie. winter DST). We aren't worried if summer DST increases power consumption by 0.1% if it means 5AM-8PM daylight times in LA and NYC vs 4AM-7PM daylight times. People like their long summer evenings to care that the policy might increase energy usage by 0.1%. Besides the economic activity increases associated with summer DST likely far exceeds any increased power consumption. Similar to how bad traffic in a city is a sign of healthy economy.
You seem to be saying that there is no evidence of reduction in power consumption with summer DST, so that's why DST shouldn't be extended into the winter (even though reduced lighting cost in the winter may no longer be offset by increased AC cost... since people aren't running their AC units 24/7 in December). I'm sure this point is lost on you because it's made by me...
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:52:46 PM
Who is "Big Rig Steve" and why are you so obsessed with him?
He's a truck driver who live-streams his trips (on YouTube, I think). It was by watching one of his videos that it was discovered that the infamous "Craig County" sign had been replaced.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 12:07:11 PM
So what is everyone's sunrise/sunset times for today? In Detroit it rises at 5:55 AM and sets at 9:13 PM. Pretty sweet.
Keep Detroit on EST year round, thank you very much! That's a very late sunrise for a post-bedtime sunset!
Around here sunrise and sunset are 05:10-20:41 today; I'm excited for 29 June when the sunsets start getting earlier again.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 21, 2018, 01:50:43 PM
If people enjoy (and make use of) sunshine in the evening so much, why don't they just get up at dawn and enjoy (and make use of) sunshine then too?
YUUUP!
Quote from: english si on June 12, 2018, 05:10:24 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 12, 2018, 10:56:54 AMThis is accurate (at least regarding my own opinion). 19:30 is plenty late enough of a summer sunset for me - plenty of light at both commutes, but not light so late I can't sleep at night. In my ideal pipe-dream custom latitude scenario, my latest sunset would actually be at 18:43 (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_rstablew.pl?ID=AA&year=2018&task=0&place=20160805+Ideal&lon_sign=1&lon_deg=0&lon_min=15&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=20&lat_min=0&tz=0&tz_sign=-1). ;) (Latitude 20*N, clock time-solar time offset of 0)
Good grief - you'll hate living here. It's 22:09 now. The streetlights turned on just a few minutes ago. I can still see a bit of pink in the sky and much of it is light-blue grey, going to dark blue grey. It's dark, but not that dark (it has got noticeably darker the last 15 minutes or so). You could sit outside without artificial light and see other people's faces as you talked.
Old post, but yes, that is ridiculous (not to mention the UK is mostly rubbish in terms of summer heat potential, though that's a different subject for a different thread). Let me sleep, thank you very much!
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 03:30:19 PMHe's a truck driver who live-streams his trips (on YouTube, I think). It was by watching one of his videos that it was discovered that the infamous "Craig County" sign had been replaced.
I discovered that almost live. He was going from Paris TX to Chicagoland, and he went on US 69 to Vinita OK. At one point I spotted he was going across Mayes County, and I quickly turned into the YouTube livestream expecting to spot the c
raIG c
oun
ty sign, only to find it was gone.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 21, 2018, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 06:20:09 AM
I thought Spain (and the rest of mainland Europe) normally used 24-hour time.
Yes, it's that. However I follow regional customs for time and date, and as such here I use 12-hour and month/day instead of my usual 24-hour and day/month. Using my default, sunset time here is 21:41 CEST.
Quite a few Americans use 24-hour, and will write day-month. It's military custom. Not standard for the US, but I wouldn't worry about using American customs if it's not normal for you. Just use whatever you normally would. I bet more than 90% of us understand 24 hour and day-month order.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 21, 2018, 05:35:02 PM
Quite a few Americans use 24-hour, and will write day-month. It's military custom. Not standard for the US, but I wouldn't worry about using American customs if it's not normal for you. Just use whatever you normally would. I bet more than 90% of us understand 24 hour and day-month order.
Unless it is something like 04.12.2018 - which leaves you with two possibilities...
Quote from: kalvado on June 21, 2018, 05:39:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 21, 2018, 05:35:02 PM
Quite a few Americans use 24-hour, and will write day-month. It's military custom. Not standard for the US, but I wouldn't worry about using American customs if it's not normal for you. Just use whatever you normally would. I bet more than 90% of us understand 24 hour and day-month order.
Unless it is something like 04.12.2018 - which leaves you with two possibilities...
If it's all numbers, it definitely can be confusing. Military custom is for the month to be spelled out. Eg, 'December' or 'Dec' but not '12'.
Today is, for most of us, the longest day of the year. Technically, it should be the midpoint of DST*. However, DST lasts for 238 days, from March 11th to November 4th. This makes July 7th the true midpoint of DST, offset from the solstice by 16 days!
:popcorn:
* And therefore, it should also be the midpoint of this discussion's off-season. Right? [/irony]
Isn't forum time listed in 24 hour format if you are a member?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 21, 2018, 10:19:17 PM
Isn't forum time listed in 24 hour format if you are a member?
Not by default, but it can be changed.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 02:47:07 PMBut that's not what we are considering.
Err, who's the 'we' here? Clearly you, but this conversation wasn't about the two year-round options debate. And other than 20160805 moaning that the sunsets are currently too late, and me pointing out that you are still are of the view that daylight before waking is wasted and you can't do anything outside after dark, it seems to only be you that has been discussing this in the last couple of days.
Bugo had said it was obsolete to change the clocks due to electric lights. I pointed out that that was why they brought in DST in the first place and then kkt and kalvado joined in the discussion about energy saving being the
raison d'etre of DST. We were explicitly talking about the DST-in-summer that we have now.
There's more than one thing under discussion in the thread.
(after consulting Google what raison d'etre is) interesting that those reasons seem to evolve over time...
Quote from: jakeroot on June 21, 2018, 05:35:02 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 21, 2018, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 06:20:09 AM
I thought Spain (and the rest of mainland Europe) normally used 24-hour time.
Yes, it's that. However I follow regional customs for time and date, and as such here I use 12-hour and month/day instead of my usual 24-hour and day/month. Using my default, sunset time here is 21:41 CEST.
Quite a few Americans use 24-hour, and will write day-month. It's military custom. Not standard for the US, but I wouldn't worry about using American customs if it's not normal for you. Just use whatever you normally would. I bet more than 90% of us understand 24 hour and day-month order.
As one of those Americans who uses 24-hour time and writes the day before the month, I approve this message. :nod:
Currently at my location, it is 06:10 on 22 June 2018.
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2018, 04:13:31 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 02:47:07 PMBut that's not what we are considering.
Err, who's the 'we' here? Clearly you, but this conversation wasn't about the two year-round options debate. And other than 20160805 moaning that the sunsets are currently too late, and me pointing out that you are still are of the view that daylight before waking is wasted and you can't do anything outside after dark, it seems to only be you that has been discussing this in the last couple of days.
The "we" are the state legislators who are proposing year-round DST in America most notably Florida. Going to year-round DST could really help reduce energy consumption if extended through the winter months due to the reduced lighting cost in the evening and potential reduced heating costs. Regardless of what your previous conversations were about, you don't agree that extending DST through the winter months could potentially reduce energy consumption in America when compared to the current status quo? All i hear from you is energy savings from DST has been 'debunked' but those research papers looking at the energy savings from "summer DST" can't be applied to potential "winter DST" energy savings. Two very different things.
To really get this economy pumping, Trump should push Congress to amend the Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 to make the DST period permanent. Little Marco would be happy!
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 10:26:51 AM
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2018, 04:13:31 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 02:47:07 PMBut that’s not what we are considering.
Err, who's the 'we' here? Clearly you, but this conversation wasn't about the two year-round options debate. And other than 20160805 moaning that the sunsets are currently too late, and me pointing out that you are still are of the view that daylight before waking is wasted and you can't do anything outside after dark, it seems to only be you that has been discussing this in the last couple of days.
The "we" are the state legislators who are proposing year-round DST in America most notably Florida. Going to year-round DST could really help reduce energy consumption if extended through the winter months due to the reduced lighting cost in the evening and potential reduced heating costs. Regardless of what your previous conversations were about, you don't agree that extending DST through the winter months could potentially reduce energy consumption in America when compared to the current status quo? All i hear from you is energy savings from DST has been 'debunked' but those research papers looking at the energy savings from "summer DST" can't be applied to potential "winter DST" energy savings. Two very different things.
To really get this economy pumping, Trump should push Congress to amend the Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 to make the DST period permanent. Little Marco would be happy!
How does this affect those using electric in the morning hours? It would appear that it would change the morning sunrise of approaching 7:15am in January to 8:15am, causing a lot more people to utilize lights in the morning that now don't need to.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 22, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
How does this affect those using electric in the morning hours? It would appear that it would change the morning sunrise of approaching 7:15am in January to 8:15am, causing a lot more people to utilize lights in the morning that now don't need to.
Year-round DST would minimize the total minutes Americans are awake in darkness when compared to standard-time. It goes without saying that the less minutes Americans are awake in darkness during the winter, the less lighting they would need to use.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 10:26:51 AMThe "we" are the state legislators who are proposing year-round DST in America most notably Florida.
So, not the "we" of people talking in this thread? OK then, at least you understand that people might be able to talk about other things related to DST in this thread.
Quoteyou don't agree that extending DST through the winter months could potentially reduce energy consumption in America when compared to the current status quo?
No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the energy saving reasons why summer DST was bought in have been debunked as ineffective. Of course, because you seem to think the thread revolves around you, and what you are talking about, you would want to steer me onto that discussion - this time a little bit nicer than "we aren't talking about that", where the we is a bunch of people not in the room!
Well OK, then. Let's talk about the year-round DST proposals and energy saving. Given both winter and summer savings are both 'we can reduce lighting and heating costs in the evening by making them lighter', I find the assertion that they somehow very different as one coming from insecurity and blind ideology. Jeffandnicole raises an obvious point about dark mornings that the we-want-light-evenings-in-mid-winter crowd totally ignores as they are either so idiotic as to think that mornings wouldn't get darker, or because they don't want to think about the negative effects in mornings ruining their dreams of December
al fresco dining without a light.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 10:54:04 AMYear-round DST would minimize the total minutes Americans are awake in darkness when compared to standard-time. It goes without saying that the less minutes Americans are awake in darkness during the winter, the less lighting they would need to use.
How many times does it have to be said! Morning pre-waking daylight isn't wasted - it's very much needed as part of the sleep cycle!
I'd imagine those anti-SAD sun-mimicing lamps that simulate dawn an hour or something before someone needs to wake up, in order to deal with the problem that (even on standard time) there's isn't enough light in the mornings in mid-winter at northern latitudes, use a lot of electricity.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 10:26:51 AM
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2018, 04:13:31 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 02:47:07 PMBut that's not what we are considering.
Err, who's the 'we' here? Clearly you, but this conversation wasn't about the two year-round options debate. And other than 20160805 moaning that the sunsets are currently too late, and me pointing out that you are still are of the view that daylight before waking is wasted and you can't do anything outside after dark, it seems to only be you that has been discussing this in the last couple of days.
The "we" are the state legislators who are proposing year-round DST in America most notably Florida. Going to year-round DST could really help reduce energy consumption if extended through the winter months due to the reduced lighting cost in the evening and potential reduced heating costs. Regardless of what your previous conversations were about, you don't agree that extending DST through the winter months could potentially reduce energy consumption in America when compared to the current status quo? All i hear from you is energy savings from DST has been 'debunked' but those research papers looking at the energy savings from "summer DST" can't be applied to potential "winter DST" energy savings. Two very different things.
To really get this economy pumping, Trump should push Congress to amend the Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 to make the DST period permanent. Little Marco would be happy!
THere is little change - and I heard different opinions about significance of that change - in energy consumption from just before to just after time change. That is one solid fact we have. Savings are based primarily on the fact that people are awake during more daytime hours and are not using lights (saving A) and maybe work/walk outside in daylight instead of doing energy-intensive things indoors (TV) - that is Saving B.
If duration of daylight is such that people are awake both during sunrize and sunset - Saving A is not realized. Winter also suppress Saving B.
Heating - I fail to actually see how that would work at all.
Time change makes ballot
https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2018/06/21/time-change-makes-ballot-internet-privacy-may-not/724241002/
It looks like the California DST measure will make it on the ballot in November. If approved by voters, this will be the first step in making DST permanent in California. Florida has already approved a bill to make DST permanent in their state. These are two of the most populous states in the nation. There's going to be pressure on Congress to act and amend the Uniform Time Code Act of 1966 if legislators of these large populous states keep pushing for it.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 22, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
How does this affect those using electric in the morning hours? It would appear that it would change the morning sunrise of approaching 7:15am in January to 8:15am, causing a lot more people to utilize lights in the morning that now don't need to.
Year-round DST would minimize the total minutes Americans are awake in darkness when compared to standard-time. It goes without saying that the less minutes Americans are awake in darkness during the winter, the less lighting they would need to use.
By how many minutes?
And I note you say 'minimize the total minutes Americans are awake in darkness'. However, that's not an effective statement. It would be how many total minutes *households* are awake in darkness. If in the morning Hubby is awake but Wifey is asleep, the house will still have the same amount of lights on unless hubby walks around in total darkness.
Also, since a lot of people are awake in the affected portion of the morning, the 'minimizing' is extremely small. Very small. In fact, because people tend to be out and about in the early evening, there could actually be a negative effect as more people are home in the morning and out in the evening, reducing the need to have lights on in the house when they're not home.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 22, 2018, 11:59:56 AM
And I note you say 'minimize the total minutes Americans are awake in darkness'. However, that's not an effective statement. It would be how many total minutes *households* are awake in darkness. If in the morning Hubby is awake but Wifey is asleep, the house will still have the same amount of lights on unless hubby walks around in total darkness.
Honestly speaking, I minimize light (and noise) while she's asleep. I can brush teeth with a nightlight, and I will turn lights in the shower off before opening the door. I would light up a lot a room if I was alone. same in the kitchen, if I go to work on her day off: minimum lighting - open microwave door provides enough light to find a spoon for yogurt and make a cup of tea. You can bet on full illumination otherwise.
Fine print: that probably uses MORE energy since microwave has incandescent bulb - while overheads are LEDs...
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2018, 11:17:07 AMWell OK, then. Let's talk about the year-round DST proposals and energy saving. Given both winter and summer savings are both 'we can reduce lighting and heating costs in the evening by making them lighter', I find the assertion that they somehow very different as one coming from insecurity and blind ideology.
There is a clear difference. During the summer, most people are trying to cool their homes and the sun extending later into the evenings is working against them. People crank up their AC to keep cool and you don't see energy savings during the summer. OTOH, during the winter most people are trying to heat their homes, and extending daylight later into the evenings is providing an extra hour of natural heat... after all the sun is a natural heating source. In the morning, the sun won't come up till later with winter DST, but a lot of people who are sleeping at 7:15 AM (ie. winter standard time sunrise scenario) will still be sleeping at 8:15 AM (ie. winter DST sunrise scenario), especially during the weekends. During the weekdays, many people will have already left home for school or work by 7:15AM which is before the sun would have risen in many places running standard time. The point is a lot of people in the morning aren't necessarily looking to heat their homes at 7:15AM-8:15AM... they are either still sleeping or have already left for work/school. It can be 57 degrees in the house during the day when a house is vacant... people just want it a comfortable 70 degrees when they are actually there (ie. the evenings). Having later daylight into the evenings will naturally help heat people's homes, and potentially cut down on their heating bills during the winter.
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2018, 11:17:07 AMJeffandnicole raises an obvious point about dark mornings that the we-want-light-evenings-in-mid-winter crowd totally ignores as they are either so idiotic as to think that mornings wouldn't get darker, or because they don't want to think about the negative effects in mornings ruining their dreams of December al fresco dining without a light.
You really think standard time in the winter would minimize lighting usage versus permanent DST? The analysis below requires some reasonable assumptions to be made (schedules of late and early risers), but it's clear that permanent DST would minimize the minutes Americans are awake in darkness during the winter. Analyzing the data, you can see that there is more awake in darkness minutes during the morning under winter DST (as J&N points out in his comment), but it's more than offset by the reduction in the awake in darkness minutes during the evening hours.
(https://i.imgur.com/bNDzuPH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/YiicpCs.png)
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 12:32:39 PM
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2018, 11:17:07 AMWell OK, then. Let's talk about the year-round DST proposals and energy saving. Given both winter and summer savings are both 'we can reduce lighting and heating costs in the evening by making them lighter', I find the assertion that they somehow very different as one coming from insecurity and blind ideology.
There is a clear difference. During the summer, most people are trying to cool their homes and the sun extending later into the evenings is working against them. People crank up their AC to keep cool and you don’t see energy savings during the summer. OTOH, during the winter most people are trying to heat their homes, and extending daylight later into the evenings is providing an extra hour of natural heat during the evenings… after all the sun is a natural heating source. In the morning, the sun won’t come up till later with winter DST, but a lot of people who are sleeping at 7:15 AM (ie. winter standard time sunrise scenario) will still be sleeping at 8:15 AM (ie. winter DST sunrise scenario), especially during the weekends. During the weekdays, many people will have already left home for school or work by 7:15AM which is before the sun would have risen in many places running standard time. The point is a lot of people in the morning aren’t necessarily looking to heat their homes at 7:15AM-8:15AM… they are either still sleeping or have already left for work/school. It can be 57 degrees in the house during the day when a house is vacant… people just want it a comfortable 70 degrees when they are actually there (ie. the evenings). Having later daylight into the evenings will naturally help heat people’s homes, and potentially cut down on their heating bills during the winter.
Heat loss is approximately proportional to temperature difference. If you want to maintain more or less the same temperature profile during the day for all clock settings, integral heat loss is not dependent or relative timing shift. Except, maybe, if you would open window and let some fresh air into the room at warmer point of time.
It makes sense to allow home to cool down while nobody is there - it reduces temperature differential hence heat loss. However, that doesn't change total heat loss due to sooner/later start, unless you assume work day becomes longer or shorter.
My point is that it is silly to fuck everybody's schedule up twice a year by one hour. It lowers productivity and is harmful to health, especially for those of us who have sleep disorders. There are no tangible benefits to it and many disadvantages to changing everybody's schedule twice a year. It is obsolete and there is no reason to do it in 2018. None.
Quote from: kalvado on June 22, 2018, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 22, 2018, 11:59:56 AM
And I note you say 'minimize the total minutes Americans are awake in darkness'. However, that's not an effective statement. It would be how many total minutes *households* are awake in darkness. If in the morning Hubby is awake but Wifey is asleep, the house will still have the same amount of lights on unless hubby walks around in total darkness.
Honestly speaking, I minimize light (and noise) while she's asleep. I can brush teeth with a nightlight, and I will turn lights in the shower off before opening the door. I would light up a lot a room if I was alone. same in the kitchen, if I go to work on her day off: minimum lighting - open microwave door provides enough light to find a spoon for yogurt and make a cup of tea. You can bet on full illumination otherwise. Fine print: that probably uses MORE energy since microwave has incandescent bulb - while overheads are LEDs...
I don't have a master bath :no:, so I can go in the far-away bathroom and turn everything on without disturbing anyone. We do have LED lighting in both over the bathroom tub and in kitchen which no doubt helps on electricity reduction.
But then I come in the bedroom and turn the light on and shut things louder than I should. She's gotten used to it and will sleep thru it all! lol
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 12:32:39 PM
There is a clear difference. During the summer, most people are trying to cool their homes and the sun extending later into the evenings is working against them. People crank up their AC to keep cool and you don't see energy savings during the summer. OTOH, during the winter most people are trying to heat their homes, and extending daylight later into the evenings is providing an extra hour of natural heat... after all the sun is a natural heating source. In the morning, the sun won't come up till later with winter DST, but a lot of people who are sleeping at 7:15 AM (ie. winter standard time sunrise scenario) will still be sleeping at 8:15 AM (ie. winter DST sunrise scenario), especially during the weekends. During the weekdays, many people will have already left home for school or work by 7:15AM which is before the sun would have risen in many places running standard time. The point is a lot of people in the morning aren't necessarily looking to heat their homes at 7:15AM-8:15AM... they are either still sleeping or have already left for work/school. It can be 57 degrees in the house during the day when a house is vacant... people just want it a comfortable 70 degrees when they are actually there (ie. the evenings). Having later daylight into the evenings will naturally help heat people's homes, and potentially cut down on their heating bills during the winter.
Speak for yourself. I need it cold when going to sleep, so I turn the heat down about an hour before going to bed, but I wake up feeling like I'm freezing (well, when I go to work I do; this is less of a problem on the weekends since I can wake up more in line with my circadian rhythm and my body warms up on its own) and one of the first things I do each morning is turn the heat up (or raise the temperature on the AC in summer).
I'm not sure who these people are that get to sleep in even on week days, but lucky them. I have to get up at 6 during the week, and I imagine most people who work for a living have to be up by 7 at the latest. As for those who are already out the door by 7:15, well, I would never tolerate a home/work situation that would regularly require that of me. I'll do it for conferences and stuff and road trips that are only once in a while, but not as a matter of routine.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're a morning lark stuck dealing with a bunch of night owls (which is most unusual; it's generally the other way around) trying to adjust the sun to better match the hours you've been forced to deal with, and I'm sure I've stated how I'm sick of larks setting everything up to suit their preferences at the expense of owls.
So, to summarize, you want me to get up half an hour
earlier in the winter so I can compensate for the extra ice scraping effort from sunrise being an hour
later, adding an additional hour and a half of darkness when I've already so groggy it takes a herculean effort just to get out of bed and potentially increase my electricity bill if I'm forced to get a SAD lamp just because you want to eat dinner outside while watching people do summer activities on the beach and aren't organized enough to make the time changes less inconvenient.
It's bad enough they ruined Halloween by moving the DST change date. Now people want to make the whole of winter more inconvenient because some people in unusually warm climates want to pretend it's still summer. Perhaps we should ask Spain how their "permanent DST" works out from them. From what I've heard, not well.
Honestly, we'd probably all deal with this better if we embraced the seasons, adjusted our bedtime accordingly on the Saturday before the time change rather than have the hour add/subtract from our sleep, and return our obsessions to the parclo B4 interchange.
Quote from: bugo on June 22, 2018, 01:16:28 PM
My point is that it is silly to fuck everybody's schedule up twice a year by one hour. It lowers productivity and is harmful to health, especially for those of us who have sleep disorders. There are no tangible benefits to it and many disadvantages to changing everybody's schedule twice a year. It is obsolete and there is no reason to do it in 2018. None.
My sleep disorder actually makes it
easier to deal with the time change. Because I'm always swinging my sleep/wake times wildly between the weekend and work week and am only up 12-14 hours on Saturdays regardless (and 12-13 hours Sundays; meanwhile, I'm usually up 18-20 hours Fridays, and 16-17 hours Monday-Thursday), in that respect, the week of the time change is little different than any other week. If I could set any schedule, free from the constraints of both society and the Earth's rotation, I'd probably be awake 22-24 hours and sleep for 10-12.
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2018, 11:17:07 AMI'd imagine those anti-SAD sun-mimicing lamps that simulate dawn an hour or something before someone needs to wake up, in order to deal with the problem that (even on standard time) there's isn't enough light in the mornings in mid-winter at northern latitudes, use a lot of electricity.
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.
I don't buy HVAC-related energy savings arguments in regard to any DST option in the case of well-insulated houses where heating and cooling are both thermostatically regulated. It is the same number of heating/cooling degree days regardless of where the occupants are in their daily schedules. Letting temperatures float during the day in an unoccupied house does not really save energy overall since the energy that is saved while the occupants are away is expended restoring the regulated temperature when they return. The way to save energy on HVAC is to implement full passive heating and cooling, not to play with the clock.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on June 22, 2018, 01:36:05 PM\
So, to summarize, you want me to get up half an hour earlier in the winter so I can compensate for the extra ice scraping effort from sunrise being an hour later, \
I really don't know what you can do with a car for half an hour. 15 minutes usually is about right after a foot of snow, including getting to a plowed road. otherwise it is 5 minutes or so.
Quote from: kalvado on June 22, 2018, 01:43:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 22, 2018, 01:36:05 PM\
So, to summarize, you want me to get up half an hour earlier in the winter so I can compensate for the extra ice scraping effort from sunrise being an hour later, \
I really don't know what you can do with a car for half an hour. 15 minutes usually is about right after a foot of snow, including getting to a plowed road. otherwise it is 5 minutes or so.
That ice can be stuck on really, really hard if there was a big freeze that morning, and the scraper always has a zillion streaks, requiring me to go over the same areas multiple times, especially considering that in winter sunrise would be after I leave for work, whereas now the latest sunrise at least half an hour before (I leave around 8:10-8:15). In some ways snow is easier, since if I turn the car on the front defroster will usually have the windshield ice starting to melt by the time I have the roof, rear, and sides done (having a heavy duty snow brush that can reach across the whole car is
really handy; now if only heavy duty ice scrapers that didn't leave a million streak marks were a thing that existed). Now, 5-10 minutes is more normal, but I don't do very well on any offset from my normal routine that isn't an even half hour; the mental math required to sync the clock to the normal routine and keep myself on track is too much effort that early in the morning, and you never know; I really did have it take a half an hour once, on a Saturday afternoon no less, as a result of a deep freeze and/or freezing rain.
I think I was going to mention this earlier and forgot, but I don't drink coffee (which I think was mentioned somewhere in this thread), and even if I did, I wouldn't be able to get to it until my routine is half over.
Quote from: vdeane on June 22, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
It's bad enough they ruined Halloween by moving the DST change date. Now people want to make the whole of winter more inconvenient because some people in unusually warm climates want to pretend it's still summer. Perhaps we should ask Spain how their "permanent DST" works out from them. From what I've heard, not well.
You make it sound like only a narrow swath of people live in unusually warm climates that would enjoy the later sunsets after work during the winter. It doesn't sound too unusual for Americans to enjoy pleasant weather during the winter when roughly 92 million people live in the southern states/areas listed below:
Texas = 25,145,561
Southern California = 23,800,500
Florida = 18,801,310
Georgia = 9,687,653
South Carolina = 4,625,364
Louisiana = 4,533,372
Alabama = 4,779,736
Mississippi = 2,967,297
New Mexico = 2,059,179
Almost 800 replies, wow! Personally I'm pro-DST. It's a good balance between earlier winter mornings and late summer nights. I personally don't think changing clocks twice a year is a big deal, but apparently people think otherwise :-D.
An interesting fact that I don't think has been mentioned yet:
In Europe, the time zones all change at the same UTC time to maintain a consistent 1 hour difference between time zones. Meanwhile in North America, the time zones change at 2:00 am local time which changes the time differences briefly.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 02:46:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 22, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
It's bad enough they ruined Halloween by moving the DST change date. Now people want to make the whole of winter more inconvenient because some people in unusually warm climates want to pretend it's still summer. Perhaps we should ask Spain how their "permanent DST" works out from them. From what I've heard, not well.
You make it sound like only a narrow swath of people live in unusually warm climates that would enjoy the later sunsets after work during the winter. It doesn't sound too unusual for Americans to enjoy pleasant weather during the winter when roughly 92 million people live in the southern states/areas listed below:
Texas = 25,145,561
Southern California = 23,800,500
Florida = 18,801,310
Georgia = 9,687,653
South Carolina = 4,625,364
Louisiana = 4,533,372
Alabama = 4,779,736
Mississippi = 2,967,297
New Mexico = 2,059,179
I doubt the push for year-round DST is unanimous, so it would be a subset of the third of the country described, or, paraphrased, "some".
Quote from: vdeane on June 21, 2018, 02:00:26 PM
I don't get the obsession with "it must be daylight to do anything other than sit at home watching TV". I for one personally enjoy how my Saturday evenings are dark in the winter! It's fun to drive down the road seeing all the businesses illuminated by their lights. Having it be light out at 7-8 pm in late January/February would be weird and feel too much like summer.
That's fine if your preferred activity is driving down the street. Not so much if it's playing sports, hiking, skiiing, etc.
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.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on June 22, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
I'm not sure who these people are that get to sleep in even on week days, but lucky them. I have to get up at 6 during the week, and I imagine most people who work for a living have to be up by 7 at the latest. As for those who are already out the door by 7:15, well, I would never tolerate a home/work situation that would regularly require that of me.
I know who these people are! I'm one of them. It's been a couple weeks since the last time I got out of bed before 9:30.
In my case, I work from home, so I have an above average level of flexibility with what my hours are and I can be at my computer working within 5 minutes of getting out of bed if I need to be. Meanwhile I work with a significant number of people who are located in Central or Pacific time, so while usually no one really notices or cares that I'm not online until almost 10 AM Eastern, I've been on too many conference calls that run until 6 or 7 PM to count.
Now, I know my situation is an unusual one, but plenty of other examples of people who get to sleep late on weekdays are people in service jobs whose shifts are later. My grandfather spent many years as a police officer working from 6 PM to 2 AM, for example. He would be sleeping from ~3 AM to 11 AM to accommodate that.
QuoteHonestly, we'd probably all deal with this better if we embraced the seasons, adjusted our bedtime accordingly on the Saturday before the time change rather than have the hour add/subtract from our sleep
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.
When DST ends, I may wake up early Sunday morning but my schedule will fairly quickly slide back forward because, well... I find it naturally wants to do that. Which is also fairly normal - studies have shown that when you deny people access to sunlight or any indication of what time of day it is, most of them will tend to follow a roughly 25 hour cycle. Our internal programming is idealized for living with 25 hour days, we're able to keep regular schedules in the 24 hour days we actually have here on Earth only because daily exposure to the sun forces our internal clocks to continually adjust.
This is also part of why adjusting to time changes when traveling west is a lot easier than adjusting to time changes when traveling east.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 02:46:11 PM
Georgia = 9,687,653
Yes, we're definitely pining for another hour of sunlight in the afternoon to enjoy our January temperatures in the 40s and 50s. Sorry, we're still not interested in your product.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 22, 2018, 02:46:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 22, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
It's bad enough they ruined Halloween by moving the DST change date. Now people want to make the whole of winter more inconvenient because some people in unusually warm climates want to pretend it's still summer. Perhaps we should ask Spain how their "permanent DST" works out from them. From what I've heard, not well.
You make it sound like only a narrow swath of people live in unusually warm climates that would enjoy the later sunsets after work during the winter. It doesn't sound too unusual for Americans to enjoy pleasant weather during the winter when roughly 92 million people live in the southern states/areas listed below:
Texas = 25,145,561
Southern California = 23,800,500
Florida = 18,801,310
Georgia = 9,687,653
South Carolina = 4,625,364
Louisiana = 4,533,372
Alabama = 4,779,736
Mississippi = 2,967,297
New Mexico = 2,059,179
Of those, how many are seniors and others that tend to get up earlier and are done their daily activities earlier, and would prefer the sun rising earlier rather than later?
Of those, how many are babies and toddlers that are too young to barely walk or won't be utilizing an extra evening hour in a meaningful way?
Once you start whittling down the population that actually would want the hour of sun in the evening rather than the morning, then it's nowhere near the 92 million in those states that would want that "pleasant weather" in the evening.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 23, 2018, 01:37:14 AM
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.
Yeah, that's me
every single night of the year. Unless I'm particularly sleep deprived, I won't be tired at anything resembling a reasonable bedtime (if I'm well-rested it actually takes me at least 24 hours to get to that point!), so it always takes me at least an hour to fall asleep. Plus, since I usually go to bed on Fridays and Saturdays between 12 and 2, even going to bed an hour earlier is still later than during the week. It also helps that my Aspergers leaves me with a perception of time that is complete junk at best, with the result that between sunset and sunrise I'm ruled by the clock, and my body has no way to know the difference between "2 hours after sunset", "midnight", and "half an hour before dawn"... except for the clocks, which I already changed that afternoon. The same factors that make it so much harder to wake up on dark winter mornings also make it very easy for me to adapt to the time changes (or at least hide the effects in the same issues I always have).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 23, 2018, 05:40:47 PM
Of those, how many are seniors and others that tend to get up earlier and are done their daily activities earlier, and would prefer the sun rising earlier rather than later?
Now I'm wondering if the push for year-round DST might be motivated by seniors. People tend to become more larkish as they get older, with their preferred schedule shifting earlier and earlier. However, once retirement hits, they have a luxury those of us who work for a living don't: they can live by the sun, not the clock, at least most of the time. Perhaps they want to change the clocks so that activities happen more in line with their preferred schedule? Consider tradephoric's example of needing to eat dinner before sunset... it sounds silly at first, but maybe not if you're old enough that you really do get tired shortly after the sun sets.
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.
Quote from: bugo on June 24, 2018, 12:18:59 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: kkt on June 24, 2018, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 24, 2018, 12:18:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 23, 2018, 01:37:14 AM
-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:
Quote from: bugo on June 24, 2018, 01:28:57 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 24, 2018, 01:50:05 AM
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.
Quote from: bugo on June 24, 2018, 01:28:57 AM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2018, 05:37:55 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 24, 2018, 01:50:05 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 09:45:05 AM
In the winter, due to limited daylight, it is important that solar noon and actual noon align as closely as possible.
Why?
Quote from: kalvado on June 25, 2018, 10:04:39 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 09:45:05 AM
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:
Quotedue 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.
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.
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.
(https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg)
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 11:05:36 AM
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!
QuoteDST is an annoying sideshow.
Though I have no problems with current DST, I can more or less agree with that!
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 22, 2018, 01:41:17 PMI 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.
QuoteLighting-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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 23, 2018, 01:37:14 AMThat'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 (https://www.endurance80.org.uk), 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.
QuoteThat 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.
QuoteUltimately 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!
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AMPoint 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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteI'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!
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
[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.
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 11:05:36 AM
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..
Quote from: kalvado on June 25, 2018, 12:11:59 PM
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?
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
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?
(https://mk0valuewalkgcar7lmc.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2-1.png)
Quote from: kalvado on June 25, 2018, 12:16:20 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
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?
(https://mk0valuewalkgcar7lmc.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2-1.png)
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.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AMIf 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.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AMI'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.)
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 11:47:26 AMI 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.)
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 11:47:26 AMHow 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.
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 11:47:26 AMOne 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.
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2018, 11:58:13 AMQuoteIf 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.
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.
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...
Quote from: 1 on June 25, 2018, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 25, 2018, 12:16:20 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
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?
(https://mk0valuewalkgcar7lmc.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2-1.png)
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...
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2018, 06:35:01 PM
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.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
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.
(https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg)
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 01:23:39 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 11:47:26 AMI 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.
Quote from: Eth on June 25, 2018, 01:13:54 PM
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".
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 11:05:36 AMI 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'.
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?
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2018, 04:35:24 PM
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..
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2018, 04:35:24 PMHowever 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.
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2018, 04:35:24 PMMost 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.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg (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.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 21, 2018, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 21, 2018, 09:16:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg (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 (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_rstablew.pl?ID=AA&year=2018&task=0&place=WhoLand&lon_sign=1&lon_deg=0&lon_min=15&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=35&lat_min=0&tz=4&tz_sign=1) set of sunrise/set times (assuming 35*N latitude)?
Edit: found a typo a month later
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg (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 (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/back-to-school/canadian-high-schools-resisting-calls-for-later-class-start-times/article36016933/)). 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.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 26, 2018, 04:09:22 AM
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.
Quote from: 7/8 on June 26, 2018, 07:32:56 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg (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 (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/back-to-school/canadian-high-schools-resisting-calls-for-later-class-start-times/article36016933/)). 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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 08:25:01 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 26, 2018, 07:32:56 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg (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 (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/back-to-school/canadian-high-schools-resisting-calls-for-later-class-start-times/article36016933/)). 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. :nod:
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 26, 2018, 04:09:22 AM
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.
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
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 08:25:01 AMWhich, 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 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7492982/Extra-hour-in-bed-boosts-pupils-exam-results.html).
Quote7:25-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?
QuoteYou 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.
QuoteAs 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?
QuoteAnd 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...
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 01:23:39 PM
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 01:23:39 PM
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 01:23:39 PM
* 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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22229.msg2337318#msg2337318) 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!
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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?
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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.
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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.
Quote from: webny99 on June 26, 2018, 10:08:41 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 01:23:39 PM
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.
Quote from: webny99 on June 26, 2018, 10:08:41 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on June 25, 2018, 01:23:39 PM* 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 26, 2018, 10:28:50 AM
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.
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16931.0). However I still fail to see a problem.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2018, 09:56:53 AMAs 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.
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:30:32 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on June 26, 2018, 10:28:50 AMI 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 26, 2018, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:30:32 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on June 26, 2018, 10:28:50 AMI 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.
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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.
Also, let's say NJ says none and PA, NY & DE all say Year Round. As there are many workers from Philly, NYC and Wilmington that live in NJ, not only would the hour time difference mess them up, but there'd be no such advantage to employees or employers. Factor in the vast amount of daily travel between NJ and the surrounding states, and it'll be out-right confusing. TV/Radio schedules would be screwed up as well, since all major stations in NJ are based in Philly or NYC.
While NJ is probably a more extreme example of most, it shows why states doing whatever they want to do simply won't work, and rather than provide the benefits some people loudly exclaim, the cons are easily going to make a mess of everyone's schedule in the state.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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.
Also, let's say NJ says none and PA, NY & DE all say Year Round. As there are many workers from Philly, NYC and Wilmington that live in NJ, not only would the hour time difference mess them up, but there'd be no such advantage to employees or employers. Factor in the vast amount of daily travel between NJ and the surrounding states, and it'll be out-right confusing. TV/Radio schedules would be screwed up as well, since all major stations in NJ are based in Philly or NYC.
While NJ is probably a more extreme example of most, it shows why states doing whatever they want to do simply won't work, and rather than provide the benefits some people loudly exclaim, the cons are easily going to make a mess of everyone's schedule in the state.
SO how Indiana and Illinois manage to get along with the problem?
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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.
Also, let's say NJ says none and PA, NY & DE all say Year Round. As there are many workers from Philly, NYC and Wilmington that live in NJ, not only would the hour time difference mess them up, but there'd be no such advantage to employees or employers. Factor in the vast amount of daily travel between NJ and the surrounding states, and it'll be out-right confusing. TV/Radio schedules would be screwed up as well, since all major stations in NJ are based in Philly or NYC.
While NJ is probably a more extreme example of most, it shows why states doing whatever they want to do simply won't work, and rather than provide the benefits some people loudly exclaim, the cons are easily going to make a mess of everyone's schedule in the state.
SO how Indiana and Illinois manage to get along with the problem?
The parts of Indiana that have the most people commuting to/from Illinois are on Central Time. The long section down the middle where the border splits time zones doesn't really have a whole lot of people who have to deal with it. I imagine the NJ/PA border gets a lot more action on a daily basis.
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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.
Also, let's say NJ says none and PA, NY & DE all say Year Round. As there are many workers from Philly, NYC and Wilmington that live in NJ, not only would the hour time difference mess them up, but there'd be no such advantage to employees or employers. Factor in the vast amount of daily travel between NJ and the surrounding states, and it'll be out-right confusing. TV/Radio schedules would be screwed up as well, since all major stations in NJ are based in Philly or NYC.
While NJ is probably a more extreme example of most, it shows why states doing whatever they want to do simply won't work, and rather than provide the benefits some people loudly exclaim, the cons are easily going to make a mess of everyone's schedule in the state.
SO how Indiana and Illinois manage to get along with the problem?
I guess my example of 3 different major cities in 3 different states with millions of workers coming from a 4th state went right over your head, right? Not to mention the vast amount of reverse commuting that takes place.
Your example of just 2 states is normal along time zone lines. Those examples also usually don't involve too many regular commuters.
Even people driving thru would be affected, as NJ would be an island among states with different times, potentially with travelers needing to set their clocks twice, especially if they stop in the state. In every other current example you can show, the clock change would just be once.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
While NJ is probably a more extreme example of most, it shows why states doing whatever they want to do simply won't work, and rather than provide the benefits some people loudly exclaim, the cons are easily going to make a mess of everyone's schedule in the state.
States currently can decide whether to observe DST or not. Going to year-round DST wouldn't change that.
Quote from: webny99 on June 26, 2018, 10:08:41 AM
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.
Note to self: Start thread entitled "DST (2019)" next March. :-D
Quote from: hbelkins on June 26, 2018, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 26, 2018, 10:08:41 AM
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.
Note to self: Start thread entitled "DST (2019)" next March. :-D
:banghead:
Quote from: tradephoric on June 26, 2018, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
While NJ is probably a more extreme example of most, it shows why states doing whatever they want to do simply won't work, and rather than provide the benefits some people loudly exclaim, the cons are easily going to make a mess of everyone's schedule in the state.
States currently can decide whether to observe DST or not. Going to year-round DST wouldn't change that.
"What If"
One of these posts made me think of something interesting: with the exception of Florida (which is largely driven by seniors and tourists), the major pushes for year-round DST come from places with solar noon before noon on standard time. The places with solar noon at or after noon on standard time don't seem to be complaining as much (well, Florida, but it's Florida, so...).
I could see New England on AST with rest of EST remaining if CT (and maybe MA and VT too) were willing to split across time zones. Southwestern CT would definitely want to stay where it is... maybe even western MA and most of VT because of the media markets. But if the issue is NYC commuters (which would bring in the whole of the NEC, unless NJ could finally settle where the north/south Jersey line is), then having southwestern CT be a different time zone is the easiest answer.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg (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.
I can see it. Have to be in at 8:30, commute takes 15-20 minutes, making/eating breakfast takes time, as does the whole shower/dry off/let hair air dry for 10 minutes for optimal drying/dry hair with hairdryer (can't move this to evening since I'd likely procrastinate, I feel hot afterwards and it would take too long to cool down before going to sleep, and I don't want to waste the one time I'm completely sweat-free on sleeping), as well as plucking my eyebrows. If I could get away with "roll out of bed, brush teeth, get dressed, and head off to work" I could sleep in quite a bit more.
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg (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.
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 (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_rstablew.pl?ID=AA&year=2018&task=0&place=WhoLand&lon_sign=1&lon_deg=0&lon_min=15&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=35&lat_min=0&tz=4&tz_sign=1) set of sunrise/set times (assuming 35*N latitude)?
Your schedule sounds very larkish. I couldn't even imagine holding a schedule like that.
And yes, studies have shown that most teenagers have owl tendencies. I imagine your friends never complained to you because the response they'd get would probably have been the same as what they'd get from their parents.
Quote from: tradephoric on June 26, 2018, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
While NJ is probably a more extreme example of most, it shows why states doing whatever they want to do simply won't work, and rather than provide the benefits some people loudly exclaim, the cons are easily going to make a mess of everyone's schedule in the state.
States currently can decide whether to observe DST or not. Going to year-round DST wouldn't change that.
The fact that only Arizona, and Hawaii presently do suggests that it's a niche issues. If we were to eliminate the clock changes, it would probably better to have a group composed of state officials to hammer out new time zone boundaries than to leave it willy-nilly to each individual state on their own.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 12:36:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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.
Also, let's say NJ says none and PA, NY & DE all say Year Round. As there are many workers from Philly, NYC and Wilmington that live in NJ, not only would the hour time difference mess them up, but there'd be no such advantage to employees or employers. Factor in the vast amount of daily travel between NJ and the surrounding states, and it'll be out-right confusing. TV/Radio schedules would be screwed up as well, since all major stations in NJ are based in Philly or NYC.
While NJ is probably a more extreme example of most, it shows why states doing whatever they want to do simply won't work, and rather than provide the benefits some people loudly exclaim, the cons are easily going to make a mess of everyone's schedule in the state.
SO how Indiana and Illinois manage to get along with the problem?
I guess my example of 3 different major cities in 3 different states with millions of workers coming from a 4th state went right over your head, right? Not to mention the vast amount of reverse commuting that takes place.
Your example of just 2 states is normal along time zone lines. Those examples also usually don't involve too many regular commuters.
Even people driving thru would be affected, as NJ would be an island among states with different times, potentially with travelers needing to set their clocks twice, especially if they stop in the state. In every other current example you can show, the clock change would just be once.
Simple solution: NJ does same thing as NY and PA. Humiliating for NJ, of course.
More difficult solution: install signs at state borders and train stations. Expensive. Doable.
More difficult situation: NY and PA choose to have different timings.
THen it may be a good idea to recognize that actual life is arranged more in terms of metropolitan areas than states, and NYC area can be on a different time zone compared to any of adjacent states. Or, if you will, NJ (most of it) goes with NYC, and Albany Buffalo and Boston do as they see fit. Which may be more difficult to manage, but same example of IN areas going along with Chicago prove it is doable...
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 26, 2018, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
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.
Most people don't know which way to set their clocks as they drive across time zone borders. Add one? Subtract one?
It's like most people not knowing that odd numbered Interstates and US highways are usually north-south. Or that Windsor is south of Detroit. It depends on the population.
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
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.
Protip: never assume your experience is typical. Those studies showing we force teenagers to wake up earlier than their bodies naturally want to are real science. You may have been just fine and enjoyed waking up at the time required, but you are the exception, not the rule.
QuoteSo would y'all be okay with this (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_rstablew.pl?ID=AA&year=2018&task=0&place=WhoLand&lon_sign=1&lon_deg=0&lon_min=15&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=35&lat_min=0&tz=4&tz_sign=1) set of sunrise/set times (assuming 35*N latitude)?
Okay, WTF is even going on there. The given lat/lon places the location in Algeria, which is on GMT+1. But the sunrise/sunset times in the linked table are assuming GMT+4.
I think GMT+1 is a reasonable time zone for that location. That gives you sunrise range from 05:45-08:08 and sunset range from 17:47-20:17.
Quote from: vdeane on June 26, 2018, 02:04:12 PM
I can see it. Have to be in at 8:30, commute takes 15-20 minutes, making/eating breakfast takes time, as does the whole shower/dry off/let hair air dry for 10 minutes for optimal drying/dry hair with hairdryer (can't move this to evening since I'd likely procrastinate, I feel hot afterwards and it would take too long to cool down before going to sleep, and I don't want to waste the one time I'm completely sweat-free on sleeping), as well as plucking my eyebrows. If I could get away with "roll out of bed, brush teeth, get dressed, and head off to work" I could sleep in quite a bit more.
Yeah see this is where having a lengthy morning routine will get to you. When I have an office to go into it takes me roughly 30 minutes from getting out of bed to heading out the door. And that's with me moving slowly because I'm groggy first thing in the morning. If I'm not eating breakfast before leaving and am moving like I have to rush I can be out the door in under 10 minutes.
Of course this is with me having deliberately taken steps to minimize the required effort. For example, I have a full beard not as an aesthetic decision, but because this allows me to not spend 5-10 minutes in the morning shaving.
California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 807 today with the message "Fiat Lux!" (Let there be light.). California voters will now vote on the ballot measure this November.
QuoteCalifornia voters will decide daylight saving time
California voters this November will decide whether to change daylight saving time, after Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Thursday sending the proposal to the statewide ballot.
Wrote Brown in a signing message: "Fiat Lux!" (Let there be light.)
Assemblyman Kansen Chu, D-San Jose, who authored Assembly Bill 807, has called the practice of changing clocks twice a year, in the fall and the spring, "outdated." He argues altering the time by an hour has adverse health affects, increasing chances for heart attacks, workplace injuries and traffic accidents.
The ballot measure would overturn a 1949 voter-approved initiative called the Daylight Savings Time Act, which established Standard Pacific Time in California.
Should voters approve the ballot measure, the Legislature would then decide how the state's time should be set. Congress would have to sign off on Chu's main goal of establishing year-round daylight saving time.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article214002999.html
Florida has already passed a bill that would make Daylight Saving Time permanent and California is currently going through the process to pass similar legislation. If a bill is passed to make Daylight Saving Time permanent in California it would likely force Congress to act on amending the Uniform Time Code of 1966 to make DST permanent throughout the country. California and Florida (the 1st and 3rd most populous states respectively) account for 61 million people in this country and their voice would be strong if Congress eventually debates this issue. In addition, there are plenty of other states that would favor year-round DST based on previous bills passed by their state legislators or current state practices. Here's a full list of states that I believe would favor year-round DST along with their populations (which represents nearly 100 million Americans). Arizona and Hawaii are included on this list because they would still likely opt out of DST just as they do today, but it doesn't hurt if the rest of the states change to year-round DST. If anything it would make figuring out what time it is in surrounding states less confusing for the people of Arizona and vice versa.
California - 39,776,830
Florida - 21,312,211
Arizona - 7,123,898
Massachusetts - 6,895,917
South Carolina - 5,088,916
Alabama - 4,888,949
Connecticut - 3,588,683
Hawaii - 1,426,393
New Hampshire - 1,350,575
Maine - 1,341,582
Rhode Island - 1,061,712
Vermont - 623,960
I would also include Indiana since historically they had year round standard time, so if given the option they might go back to that or year-round cental dst.
Nexus 5X
There was an op-ed piece in the LA times talking about the downside of year-round DST. Some arguments against year-round DST were listed in the article....
Year-round daylight saving time? More dark mornings is just one downsidehttp://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-daylight-saving-time-20180705-story.html
QuoteBut if we kept daylight saving all year, kids would be walking to school in the dark in winter. On Dec. 21, the sun wouldn't rise until 7:55 a.m. in L.A. That's uncivilized and dangerous.
While the sun would rise in LA on December 21st at 7:55AM, actual daylight would begin much earlier with dawn beginning at 7:26AM. There is lots of research that exists that suggests later school times would be beneficial for school children and would help maximize children's potential to succeed. You would think Californians would eat that research up, and favor later school start times for the sake of the children (but not even so much a mention of that research in this op-ed). If school districts moved school start times back an hour, it would compensate for the later winter sunrises. Also, on December 21st how many kids are actually walking to school? December 21st usually line up with Christmas break and for a few weeks right around the winter solstice, when the days are the shortest, many children aren't going to school.
On December 21st the sun rises in Ann Arbor, Michigan at 8:00AM, a full 5 minutes later than what the sun would rise in LA if the city was observing permanent DST. Ann Arbor was listed as the best place to live in 2018 according to livability.com and has appeared on the top 100 best places to live list for 5 years in a row. How could a city with such "uncivilized" sunrise times be considered the most livable city in America?
Quote"Permanent DST would likely lead to more pedestrian accidents on winter mornings as more adults and children venture out in darkness," Severin Borenstein, a professor at the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business, wrote in a recent blog.
This is a very similar to the "kids walking to school in dark" argument, just expanded to include all pedestrians. But i would argue there are plenty more pedestrians walking around LA during the evening hours that would benefit from the later sunsets during the winter. If there are more people out and about at around 6PM compared to 6AM, then later sunrises would be more beneficial and likely reduce the pedestrian accident rate. Now there actually may be more total pedestrian deaths, because perhaps later sunsets would encourage people to be outside more, increasing the exposure of potential pedestrian accidents. But as long as the pedestrians fatality rate goes down, that's a good thing.
QuoteThe country went to daylight saving time in World War II to save energy. But there's no solid evidence it did or does today. People may turn their lights on later in the day, but they run their air conditioner longer.
For the months that Daylight Saving Time would be extended (November through March) the average high in LA doesn't exceed 73 degrees. How many people put on their AC when the average high is only 73 degrees? I doubt increased air-conditioning usage in LA during the winter would offset the reduced electricity lighting costs that would be saved by going to permanent DST. There's almost no question that year-round DST would reduce energy consumption when compared to the current status quo.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 07:57:39 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
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.
Protip: never assume your experience is typical. Those studies showing we force teenagers to wake up earlier than their bodies naturally want to are real science. You may have been just fine and enjoyed waking up at the time required, but you are the exception, not the rule.
I think that's shady science...teenagers like to resist anything outside the norm because they like to bend limits. They want to sleep in because institutions are inherently boring, they don't foresee/feel repercussions by staying up late, and enjoying
their time doing anything that doesn't involve being told what to do, usually at the expense of a good night's rest. They'd go to bed early and wake up early if it pissed off enough parents, their friends all did it, and was deemed cool by Madison Avenue.
Of course I would have enjoyed six-hour school days, two-hour work days, an hour of homework/studying, and 2-3 hours a day with friends, two quality meals with family and associated chit-chat, and some free time to do whatever to make room for 9-10 hours of sleepytime. Not going to happen unless a lot of puzzle pieces are re-shaped for that kind of schedule.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 05, 2018, 03:27:35 PM
On December 21st the sun rises in Ann Arbor, Michigan at 8:00AM, a full 5 minutes later than what the sun would rise in LA if the city was observing permanent DST. Ann Arbor was listed as the best place to live in 2018 according to livability.com and has appeared on the top 100 best places to live list for 5 years in a row. How could a city with such "uncivilized" sunrise times be considered the most livable city in America?
Not sure if serious or...wait, this thread has gone on for several months and 35 pages. You are serious...
Quote from: formulanone on July 11, 2018, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 07:57:39 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
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.
Protip: never assume your experience is typical. Those studies showing we force teenagers to wake up earlier than their bodies naturally want to are real science. You may have been just fine and enjoyed waking up at the time required, but you are the exception, not the rule.
I think that's shady science...teenagers like to resist anything outside the norm because they like to bend limits. They want to sleep in because institutions are inherently boring, they don't foresee/feel repercussions by staying up late, and enjoying their time doing anything that doesn't involve being told what to do, usually at the expense of a good night's rest. They'd go to bed early and wake up early if it pissed off enough parents, their friends all did it, and was deemed cool by Madison Avenue.
Of course I would have enjoyed six-hour school days, two-hour work days, an hour of homework/studying, and 2-3 hours a day with friends, two quality meals with family and associated chit-chat, and some free time to do whatever to make room for 9-10 hours of sleepytime. Not going to happen unless a lot of puzzle pieces are re-shaped for that kind of schedule.
I worked a job for four years, from 18-22, that usually required me to be at work by either 0500 or 0630. I never got used to it. It was always a struggle to get to bed and wake up early. I struggled to stay awake from about 1300-1600 (usually didn't nap), but then I'd be wide awake from 2100-2300. At best asleep by 2330. My coworkers had the same issue. Always a struggle to get to bed. Oddly enough, on the few occasions I didn't have to wake up until 0900 or so, I'd feel great, even if I only got six or seven hours sleep. For some reason, I just function better later in the morning, even on a small amount of sleep.
The "anarchist" argument is woefully out of touch. That doesn't personally describe anyone I know. Even the kids who seem like they grew up in a shitty household still post photos of them and their parents on FB and Instagram all the time. Teenagers bend the rules about as often as most parents I know. Which is to say, only when necessary and not because "fuck the man".
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 11:12:55 PM
The "anarchist" argument is woefully out of touch. That doesn't personally describe anyone I know. Even the kids who seem like they grew up in a shitty household still post photos of them and their parents on FB and Instagram all the time. Teenagers bend the rules about as often as most parents I know. Which is to say, only when necessary and not because "fuck the man".
Oh, I usually got 6-7 hours of sleep on most school nights. Sometimes I needed an alarm clock, sometimes not. Probably would have liked to get more sleep, but I was too busy reading, doing homework, playing...later on, working instead to going to be "on time". Didn't need coffee in the mornings like I do now! Maybe once or twice a year I needed to sleep late, deep into a Saturday morning.
"Anarchist" wasn't what I implied nor stated. And it's not that children/teenagers do it because they necessarily like to do the wrong thing; everyone's going to grow up differently than the next. But sometimes they have these motivations and pushes to do things that range from minor to major out of curiosity. It's natural for children, teenagers, and young adults to push limits; in a nutshell, that's how humans find their comfort zones.
Quote from: formulanone on July 11, 2018, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on July 05, 2018, 03:27:35 PM
On December 21st the sun rises in Ann Arbor, Michigan at 8:00AM, a full 5 minutes later than what the sun would rise in LA if the city was observing permanent DST. Ann Arbor was listed as the best place to live in 2018 according to livability.com and has appeared on the top 100 best places to live list for 5 years in a row. How could a city with such "uncivilized" sunrise times be considered the most livable city in America?
Not sure if serious or...wait, this thread has gone on for several months and 35 pages. You are serious...
Of course I'm being serious. The LA Times editorial board gives some superficial arguments against year-round DST and say that sunrises at 7:55 a.m. in LA would be "˜uncivilized and dangerous'. But why? Yes the kids waiting for the bus in the morning would be more likely to be waiting in darkness if DST was made permanent, but that's only assuming the school start times throughout LA remain the same. Have the buses shuttle the kids to school an hour later and shift more "˜after school' activities to "˜before school' activities. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2014 recommending that middle and high schools start class no earlier than 8:30 a.m.
QuoteU.S. doctors urge later school start times for teens
The American Academy of Pediatrics just issued a new policy statement recommending that middle and high schools start class no earlier than 8:30 a.m. because adolescents have unique sleep rhythms that make it harder for them to go to sleep and wake up earlier than other people, and that sleep deprivation can affect academic achievement as well as cause other problems.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/08/25/u-s-doctors-urge-later-school-start-times-for-teens/?utm_term=.f862e708d641
Interestingly, state lawmakers in California are taking note of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations. Senate Bill 328 was introduced by Sen. Anthony Pontantino that would require middle and high schools across California to start the school day no earlier than 8:30 a.m. Districts that have adopted the American Academy of Pediatrics policy have reported improved attendance rates, state exam and college admission scores, and grade-point averages.
QuoteWhat time should school start? No earlier than 8:30 a.m., lawmaker proposes
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-school-start-times-20170216-story.html
If school districts throughout the country began adhering to the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation for school start times, then the 'kids waiting in darkness' argument by those who wish to stay on standard time wouldn't be very strong. To steal a word from the LA Times editorial board, it's "˜uncivilized' to have school start times before 8:30 a.m.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 12, 2018, 10:36:37 AM
Interestingly, state lawmakers in California are taking note of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations. Senate Bill 328 was introduced by Sen. Anthony Pontantino that would require middle and high schools across California to start the school day no earlier than 8:30 a.m.
By the way Senate Bill 328 was passed by the California Senate which would require middle and high schools across California to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. It's amazing that the LA Times editorial about year-round DST wouldn't even mention Senate Bill 328, considering the "kids waiting in darkness at the bus-stop" has been one of the most common arguments against going to DST during the winter.
Yeah, and getting off the school bus at quarter to 5 will also be terrible for morale. One of the best perks of being a kid was getting home before the adults!
All I see in this thread are over-complicated solutions to a minor annoyance.
Quote from: formulanone on July 12, 2018, 07:23:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 11:12:55 PM
The "anarchist" argument is woefully out of touch. That doesn't personally describe anyone I know. Even the kids who seem like they grew up in a shitty household still post photos of them and their parents on FB and Instagram all the time. Teenagers bend the rules about as often as most parents I know. Which is to say, only when necessary and not because "fuck the man".
Oh, I usually got 6-7 hours of sleep on most school nights. Sometimes I needed an alarm clock, sometimes not. Probably would have liked to get more sleep, but I was too busy reading, doing homework, playing...later on, working instead to going to be "on time". Didn't need coffee in the mornings like I do now! Maybe once or twice a year I needed to sleep late, deep into a Saturday morning.
"Anarchist" wasn't what I implied nor stated. And it's not that children/teenagers do it because they necessarily like to do the wrong thing; everyone's going to grow up differently than the next. But sometimes they have these motivations and pushes to do things that range from minor to major out of curiosity. It's natural for children, teenagers, and young adults to push limits; in a nutshell, that's how humans find their comfort zones.
Even now, working a night shift (home by 2200 though), I need an alarm to wake up. If not, I'll sleep until 1030 easy. Still though, if I set an alarm for 0930, I feel great, even if I went to bed at 0200. I would always try and get to bed by 2300 during my school and earlier work years, but it was nearly impossible.
I was assuming "anarchist" because you seemed to imply that kids like to do these things only to "bend limits"; a veritable middle-finger to society, as though their only motivation was because someone told them "no". It's just not like that anymore. I hear stories from my father about how rebellious and violent kids were in the 20th century. It's boggling. I just don't see that anymore. Yes, curiosity can sometimes come across the wrong way, but it's just a child's way of figuring things out. It's not meant to be seen as bending limits. We're just trying to figure things out like everyone else.
Quote from: formulanone on July 12, 2018, 01:32:54 PM
Yeah, and getting off the school bus at quarter to 5 will also be terrible for morale. One of the best perks of being a kid was getting home before the adults!
Don't worry kids can adapt. Besides if schools have later start times businesses may adjust their times to start their workday later to be better aligned with the school schedules (so that employees can still drop/pick up their kids from school). You can't see that happening? I'm sure plenty of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are parents themselves and there would be a natural progression to have later start times in businesses throughout the country. If school districts are seriously considering later start times for their students (like California) now would be the perfect time to do it. We are in an economy where there are more jobs than available workers to fill them, and workers have the bargaining power to demand for better benefits like flex hours and the like (so they can still pick up/drop off their kids on time). After that, even if the economy tanks, the later working hours will suddenly become the norm.
Quote from: formulanone on July 12, 2018, 01:32:54 PM
All I see in this thread are over-complicated solutions to a minor annoyance.
Keeping the same time year-round is an over-complicated solution to changing the clocks twice a year? Now you may think to yourself "ooh well how hard is it to change a clock" but do you ever drive anywhere? Without fail an agency fails to properly change the clocks at a traffic control device during the time change and a signal will get out of sync with the surrounding signals. This can take weeks to address until enough people call in to complain that the signals are out of step. It's well documented that there is an increase in crashes after time changes and mistimed and inefficient signal timings could factor into the increase in crashes. The confusion arises when people have to change their clocks twice a year.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 12, 2018, 02:17:15 PM
Without fail an agency fails to properly change the clocks at a traffic control device during the time change and a signal will get out of sync with the surrounding signals.
Set all the signals to UTC and give the software the ability to recognize DST so that the switch can be flipped once centrally, not per-signal. Also not an issue in places where signals are actuated.
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2018, 08:45:12 PM
Set all the signals to UTC and give the software the ability to recognize DST so that the switch can be flipped once centrally, not per-signal.
In a world where everyone farts pixie dust maybe traffic signals never get out of sync. In the real world where signal controllers are programmed incorrectly they have a funny way of getting out of sync after a time change. It's logical to think that the more variables there are that need to be programmed into the controller (ie. twice per year time changes) the more probability that something will go wrong (and without fail it does).
I don't think Seattle even realizes synchronizing traffic signals could be a thing.
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2018, 02:04:17 AM
I don't think Seattle even realizes synchronizing traffic signals could be a thing.
They're not that bad? 2nd needs some serious work through Belltown with the new cycle path, but it's not too bad overall. SDOT loves to improve things for cyclists and buses, but they still try to keep traffic moving. As I stated in another thread, Mercer is garbage because of the long crossing cycles required for pedestrians. They could split the crossing phase in the median, but that would get SDOT officials run out of town.
AFAIK, Seattle used to have signals timed together pretty well, but things fell apart when they started introducing protected phasing at a bunch of intersections due to cycle lanes, bus lanes, etc. Even dual permissive turns used to be allowed at 5th and Mercer back in the day, but now it's a single-lane protected left. ARGH!
I would say the worst stretch in the city, right now, is Broadway from Yesler to Howell. Absolutely terrible timing. I don't expect it to be fast during rush hour, but at 7 AM on a Sunday? Come on. Oddly enough, Broadway north of Howell is one of my favorite stretches of road in the city. Two-phase permissive signals, and all timed with each other. Even Aloha, with its FYA, still moves pretty quick.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 12, 2018, 02:17:15 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 12, 2018, 01:32:54 PM
Yeah, and getting off the school bus at quarter to 5 will also be terrible for morale. One of the best perks of being a kid was getting home before the adults!
Don’t worry kids can adapt. Besides if schools have later start times businesses may adjust their times to start their workday later to be better aligned with the school schedules (so that employees can still drop/pick up their kids from school). You can’t see that happening? I’m sure plenty of CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies are parents themselves and there would be a natural progression to have later start times in businesses throughout the country. If school districts are seriously considering later start times for their students (like California) now would be the perfect time to do it. We are in an economy where there are more jobs than available workers to fill them, and workers have the bargaining power to demand for better benefits like flex hours and the like (so they can still pick up/drop off their kids on time). After that, even if the economy tanks, the later working hours will suddenly become the norm.
Quote from: formulanone on July 12, 2018, 01:32:54 PM
All I see in this thread are over-complicated solutions to a minor annoyance.
Keeping the same time year-round is an over-complicated solution to changing the clocks twice a year? Now you may think to yourself “ooh well how hard is it to change a clock” but do you ever drive anywhere? Without fail an agency fails to properly change the clocks at a traffic control device during the time change and a signal will get out of sync with the surrounding signals. This can take weeks to address until enough people call in to complain that the signals are out of step. It’s well documented that there is an increase in crashes after time changes and mistimed and inefficient signal timings could factor into the increase in crashes. The confusion arises when people have to change their clocks twice a year.
Mis-timed traffic lights are an annoyance, not a danger. Besides, all it takes is an emergency vehicle to disrupt a signal pattern to aid an injury (or save a life), and that's assigning a priority. There's no substitute for paying attention.
Microsoft and Apple have offered automatic time changes twice a year for decades. Android offers it too. Don't know enough about other operating systems, but I figure some versions of Linux/Unix have it figured out by now.
If folks aren't going to stay aware of their surroundings, I think they should stay in bed until they feel better, to put it mildly. Personally, I'm not sure how folks can't get used to an hour's time difference but nobody cares if someone's distracted by an evening of binge-watching or binge-drinking.
Quote from: formulanone on July 13, 2018, 07:02:26 AM
If folks aren't going to stay aware of their surroundings, I think they should stay in bed until they feel better, to put it mildly. Personally, I'm not sure how folks can't get used to an hour's time difference but nobody cares if someone's distracted by an evening of binge-watching or binge-drinking.
The root cause of each and every accident in the world is that this world is being run by human beings - who do make mistakes and are not perfect in general.
Of course, problems need to be created so that we can bravely overcome them and improve our self-esteem.. But I, for one, have enough of other problems, so creating extra ones just for the sake of it is not something I enjoy.
Quote from: formulanone on July 13, 2018, 07:02:26 AMMis-timed traffic lights are an annoyance, not a danger. Besides, all it takes is an emergency vehicle to disrupt a signal pattern to aid an injury (or save a life), and that's assigning a priority. There's no substitute for paying attention.
The mistiming can be serious. Some traffic signals that should be operational after a time change may now be running flash mode. In addition, variable speed limit signs that warn drivers to slow down in a school zone before/after the school bell may be programmed incorrectly, so instead of 25 mph speed limit in the school zone drivers may be displayed 45 mph after the time change. Emergency vehicle preemptions causing a signal to temporarily get out of sync doesn't seem relevant to any DST discussions. Emergency vehicle are going to be activating preemptions regardless if the nation is on year-round DST or running the status quo. Actually, I take that back. After a time-change there is a statistically significant increase in both heart attacks and car crashes so there are probably more emergency preemptions as all those casualties from the time-change are driven to the hospital (meaning more signals that are temporarily out of sync).
Quote from: formulanone on July 12, 2018, 01:32:54 PMAll I see in this thread are over-complicated solutions to a minor annoyance.
Again, keeping time the same year-round doesn't sound like an over-complicated solution. If anything by going to the same time year-round you get rid of a lot of the complications (clocks being off at traffic control devices being just one small example).
Quote from: formulanone on July 13, 2018, 07:02:26 AM
Microsoft and Apple have offered automatic time changes twice a year for decades. Android offers it too. Don't know enough about other operating systems, but I figure some versions of Linux/Unix have it figured out by now.
Unix had automatic switching to/from DST working from its earliest days before it even escaped from Bell Labs in the early 1970s, even if the host happened to be down at the switchover hour. They keep UTC internally and convert to local time for display. Apple copied that solution along with the Unix layer for much of the underlying works with MacOS X in the late 1990s. Microsoft made the switchover automatic right with their own independent code, but I'm not sure if they handle the case where the computer is down at the switchover hour.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 13, 2018, 10:17:10 AM
The mistiming can be serious.
There are far more mis-timings that result from power outages (some caused when an accident knocks down a power pole) than by changing time twice a year.
Quote from: GaryV on July 13, 2018, 04:44:06 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on July 13, 2018, 10:17:10 AM
The mistiming can be serious.
There are far more mis-timings that result from power outages (some caused when an accident knocks down a power pole) than by changing time twice a year.
Maybe true but with the clock changes you basically guarantee that there will be at least two "storms" every year (the definition of a "storm" in this case being an event which causes the signals to run out of sync). There are plenty of storms to deal with throughout the year, why guarantee two more? Simple solution... keep the clocks the same year-round.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 13, 2018, 05:54:28 PM
Quote from: GaryV on July 13, 2018, 04:44:06 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on July 13, 2018, 10:17:10 AM
The mistiming can be serious.
There are far more mis-timings that result from power outages (some caused when an accident knocks down a power pole) than by changing time twice a year.
Maybe true but with the clock changes you basically guarantee that there will be at least two "storms" every year (the definition of a "storm" in this case being an event which causes the signals to run out of sync). There are plenty of storms to deal with throughout the year, why guarantee two more? Simple solution... keep the clocks the same year-round.
They'll go out of synch anyway. Simple solution: have the clocks resynchronize automatically. Wifi should be pretty cheap compared to the total cost of a traffic light.
Quote from: formulanone on July 13, 2018, 07:02:26 AM
Microsoft and Apple have offered automatic time changes twice a year for decades. Android offers it too. Don't know enough about other operating systems, but I figure some versions of Linux/Unix have it figured out by now.
The traditional approach on Linux is to set the OS clock to UTC and treat DST as an implication of being in a particular time zone. (That is, rather than "Use DST? yes/no" like on Windows, on Linux it is "US/Central", the definition of which includes "uses DST from X date to Y date".) File modification dates, etc are stored as UTC times and then the correct offset is computed and displayed dynamically. This means that different users on the same system but in different time zones (like on a server accessed remotely) will both see the correct times.
Quote from: formulanone on July 11, 2018, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 07:57:39 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
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.
Protip: never assume your experience is typical. Those studies showing we force teenagers to wake up earlier than their bodies naturally want to are real science. You may have been just fine and enjoyed waking up at the time required, but you are the exception, not the rule.
I think that's shady science...teenagers like to resist anything outside the norm because they like to bend limits. They want to sleep in because institutions are inherently boring, they don't foresee/feel repercussions by staying up late, and enjoying their time doing anything that doesn't involve being told what to do, usually at the expense of a good night's rest. They'd go to bed early and wake up early if it pissed off enough parents, their friends all did it, and was deemed cool by Madison Avenue.
Of course I would have enjoyed four-hour school days, two-hour work days, no homework/studying, and 3-5 hours a day with friends, two quality meals with family and associated chit-chat, and some free time to do whatever to make room for 7-8 hours of sleepytime. Not going to happen unless a lot of puzzle pieces are re-shaped for that kind of schedule.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 05, 2018, 03:27:35 PM
On December 21st the sun rises in Ann Arbor, Michigan at 8:00AM, a full 5 minutes later than what the sun would rise in LA if the city was observing permanent DST. Ann Arbor was listed as the best place to live in 2018 according to livability.com and has appeared on the top 100 best places to live list for 5 years in a row. How could a city with such "uncivilized" sunrise times be considered the most livable city in America?
Not sure if serious or...wait, this thread has gone on for several months and 35 pages. You are serious...
Time distribution in second paragraph fixed. ;)
I wholeheartedly agree with you, though. I've been going to bed at 21:00 since I was 13, and I've never had a problem with getting up at times most would consider "early" - even now the latest I'll sleep in on the weekends is still before 6:00. And as a former teenager myself (teen years 2005-12, HS class of 2010), you are entirely right that teens enjoy rebelling and challenging their authority figures, and I too have no doubt that teens would be getting up at 2:00 if that was the rebellious, tick-off-your-parents schedule.
As a teenager I figured I needed 7 hours of sleep per night for optimal function the next day, a number to which I still stick to this day; I also allowed for 90% sleep efficiency, or in other words, actually being asleep for 90% of the time I'm in bed (so excluding sitting there waiting to fall asleep, waking up before the alarm, bathroom breaks, or whatever may abbreviate my sleeping hours). My body does not like sleeping in late either; if I go to bed at 21:00, I'll wake up at 5:00, and if I go to bed at 0:00, I'll still wake up at 5:00 just because there must be some type of primitive sort of code in my body that says "if time >= 5:00 / wakeUp;" or something. And I'm certain I've been called lame or a square behind my back for asking my parents to pick me up at 20:xx from church youth group functions on Friday nights at ages 12-14 (they usually went until 22:00 or some other time well past my bedtime) so that I didn't end up losing too much sleep.
Let's also remember that not everybody has blackout blinds (I personally don't myself), and that if mass numbers of people are going to bed when it's still light out, they may not be able to sleep as easily as if it was, well, actually nighttime. Sunset on 22 June in Ann Arbor is 21:15 (EDT), which means the sun would still be several degrees above the horizon when I go to bed during that time of year. And before you call me some psycho early bird, everyone who works early mornings has to get up and go to bed early out of necessity. Most children also have early bedtimes; I personally was going to bed at 20:00 until age 11, and I know I wasn't the only person my age who went to bed at a comparable time. I even remember my parents going to bed at a similar time to myself: they'd watch the first part of the evening news, then go to bed when the weather ended around 21:15. (My mom was always even more of an early bird than myself, also out of necessity and then habit; my dad got up for his 8:00-17:00 full time job at 6:30, but he didn't have the greatest sleep efficiency.)
As such, even as it stands the sunrise and sunset times at Ann Arbor would not be conducive to the sleep schedules of me and likely many thousand other people in that city, whose population in 2010 was 113,000. The sunset time crosses the 18:00 line on 10 February, which is also not good for me emotionally because the later sunsets give me the illusion that it's warmer out, so to see the daylight late in the evening, want to go outside, and find myself walking through a large amount of snow at god-knows-what-temperature would be just plain depressing, especially considering that by February winter has been going on for quite a while already and I'm sick of it.
As such, what seems to be the herd consensus around this board, namely shifting everyone's time zone forward an hour and getting rid of DST (i.e. putting my location on EST and Ann Arbor on AST (!) year round) would be terrible! Sunrise of 9:00 on 22 December (which for me was, give or take a couple of days, the last day before Christmas break) would mean that the sun wouldn't even be poking its head above the horizon until the latter half of second period, and the 18:06 sunset would completely kill the mood of winter. The entirety of Michigan should be in the Central Time Zone, which is its rightful place if we divide the globe into even chunks based on solar time.
Edit: Oh my God, this post is long!
Quote from: kalvado on June 25, 2018, 12:16:20 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
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?
(https://mk0valuewalkgcar7lmc.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2-1.png)
Looking at that map, maybe the solution is to make time zones more diagonal. move the lines farther west in the south and farther east in the north. Then you can get more uniform sunrise times.
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 16, 2018, 08:53:14 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 25, 2018, 12:16:20 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
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?
(https://mk0valuewalkgcar7lmc.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2-1.png)
Looking at that map, maybe the solution is to make time zones more diagonal. move the lines farther west in the south and farther east in the north. Then you can get more uniform sunrise times.
Sunset is on the other diagonal, and sunrise on the summer solstice is also on the other diagonal.
Quote from: 1 on July 16, 2018, 09:13:36 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 16, 2018, 08:53:14 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 25, 2018, 12:16:20 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
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?
(https://mk0valuewalkgcar7lmc.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2-1.png)
Looking at that map, maybe the solution is to make time zones more diagonal. move the lines farther west in the south and farther east in the north. Then you can get more uniform sunrise times.
Sunset is on the other diagonal, and sunrise on the summer solstice is also on the other diagonal.
Looks like winter morning is the most limiting factor here anyway
I've done a little reading into "year-round DST" and it appears to be having a moment, with both Russia and Turkey having tried it and legislation either pending or passed in California, Florida, and Massachusetts. What I am seeing is a lot of regret. Russia locked into permanent DST in 2011 (fixing MSK at UTC+4:00) but in 2014 went to permanent standard time (moving MSK back to UTC+3:00 without DST). Turkey went to permanent DST in 2016 (fixing Turkey Time at UTC+3:00) but re-thought it almost immediately, with the government issuing a decree--rescinded within a month--to go to permanent standard time (Turkey Time at UTC+2:00, same as Eastern European Time).
The common theme here appears to be that eliminating the DST-related time changes sticks better than translating time one timezone east.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 16, 2018, 09:35:08 AM
I've done a little reading into "year-round DST" and it appears to be having a moment, with both Russia and Turkey having tried it and legislation either pending or passed in California, Florida, and Massachusetts. What I am seeing is a lot of regret. Russia locked into permanent DST in 2011 (fixing MSK at UTC+4:00) but in 2014 went to permanent standard time (moving MSK back to UTC+3:00 without DST). Turkey went to permanent DST in 2016 (fixing Turkey Time at UTC+3:00) but re-thought it almost immediately, with the government issuing a decree--rescinded within a month--to go to permanent standard time (Turkey Time at UTC+2:00, same as Eastern European Time).
The common theme here appears to be that eliminating the DST-related time changes sticks better than translating time one timezone east.
What would be even worse than biannual changes of time is an annual change of time zone legislation. Think about it CAREFULLY, choose, and stick to it.
As for Russia, fact that Moscow sits literally on normal time zone line (37.5 E) doesn't help in making up government's mind.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 16, 2018, 09:35:08 AM
I've done a little reading into "year-round DST" and it appears to be having a moment, with both Russia and Turkey having tried it and legislation either pending or passed in California, Florida, and Massachusetts. What I am seeing is a lot of regret. Russia locked into permanent DST in 2011 (fixing MSK at UTC+4:00) but in 2014 went to permanent standard time (moving MSK back to UTC+3:00 without DST). Turkey went to permanent DST in 2016 (fixing Turkey Time at UTC+3:00) but re-thought it almost immediately, with the government issuing a decree--rescinded within a month--to go to permanent standard time (Turkey Time at UTC+2:00, same as Eastern European Time).
The common theme here appears to be that eliminating the DST-related time changes sticks better than translating time one timezone east.
I don't see regret. When Russia changed from permanent DST to permanent standard time in 2014, they also made significant tweaks to the time-zone map. It's semantics if you want to call it permanent DST or permanent standard time with time-zone shifting. If the sun comes up somewhere at 7AM it comes up at 7AM... no matter what you want to call it. But the fact is the people of Russia don't have to change their clocks twice a year. That's what's important. Now even Europe is questioning if DST is still worth it. Earlier this year the European Parliament voted 384 to 153 to review whether Daylight Saving Time is actually worth it and are currently polling citizens from their member states to see if they want to get rid of it.
Daylight Saving Time isn't worth it, European Parliament members sayEU says holdover from post-WWI efficiency efforts isn't relevant in today's world.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/daylight-saving-time-isnt-worth-it-european-parliament-ministers-say/
I kind of hate headlines that rip on DST, because without DST in America we would have pitch darkness in LA by 7:36PM on the longest day of the year (not to mention dawn beginning at 4:24AM). It's fine getting rid of DST, but only if it's accompanied with time-zone shifts like Russia did back in 2014. The most elegant solution for America, in my mind, is going to permanent DST for the time-being and letting individual states decide if they want to be on permanent DST or standard time year-round. Once the states sort that out, then Congress can debate whether to get rid of DST entirely and shift all the time-zones over accordingly... then at least we don't have the semantics of saying America is on permanent DST and we never have to hear about this silly outdated practice again!
Quote from: tradephoric on July 16, 2018, 01:36:30 PMI don't see regret. When Russia changed from permanent DST to permanent standard time in 2014, they also made significant tweaks to the time-zone map. It's semantics if you want to call it permanent DST or permanent standard time with time-zone shifting.
What I think you are failing to acknowledge here is that the Russians went on "permanent DST" in 2011, and then permanent standard time in 2014, so that the time in the country's largest city, Moscow, went from UTC+3:00 to UTC+4:00 in 2011, and then back to UTC+3:00 in 2014. The Russians are indeed keeping the benefit of avoiding twice-yearly clock changes, but the return to standard time in 2014 suggests that there were consequences to moving to the next time zone east that were not fully taken into account in whatever public debate occurred prior to the 2011 change. And it looks like similar considerations drove Turkey's aborted decision to go back to Eastern European Time after they got rid of the twice-yearly DST change.
The trick, as Kalvado suggests, is to ensure that the time that is chosen for an area is the optimum before locking onto it permanently. I am happy to eliminate the twice-yearly DST changes but I am agnostic as to whether the time that is used should be standard time for the zone or standard time for the next zone east.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 16, 2018, 02:27:09 PM
I am happy to eliminate the twice-yearly DST changes but I am agnostic as to whether the time that is used should be standard time for the zone or standard time for the next zone east.
Perhaps the existing time zones could be split. The eastern half can shift east (or "permanent DST"), and the western half (and, by way of extension, the eastern half of the next time zone over) could maintain standard time year-round.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 16, 2018, 02:27:09 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on July 16, 2018, 01:36:30 PMI don't see regret. When Russia changed from permanent DST to permanent standard time in 2014, they also made significant tweaks to the time-zone map. It's semantics if you want to call it permanent DST or permanent standard time with time-zone shifting.
What I think you are failing to acknowledge here is that the Russians went on "permanent DST" in 2011, and then permanent standard time in 2014, so that the time in the country's largest city, Moscow, went from UTC+3:00 to UTC+4:00 in 2011, and then back to UTC+3:00 in 2014. The Russians are indeed keeping the benefit of avoiding twice-yearly clock changes, but the return to standard time in 2014 suggests that there were consequences to moving to the next time zone east that were not fully taken into account in whatever public debate occurred prior to the 2011 change. And it looks like similar considerations drove Turkey's aborted decision to go back to Eastern European Time after they got rid of the twice-yearly DST change.
The trick, as Kalvado suggests, is to ensure that the time that is chosen for an area is the optimum before locking onto it permanently. I am happy to eliminate the twice-yearly DST changes but I am agnostic as to whether the time that is used should be standard time for the zone or standard time for the next zone east.
To begin with, Russia was on "permanent DST" aka "Decree time" from 1930 till 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_time With significant catches like areas moving to next zone west - aka moving back to standard time... Clocks are set to Moscow time in a disproportionately large areas...
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 16, 2018, 02:27:09 PMAnd it looks like similar considerations drove Turkey's aborted decision to go back to Eastern European Time after they got rid of the twice-yearly DST change.
The 2016 decision by Turkey to stay on summer time year-round was a mistake. If you look at a world time-zone map western Turkey is smack dab in the middle of UTC+2 even though the country observes UTC+3. When Turkey ran year-round DST (or year-round summer time as they called it) the sun would rise in Istanbul, Turkey at 9:25AM during the shortest day of the year. This would be equivalent to Davenport, Iowa running permanent DST AND being on the Eastern Time Zone. If the people of Indiana don't like being on the Eastern Time Zone, just imagine how bad it would be if the people of Iowa were in the Eastern Time Zone. Turkey was already too far west in their time-zone where going to year-round DST never made much sense. Not surprised the idea failed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Standard_World_Time_Zones.png)
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 16, 2018, 02:27:09 PMThe trick, as Kalvado suggests, is to ensure that the time that is chosen for an area is the optimum before locking onto it permanently. I am happy to eliminate the twice-yearly DST changes but I am agnostic as to whether the time that is used should be standard time for the zone or standard time for the next zone east.
The beauty of America going to permanent DST now is that no state would be locked down to a specific time. States have always had the option to opt out of DST so each state can figure out for themselves what is best for them. Undoubtedly more states would join Arizona and Hawaii in observing year-round standard time if permanent DST was approved, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. After a few years, once the states figure out what time they want to be on (standard time vs. permanent DST), then Congress can decide to eliminate DST altogether and shift the time-zones to reflect the desired changes by the states. It would actually reflect pretty close to the process Russia went through in 2011-2014 in eliminating their time changes.
2020 Tokyo Olympics consider daylight saving to beat heat
http://www.espn.co.uk/olympics/story/_/id/24209126/2020-tokyo-olympics-consider-daylight-saving-beat-heat
^^ The long-distance events at London 2012 all started at 8am DST, that they will start the marathon at 7am standard time in Tokyo isn't additional mitigation for heat of any sort.
DST and a 7am start would be one way to mitigate. A 6am start would be another way. I imagine both are being investigated.
Quote from: english si on July 29, 2018, 04:00:43 AM
^^ The long-distance events at London 2012 all started at 8am DST, that they will start the marathon at 7am standard time in Tokyo isn't additional mitigation for heat of any sort.
DST and a 7am start would be one way to mitigate. A 6am start would be another way. I imagine both are being investigated.
It was a 7:05 (with DST) start in Atlanta in 1996, and a quick check of Wikipedia tells me that Atlanta and Tokyo have virtually identical summer temperatures, so I think that would probably work.
Quote from: Eth on July 29, 2018, 09:03:36 AM
Quote from: english si on July 29, 2018, 04:00:43 AM
^^ The long-distance events at London 2012 all started at 8am DST, that they will start the marathon at 7am standard time in Tokyo isn't additional mitigation for heat of any sort.
DST and a 7am start would be one way to mitigate. A 6am start would be another way. I imagine both are being investigated.
It was a 7:05 (with DST) start in Atlanta in 1996, and a quick check of Wikipedia tells me that Atlanta and Tokyo have virtually identical summer temperatures, so I think that would probably work.
The difference is on August 4th the sunrise in Atlanta was at 6:51AM. I picked August 4th because that was the day the Men's marathon was ran in Atlanta. Now in Tokyo the sunrise on August 4th would be at 4:50AM. The marathon in Tokyo would have to begin at around 5AM for the marathon runners to be running in the equivalent "heat of the day" that the marathon runners in Atlanta ran in (which reportedly began around 7AM). The other alternative is to push the entire country into a 2 hour daylight saving time during the Olympics which is what some on the Olympics committee are proposing...
QuoteThe proposal to bring clocks forward by two hours has received major opposition on social media with many worried it would result in longer working hours...
Olympic officials had early appealed to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to adopt daylight saving time so that events like the marathon could be scheduled in the cooler morning hours.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45080980
In you live in Tokyo dawn begins before 4AM and the sun sets by 7PM on the longest day of the year. On the shortest day of the year dawn begins at 6:17AM and the sun sets by 4:30PM. Even during the shortest day of the year when dawn begins at 6:17AM, that almost seems too early to be awaken by the daylight. Someone here can probably explain to me why the Japanese people love to get up early and it's a cultural thing why they wouldn't want later sunrise times. Of course if that's the case why don't they just start the damn marathon at 5AM? The fact that they aren't talking about starting the marathon at 5AM suggests that there is a lot of wasted sunlight in the early part of the day in Tokyo (admittedly there are probably Olympic broadcast schedules they have to deal with too.. but still!).
Quote from: tradephoric on August 06, 2018, 04:11:46 PM
Of course if that's the case why don't they just start the damn marathon at 5AM?
That is a very good question. Probably has to do with society being more used to the numbers on the clock than the position of the sun these days. The question of 5 AM vs. 7 AM on double DST probably wouldn't affect broadcast much, since everywhere outside of Japan wouldn't be affected by which it is.
The comparison to Atlanta is interesting. If going strictly by longitude, Atlanta would be in Central rather than Eastern, and with DST, it's two hours ahead of its theoretical time zone. Meanwhile, Tokyo is right in (the eastern part of) it's theoretical longitudinally-defined time zone.
Let me just state for the record that Tokyo has basically as good of sunrise/set times as you're going to get at that latitude.
Quote from: vdeane on August 06, 2018, 09:09:28 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on August 06, 2018, 04:11:46 PM
Of course if that's the case why don't they just start the damn marathon at 5AM?
That is a very good question. Probably has to do with society being more used to the numbers on the clock than the position of the sun these days. The question of 5 AM vs. 7 AM on double DST probably wouldn't affect broadcast much, since everywhere outside of Japan wouldn't be affected by which it is.
The comparison to Atlanta is interesting. If going strictly by longitude, Atlanta would be in Central rather than Eastern, and with DST, it's two hours ahead of its theoretical time zone. Meanwhile, Tokyo is right in (the eastern part of) it's theoretical longitudinally-defined time zone.
As a wild guess.. Can there be a law that limits hours of public events? Or some provisions in labor law?
Quote from: 20160805 on August 07, 2018, 06:41:06 AM
Let me just state for the record that Tokyo has basically as good of sunrise/set times as you're going to get at that latitude.
Probably not. Being on an eastern edge of proper time zone means solar noon is about 11.30; sunrise is about 5.30 at equinox, and earlier than that diurng 6 summer months; and sunset is at 5.30 PM, and earlier than that during 6 winter months...
I am more inclined to have solar noon closer to 1 PM... But I don't know typical Tokyo schedule.
And given country is fairly stretched east-west and is in a single time zone, Tokyo would be earlish anyway.
An interesting quote from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Standard_Time
Quote
From 1948—51, Japan observed DST between May and September every year under an initiative of the U.S.-led occupation army. The unpopularity of DST, for which people complained about sleep disruption and longer daytime labor (some workers had to work from early morning until dusk) caused Japan to abandon DST in 1952, shortly after its sovereignty was restored upon the coming into effect of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Since then, DST has never been officially implemented nationwide in Japan.[7]
Quote from: 20160805 on August 07, 2018, 06:41:06 AM
Let me just state for the record that Tokyo has basically as good of sunrise/set times as you're going to get at that latitude.
Do you go to bed literally right after 6-7PM dinner? If you don't and you live in Tokyo, then any after dinner activities will be in darkness even during the longest day of the year.... not a big deal for some things but good luck playing a round of golf. Meanwhile if you get up at 7AM in Tokyo (not an unreasonable time for many people), then you have already missed out on 3 hours of daylight. How is that ideal? I personally would be more likely to watch the sunrise in Tokyo before i go to bed than getting up by 4:30AM to watch it. Reading up on Tokyo's nightlife, bars are often open till 5AM. Besides the people stumbling out of a bar at 5AM, who actually watches the sunrise in Tokyo? Even the people stumbling out of the bar at 5AM when it closes have missed the 4:30AM sunrise.
QuoteTokyo boasts some of the world's best nightlife — top of the line sound systems pump out the beat at amazing clubs, fabulous fashions are on display and a friendly atmosphere pervades. However, before heading out, a little research will help to get you pointed in the right direction.
One of the first things travelers will notice is that almost every bar or club charges a cover for admission, anywhere from $5 - $50. While this usually includes a ticket for 1 or 2 free drinks, don't be surprised if you get nothing in return aside from live music, a bowl of nuts, or even just a wristband. Try to find the details ahead of time. Mega-clubs like Womb or AgeHa are easily accessable to non-Japanese crowds, although the action usually doesn't start until late. For a more comprehensive nightlife experience, try to find a local organized party such as the Tokyo Pub Crawl to kick things off. Flyers advertising such events, are easily picked up in music stores around Shibuya or in any of the bars in Shinjuku-ni-chome for gays and lesbians.
Another shock may be when many clubs state that they close at midnight — while bars are often open till 5am. A law exists that prevents dancing in residential neighborhoods, but is largely ignored.
Quote from: kalvado on August 07, 2018, 09:22:26 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 06, 2018, 09:09:28 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on August 06, 2018, 04:11:46 PM
Of course if that's the case why don't they just start the damn marathon at 5AM?
That is a very good question. Probably has to do with society being more used to the numbers on the clock than the position of the sun these days. The question of 5 AM vs. 7 AM on double DST probably wouldn't affect broadcast much, since everywhere outside of Japan wouldn't be affected by which it is.
The comparison to Atlanta is interesting. If going strictly by longitude, Atlanta would be in Central rather than Eastern, and with DST, it's two hours ahead of its theoretical time zone. Meanwhile, Tokyo is right in (the eastern part of) it's theoretical longitudinally-defined time zone.
As a wild guess.. Can there be a law that limits hours of public events? Or some provisions in labor law?
[/quote]
Probably just a logistical thing. If you start a marathon at 5am, you need a lot of staffing and volunteers - and there's usually a *lot* of volunteers - there well before 5am. It's bad enough to get people to volunteer for an event at 7am. You're not going to get people there to volunteer at 230/300am. It can throw off a runner's routine as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2018, 11:04:08 AM
Quote from: kalvado on August 07, 2018, 09:22:26 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 06, 2018, 09:09:28 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on August 06, 2018, 04:11:46 PM
Of course if that's the case why don't they just start the damn marathon at 5AM?
That is a very good question. Probably has to do with society being more used to the numbers on the clock than the position of the sun these days. The question of 5 AM vs. 7 AM on double DST probably wouldn't affect broadcast much, since everywhere outside of Japan wouldn't be affected by which it is.
The comparison to Atlanta is interesting. If going strictly by longitude, Atlanta would be in Central rather than Eastern, and with DST, it's two hours ahead of its theoretical time zone. Meanwhile, Tokyo is right in (the eastern part of) it's theoretical longitudinally-defined time zone.
As a wild guess.. Can there be a law that limits hours of public events? Or some provisions in labor law?
Probably just a logistical thing. If you start a marathon at 5am, you need a lot of staffing and volunteers - and there's usually a *lot* of volunteers - there well before 5am. It's bad enough to get people to volunteer for an event at 7am. You're not going to get people there to volunteer at 230/300am. It can throw off a runner's routine as well.
Most runners will fly long distance for such a competition, and as such would be enjoying jetlag anyway.
Volunteering early can easily be a part of a situation, though.
The volunteers (and runners) are certainly free to have their own "personal DST" to make it work. It's certainly less radical than what CCP Gray did on a Vegas trip, where he ignored the local time zone completely and continued using the same sleep/wake times he does in the UK.
Quote from: vdeane on August 07, 2018, 01:27:55 PM
The volunteers (and runners) are certainly free to have their own "personal DST" to make it work. It's certainly less radical than what CCP Gray did on a Vegas trip, where he ignored the local time zone completely and continued using the same sleep/wake times he does in the UK.
If you will, I am talking about same approach on a larger scale when talking about clock and work hours being less rigidly linked. Move proverbial "9 to 5" to "7 to 3" or "11 to 7" as local population prefers. Needs a lot of cooperation from business community, but little - if any - cooperation from the federal government.
I volunteered for a marathon twice - the NJ Marathon. It required me to have a 2am wakeup call, be on the road before 3am, to make it to the destination at 4am. Many of the other volunteers thought I was crazy, not only waking up so early but the drive as well. And I was by far from the first one there, as there were other volunteers already working, parking cars, working on the route, etc.
Quote from: tradephoric on August 07, 2018, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 07, 2018, 06:41:06 AM
Let me just state for the record that Tokyo has basically as good of sunrise/set times as you're going to get at that latitude.
Do you go to bed literally right after 6-7PM dinner? If you don't and you live in Tokyo, then any after dinner activities will be in darkness even during the longest day of the year.... not a big deal for some things but good luck playing a round of golf. Meanwhile if you get up at 7AM in Tokyo (not an unreasonable time for many people), then you have already missed out on 3 hours of daylight. How is that ideal? I personally would be more likely to watch the sunrise in Tokyo before i go to bed than getting up by 4:30AM to watch it. Reading up on Tokyo's nightlife, bars are often open till 5AM. Besides the people stumbling out of a bar at 5AM, who actually watches the sunrise in Tokyo? Even the people stumbling out of the bar at 5AM when it closes have missed the 4:30AM sunrise.
QuoteTokyo boasts some of the world's best nightlife — top of the line sound systems pump out the beat at amazing clubs, fabulous fashions are on display and a friendly atmosphere pervades. However, before heading out, a little research will help to get you pointed in the right direction.
One of the first things travelers will notice is that almost every bar or club charges a cover for admission, anywhere from $5 - $50. While this usually includes a ticket for 1 or 2 free drinks, don't be surprised if you get nothing in return aside from live music, a bowl of nuts, or even just a wristband. Try to find the details ahead of time. Mega-clubs like Womb or AgeHa are easily accessable to non-Japanese crowds, although the action usually doesn't start until late. For a more comprehensive nightlife experience, try to find a local organized party such as the Tokyo Pub Crawl to kick things off. Flyers advertising such events, are easily picked up in music stores around Shibuya or in any of the bars in Shinjuku-ni-chome for gays and lesbians.
Another shock may be when many clubs state that they close at midnight — while bars are often open till 5am. A law exists that prevents dancing in residential neighborhoods, but is largely ignored.
Your argument can easily be invalidated by the fact that I eat supper at 17:30 and go to bed at 21:00. I do very little outside the house late in the evening, especially weeknight evenings, so having it be light as noon until late-thirty does absolutely nothing other than impede my sleep. There's plenty of time for being outside and enjoying your life on Saturday and Sunday.
By the way, IMO the entire state of Michigan should be on Central Time. Even my dad agrees, and he's kind of an owl.
By the way, IMO the entire state of Michigan should be on Central Time. Even my dad agrees, and he's kind of an owl.[/quote]
Nope, I'm going to stop you right there. I have severe Seasonal Affective Disorder, and having the sun set at 4:09 PM on the earliest sunset of the year would really make me want to blow my brains out. It's bad enough at 5:09 PM. I would like to see DST all year round. I am not a morning person, and I don't get out of bed before 10 a.m. unless I absolutely have to, so a 9 a.m. sunrise in the winter would be perfect for me.
Quote from: ce929wax on August 07, 2018, 07:47:39 PM
By the way, IMO the entire state of Michigan should be on Central Time. Even my dad agrees, and he's kind of an owl.
Nope, I'm going to stop you right there. I have severe Seasonal Affective Disorder, and having the sun set at 4:09 PM on the earliest sunset of the year would really make me want to blow my brains out. It's bad enough at 5:09 PM. I would like to see DST all year round. I am not a morning person, and I don't get out of bed before 10 a.m. unless I absolutely have to, so a 9 a.m. sunrise in the winter would be perfect for me.
[/quote]
So then the latest sunrise in Lansing would be in the second half of second period for middle and high school students, assuming school days there are similar to my own (and it would be complete night at the start of the school day from 26 Dec to 15 Jan); and astronomical twilight past my bedtime from 28 Feb (!) to 27 Sept inclusive. (Marquette would be even worse, with complete night at the start of the school day from 2 Dec to 5 Feb [over two months], and astronomical dusk past bedtime from 18 Feb to 5 Oct.) I understand SAD, and although not a classic sufferer of it, I have noticed seasonal trends in my own mood too: when I start to see it remain light out well into the 18:00 hour in February, and yet outside it's still one of the coldest days of the year, I get even more antsy for spring and warmer weather than usual. And I couldn't imagine lying there in bed getting progressively more frustrated for 46 minutes (Marquette sunset at its latest is 21:46, GMT-4 [which coincides with Eastern Daylight and Atlantic Standard Time]) because I can't sleep with the sun shining right into my bloody window.
I'll at least say that the western half to two thirds of the UP should definitely be on Central Time - where I live, sunrise/set on 21 June are 5:09-20:41. In Marquette, MI, those numbers are 5:56-21:46. That's a solar noon almost an hour later than at my location. Put Marquette on Central Time, and you get 4:56-20:46, which not only aligns better with its longitude and the time of basically every state going south from there from Wisconsin on down, but it would actually allow larks like me to perhaps have some semblance of a quality night's sleep.
Hot take: if we're going to argue about DST for 37 pages, why don't we just go to GMT worldwide year-round? Now nobody has to worry about DST or time zones, and virtually everyone's sleep gets disrupted. (Or nobody's sleep gets disrupted, depending on whether we're willing and able to adjust based on how the sun works at our location.)
Quote from: ce929wax on August 07, 2018, 07:47:39 PM
Nope, I'm going to stop you right there. I have severe Seasonal Affective Disorder, and having the sun set at 4:09 PM on the earliest sunset of the year would really make me want to blow my brains out. It's bad enough at 5:09 PM. I would like to see DST all year round. I am not a morning person, and I don't get out of bed before 10 a.m. unless I absolutely have to, so a 9 a.m. sunrise in the winter would be perfect for me.
Lucky you. I would never be able to hold such a schedule given my current job, even though my circadian rhythm is happiest when I do that. Waking up is pretty hard in the winter, and I suspect seasonal affective disorder would affect you regarding late sunrises if you had to keep earlier hours.
Quote from: 20160805 on August 07, 2018, 08:42:58 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on August 07, 2018, 07:47:39 PM
By the way, IMO the entire state of Michigan should be on Central Time. Even my dad agrees, and he's kind of an owl.
Nope, I'm going to stop you right there. I have severe Seasonal Affective Disorder, and having the sun set at 4:09 PM on the earliest sunset of the year would really make me want to blow my brains out. It's bad enough at 5:09 PM. I would like to see DST all year round. I am not a morning person, and I don't get out of bed before 10 a.m. unless I absolutely have to, so a 9 a.m. sunrise in the winter would be perfect for me.
So then the latest sunrise in Lansing would be in the second half of second period for middle and high school students, assuming school days there are similar to my own (and it would be complete night at the start of the school day from 26 Dec to 15 Jan); and astronomical twilight past my bedtime from 28 Feb (!) to 27 Sept inclusive. (Marquette would be even worse, with complete night at the start of the school day from 2 Dec to 5 Feb [over two months], and astronomical dusk past bedtime from 18 Feb to 5 Oct.) I understand SAD, and although not a classic sufferer of it, I have noticed seasonal trends in my own mood too: when I start to see it remain light out well into the 18:00 hour in February, and yet outside it's still one of the coldest days of the year, I get even more antsy for spring and warmer weather than usual. And I couldn't imagine lying there in bed getting progressively more frustrated for 46 minutes (Marquette sunset at its latest is 21:46, GMT-4 [which coincides with Eastern Daylight and Atlantic Standard Time]) because I can't sleep with the sun shining right into my bloody window.
I'll at least say that the western half to two thirds of the UP should definitely be on Central Time - where I live, sunrise/set on 21 June are 5:09-20:41. In Marquette, MI, those numbers are 5:56-21:46. That's a solar noon almost an hour later than at my location. Put Marquette on Central Time, and you get 4:56-20:46, which not only aligns better with its longitude and the time of basically every state going south from there from Wisconsin on down, but it would actually allow larks like me to perhaps have some semblance of a quality night's sleep.
Hot take: if we're going to argue about DST for 37 pages, why don't we just go to GMT worldwide year-round? Now nobody has to worry about DST or time zones, and virtually everyone's sleep gets disrupted. (Or nobody's sleep gets disrupted, depending on whether we're willing and able to adjust based on how the sun works at our location.)
[/quote]
IMO, the UP outside of Chippewa, Luce, and Mackinac counties should be CT. The UP has a very sharp cultural divide around M-77 (with areas west aligning more with Green Bay/Milwaukee and areas east aligning more with Detroit)
I can get on board with CT being extended in the upper peninsula. I can also get on board with CT for the entire state if Michigan goes to DST all year. If the entire state were to go to CT and not go DST all year, I would have to seriously consider moving back to Texas. I sometimes do consider moving back to Texas, but I have health needs and re establishing doctors and stuff in another state is more of a PITA than I want to deal with, in spite of the winters in Michigan.
Quote from: ce929wax on August 07, 2018, 10:28:51 PM
I can get on board with CT being extended in the upper peninsula. I can also get on board with CT for the entire state if Michigan goes to DST all year. If the entire state were to go to CT and not go DST all year, I would have to seriously consider moving back to Texas. I sometimes do consider moving back to Texas, but I have health needs and re establishing doctors and stuff in another state is more of a PITA than I want to deal with, in spite of the winters in Michigan.
So what you're basically saying is you want all of Michigan to be on GMT-5 (EST) year-round. I can get on board with that.
Here's a map I just threw together last night depicting what I'd do with time zones:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2Fmmszo4.jpg&hash=a04380f647a1af256f89e1580877a0964e2a402d)
I've never understood why map makers have such problems with the Oklahoma-Missouri border. It's more or less perfectly vertical. The Oklahoma-Arkansas border isn't.
Quote from: 20160805 on August 07, 2018, 05:34:01 PM
Your argument can easily be invalidated by the fact that I eat supper at 17:30 and go to bed at 21:00. I do very little outside the house late in the evening, especially weeknight evenings, so having it be light as noon until late-thirty does absolutely nothing other than impede my sleep. There's plenty of time for being outside and enjoying your life on Saturday and Sunday.
Even if Tokyo went to DST (just an hour shift, not a two-hour shift) the sun in Tokyo would set at 20:00 during the longest day of the year and it would be pitch dark before your 21:00 bedtime. How would that impede your sleep? My point is Tokyo doesn't currently have perfect sunrise/sunset times as you suggested, highlighted by the fact that even if Tokyo went on DST it would already be pitch dark before your abnormally early bedtime during the longest day of the year. Meanwhile the sun on the longest day currently rises by 4:30AM in Tokyo. Seeing that you go to bed by 9PM, you seem like an extreme early bird, but do you even get up by 4:30AM? Short of someone who has a two-hour commute to their 7AM job I don't see many people being up at 4:30AM. And if you have a two-hour commute to your job I have no sympathy for you... maybe it's time to re-evaluate your life. You honestly believe the sunsets never extending beyond 7PM in Toyko is ideal (with 4:30AM sunrises to boot)? You're living Bizarro world to me.
Some places along the Northern tip of Japan have sunrises at 3:34AM during the longest day of the year (with dawn beginning by 3AM). It's like the country is accustomed to living in darkness and sleeps the daylight away. Like America, perpetual DST would appear to be a good option for Japan to consider.
Why is Japan kept in dark?https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2006/10/17/issues/why-is-japan-kept-in-dark/#.W2r8LcInaK8
QuoteIn Japan, sunset still comes early. Even in June, it is dark by 8 p.m., when many are still at work in artificially lit offices, while others are heading for bright "izakaya." The sun has risen by four in the morning; daylight is wasted while Japan sleeps.
QuoteMuch of Japan is further south again: the southernmost islands of Okinawa stretch almost to the tropic of Cancer. Even the northern tip of Hokkaido is further south than Paris. Ninety-five percent of Japanese live in latitudes that might benefit from perpetual daylight-saving time.
Quote from: tradephoric on August 08, 2018, 10:41:06 AM
Some places along the Northern tip of Japan have sunrises at 3:34AM during the longest day of the year (with dawn beginning by 3AM). It's like the country is accustomed to living in darkness and sleeps the daylight away. Like America, perpetual DST would appear to be a good option for Japan to consider.
Why is Japan kept in dark?
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2006/10/17/issues/why-is-japan-kept-in-dark/#.W2r8LcInaK8
QuoteIn Japan, sunset still comes early. Even in June, it is dark by 8 p.m., when many are still at work in artificially lit offices, while others are heading for bright "izakaya." The sun has risen by four in the morning; daylight is wasted while Japan sleeps.
QuoteMuch of Japan is further south again: the southernmost islands of Okinawa stretch almost to the tropic of Cancer. Even the northern tip of Hokkaido is further south than Paris. Ninety-five percent of Japanese live in latitudes that might benefit from perpetual daylight-saving time.
This looks like a commentary piece - which is nothing more than someone who writes to the paper occasionally giving their opinion about something. If you wrote exactly what you write here on these forums to a paper expressing your opinion, it holds absolutely no weight whatsoever other than giving people something to think about...which they may agree or disagree with. Yet, I would be able to find your commentary in the paper and try to pass it off as fact.
It doesn't even provide any facts to back up the writer's stance that "daylight is wasted while Japan sleeps". What time do the majority of people wake up and go to bed in Japan?
Quote from: ftballfan on August 07, 2018, 09:52:15 PM
IMO, the UP outside of Chippewa, Luce, and Mackinac counties should be CT. The UP has a very sharp cultural divide around M-77 (with areas west aligning more with Green Bay/Milwaukee and areas east aligning more with Detroit)
Only for football (Packers vs. Lions). In places like Houghton and Marquette, it's the Tigers and Red Wings they follow.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2018, 12:40:57 PMIt doesn't even provide any facts to back up the writer's stance that "daylight is wasted while Japan sleeps". What time do the majority of people wake up and go to bed in Japan?
A fact was given in the piece that many (Japanese) are still at work in artificially lit offices when it is dark out at 8 pm. If many are still working at 8 pm it's unlikely the workers can get home, relax, go to bed, and get up by 4:30 a.m. with the necessary amount of sleep to function the next day. It's similar to how "˜some' Mexicans crossing over the southern border are good people... just a question of how much weight you want to put on the words "˜many' and "˜some'. In the case of Mexicans crossing the border an extremely high number of them may be good people, and saying that "˜some' are good people is still not inaccurate (the word 'some' doesn't actually limit the number of individuals there can be). Where am i going with this? Oh yeah, if the media can brandish our President a racist by the way it interprets the word "˜some' I can argue that the Japanese people are in bed at 4:30 am. considering many of them are still working at 8 pm the night before.
Quote from: 20160805 on August 08, 2018, 06:57:24 AM
Here's a map I just threw together last night depicting what I'd do with time zones:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2Fmmszo4.jpg&hash=a04380f647a1af256f89e1580877a0964e2a402d)
I must be color blind. I see dark red, red, green, blue, and purple.
Quote from: tradephoric on August 08, 2018, 10:19:02 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 07, 2018, 05:34:01 PM
Your argument can easily be invalidated by the fact that I eat supper at 17:30 and go to bed at 21:00. I do very little outside the house late in the evening, especially weeknight evenings, so having it be light as noon until late-thirty does absolutely nothing other than impede my sleep. There's plenty of time for being outside and enjoying your life on Saturday and Sunday.
Even if Tokyo went to DST (just an hour shift, not a two-hour shift) the sun in Tokyo would set at 20:00 during the longest day of the year and it would be pitch dark before your 21:00 bedtime. How would that impede your sleep? My point is Tokyo doesn't currently have perfect sunrise/sunset times as you suggested, highlighted by the fact that even if Tokyo went on DST it would already be pitch dark before your abnormally early bedtime during the longest day of the year. Meanwhile the sun on the longest day currently rises by 4:30AM in Tokyo. Seeing that you go to bed by 9PM, you seem like an extreme early bird, but do you even get up by 4:30AM? Short of someone who has a two-hour commute to their 7AM job I don't see many people being up at 4:30AM. And if you have a two-hour commute to your job I have no sympathy for you... maybe it's time to re-evaluate your life. You honestly believe the sunsets never extending beyond 7PM in Toyko is ideal (with 4:30AM sunrises to boot)? You're living Bizarro world to me.
I wake up at 05:00. My commute to and from work is about 7 minutes by car; even if I walked I could likely get to work in about an hour. Tokyo on DST wouldn't be "pitch dark" by 21:00 on the longest day of the year; it would be about seven minutes before nautical dusk. ;)
I do still like the idea of sunsets in the winter being in the 16:00 hour as that's what I'm used to and what seems to "set the mood" of winter best, so maybe we could compromise and move Tokyo forward half an hour year-round? (21 Jun daylight 4:55-19:30, 21 Dec daylight 7:16-17:01)
Quote from: jakeroot on August 08, 2018, 02:23:36 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 08, 2018, 06:57:24 AM
Here's a map I just threw together last night depicting what I'd do with time zones:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2Fmmszo4.jpg&hash=a04380f647a1af256f89e1580877a0964e2a402d)
I must be color blind. I see dark red, red, green, blue, and purple.
I see dark red, orange, green, blue, and purple; I made this map late at night and I have a program called "f.lux" that reduces the amount of blue light on my screen during the late evening and early morning hours, so it was hard for me to tell exactly what colours I was using other than a general idea.
Edit to add: I also didn't realise how similar Rapid City's sunrise/set times are to my own.
Quote from: 20160805 on August 08, 2018, 04:23:19 PM
I do still like the idea of sunsets in the winter being in the 16:00 hour
Keep in mind that you're in a small minority by saying that.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 08, 2018, 02:23:36 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 08, 2018, 06:57:24 AM
Here's a map I just threw together last night depicting what I'd do with time zones:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2Fmmszo4.jpg&hash=a04380f647a1af256f89e1580877a0964e2a402d)
I must be color blind. I see dark red, red, green, blue, and purple.
No, you're not. I see the exact same colors. That is distinctly not an orange.
Quote from: 20160805 on August 08, 2018, 04:23:19 PM
I see dark red, orange, green, blue, and purple; I made this map late at night and I have a program called "f.lux" that reduces the amount of blue light on my screen during the late evening and early morning hours, so it was hard for me to tell exactly what colours I was using other than a general idea.
What settings do you have it on that makes the red look orange? Even on the darkest setting on flux it looks nearly the same color to me as it does during the day.
As for the map, why did you give eastern Maine it's own time zone? I don't feel like it'd be worth adding a new time zone to the US for such a small population.
Quote from: bm7 on August 08, 2018, 04:46:02 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 08, 2018, 04:23:19 PM
I see dark red, orange, green, blue, and purple; I made this map late at night and I have a program called "f.lux" that reduces the amount of blue light on my screen during the late evening and early morning hours, so it was hard for me to tell exactly what colours I was using other than a general idea.
What settings do you have it on that makes the red look orange? Even on the darkest setting on flux it looks nearly the same color to me as it does during the day.
As for the map, why did you give eastern Maine it's own time zone? I don't feel like it'd be worth adding a new time zone to the US for such a small population.
My lowest setting is 1200K (reddish), IIRC, and my picking of that orange-red colour must have been overcompensation as I must have thought the true orange option was yellow.
And my reason for giving the eastern third of Maine its own time zone is so as to avoid extravagantly early sunrises - on GMT-5, Bangor would have an earliest sunrise of 3:48 and a 6:59 sunrise as late as 8 December, which also seems very early for that latitude. Places on the east side of my line would have those times even earlier, hence why I moved them to Atlantic Time.
Well put together video about time zones and some info about DST at the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1kOkoma_hM
I decided to dabble in artistry and create my own proposed time zone map.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1773/29067492267_63d6d1331d.jpg)
Quote from: tradephoric on August 07, 2018, 10:08:09 AMDo you go to bed literally right after 6-7PM dinner? If you don't and you live in Tokyo, then any after dinner activities will be in darkness even during the longest day of the year.... not a big deal for some things but good luck playing a round of golf.
Who plays an after-dinner round of golf? They don't do it here, where you would get 3 hours of light after 7pm mid-summer.
Quote from: tradephoric on August 08, 2018, 02:18:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2018, 12:40:57 PMIt doesn't even provide any facts to back up the writer's stance that "daylight is wasted while Japan sleeps". What time do the majority of people wake up and go to bed in Japan?
A fact was given in the piece that many (Japanese) are still at work in artificially lit offices when it is dark out at 8 pm. If many are still working at 8 pm it's unlikely the workers can get home, relax, go to bed, and get up by 4:30 a.m. with the necessary amount of sleep to function the next day. It's similar to how "˜some' Mexicans crossing over the southern border are good people... just a question of how much weight you want to put on the words "˜many' and "˜some'. In the case of Mexicans crossing the border an extremely high number of them may be good people, and saying that "˜some' are good people is still not inaccurate (the word 'some' doesn't actually limit the number of individuals there can be). Where am i going with this? Oh yeah, if the media can brandish our President a racist by the way it interprets the word "˜some' I can argue that the Japanese people are in bed at 4:30 am. considering many of them are still working at 8 pm the night before.
Opinion pieces aren't usually vetted for their accuracy. So a letter writing saying "many" don't hold much weight. I would consider a million people to be many, but if Japan's workforce has 500 million people in offices, the million people is just a minute fraction of that.
Quote from: english si on August 13, 2018, 04:37:31 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on August 07, 2018, 10:08:09 AMDo you go to bed literally right after 6-7PM dinner? If you don't and you live in Tokyo, then any after dinner activities will be in darkness even during the longest day of the year.... not a big deal for some things but good luck playing a round of golf.
Who plays an after-dinner round of golf? They don't do it here, where you would get 3 hours of light after 7pm mid-summer.
They don't here in the U.S. either. Those that do are playing a very discounted game of golf knowing they probably won't get 18 holes in. At some courses that allow people to get on the course after 5pm, they aren't permitted to rent a cart either as they're being put away for the night and thus the golfers are walking, slowing their game down even more.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 06:22:19 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on August 08, 2018, 02:18:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2018, 12:40:57 PMIt doesn't even provide any facts to back up the writer's stance that "daylight is wasted while Japan sleeps". What time do the majority of people wake up and go to bed in Japan?
A fact was given in the piece that many (Japanese) are still at work in artificially lit offices when it is dark out at 8 pm. If many are still working at 8 pm it's unlikely the workers can get home, relax, go to bed, and get up by 4:30 a.m. with the necessary amount of sleep to function the next day. It's similar to how "˜some' Mexicans crossing over the southern border are good people... just a question of how much weight you want to put on the words "˜many' and "˜some'. In the case of Mexicans crossing the border an extremely high number of them may be good people, and saying that "˜some' are good people is still not inaccurate (the word 'some' doesn't actually limit the number of individuals there can be). Where am i going with this? Oh yeah, if the media can brandish our President a racist by the way it interprets the word "˜some' I can argue that the Japanese people are in bed at 4:30 am. considering many of them are still working at 8 pm the night before.
Opinion pieces aren't usually vetted for their accuracy. So a letter writing saying "many" don't hold much weight. I would consider a million people to be many, but if Japan's workforce has 500 million people in offices, the million people is just a minute fraction of that.
Quote from: english si on August 13, 2018, 04:37:31 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on August 07, 2018, 10:08:09 AMDo you go to bed literally right after 6-7PM dinner? If you don't and you live in Tokyo, then any after dinner activities will be in darkness even during the longest day of the year.... not a big deal for some things but good luck playing a round of golf.
Who plays an after-dinner round of golf? They don't do it here, where you would get 3 hours of light after 7pm mid-summer.
They don't here in the U.S. either. Those that do are playing a very discounted game of golf knowing they probably won't get 18 holes in. At some courses that allow people to get on the course after 5pm, they aren't permitted to rent a cart either as they're being put away for the night and thus the golfers are walking, slowing their game down even more.
I'm sure it depends where you live. In Michigan there's enough daylight in the summer to be playing golf past 9PM... in New Jersey not so much. I assure you that the golf courses are still busy and that the golf carts are available to ride past 5PM here in Michigan.
Quote from: 20160805 on August 08, 2018, 06:57:24 AM
Quote from: ce929wax on August 07, 2018, 10:28:51 PM
I can get on board with CT being extended in the upper peninsula. I can also get on board with CT for the entire state if Michigan goes to DST all year. If the entire state were to go to CT and not go DST all year, I would have to seriously consider moving back to Texas. I sometimes do consider moving back to Texas, but I have health needs and re establishing doctors and stuff in another state is more of a PITA than I want to deal with, in spite of the winters in Michigan.
So what you're basically saying is you want all of Michigan to be on GMT-5 (EST) year-round. I can get on board with that.
Here's a map I just threw together last night depicting what I'd do with time zones:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2Fmmszo4.jpg&hash=a04380f647a1af256f89e1580877a0964e2a402d)
Fuck off, that would put Boise 2 hours behind where it is now in the summer, putting sunrise at 4 AM and sunset at 7:30 PM on June 21st. Sounds like hell. Even if it was in the next time zone east (permanent MST) that would still be pretty bad. Of course, I am probably biased since I am not a morning person, but I think a strong majority of people that live here would dislike that.
^ Well, I could move the Pacific/Mountain border a bit east along the same longitude line as the Nevada/Utah border up to the Canadian border, although I'm sure not many people there are quite fans of the as-it-stands 08:18 sunrise on 1 January either. When we're talking this high of a latitude, honestly it's a horse apiece: either you upset early birds, you upset night owls, or you move solar noon to midnight or something equally ridiculous and end up ticking everyone off equally.
The ideal Pacific-Mountain boundary based on longitude is 112.5 degrees west, which is just west of the I-15 population corridors in Utah and Idaho. Of course, I'm not sure if Idaho would be good with putting Pocatello/Idaho Falls and Boise in different time zones. But in that case, maybe all of Idaho could be moved to Pacific, with the possible exception of Franklin and Bear Lake Counties.
Big news coming out of the EU. According to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Union is to propose ending twice-yearly clock changes and going to summer time year-round. This comes after a poll was conducted of millions of EU citizens which found that 80% wanted to abolish the biannual time changes.
EU plans to abolish daylight saving time and make summer last forever
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/europe/eu-abolish-daylight-saving-time-intl/index.html
Clock changes: EU backs ending daylight saving time
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45366390
EU to recommend end to changing clocks twice a year
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/31/eu-recommend-member-states-abolish-daylight-saving-time
Europe question. The time zone map looks fine, with one exception. Spain.
Spain is in the same time zone as most of Europe. But Portugal is an hour behind. Now, the interaction between Portugal and Spain is huge, and the border is just a line or a river. The interaction between Spain and France is far less and the border is a mountain range. This places Spain out of sync with its obvious partner, and pushes sun up sun down times way out of what goes on elsewhere.
Why would they not change the time zone at the Spanish-French border?
Quote from: US 89 on August 14, 2018, 05:48:22 PM
The ideal Pacific-Mountain boundary based on longitude is 112.5 degrees west, which is just west of the I-15 population corridors in Utah and Idaho. Of course, I'm not sure if Idaho would be good with putting Pocatello/Idaho Falls and Boise in different time zones. But in that case, maybe all of Idaho could be moved to Pacific, with the possible exception of Franklin and Bear Lake Counties.
Yup. What would be wrong with moving the time zone boundaries to where they rightfully should be, and as a society not being as afraid of the 4:00 hour as we are? There's no difference between sleeping from 21:00-4:00 and working from 7:00-15:00, and sleeping from 23:00-6:00 and working from 9:00-17:00.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 12, 2018, 09:18:13 PM
I decided to dabble in artistry and create my own proposed time zone map.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1773/29067492267_63d6d1331d.jpg)
I like this better than some other proposals (why would Florida want to be on Atlantic Time year-round?), though some of the time zones may have to be renamed (Central to Central-West, and Eastern to Central-East maybe?), and I'm sure not many high school students would enjoy winter sunrises during second period.
I can't help but wonder if people who support year-round summer time were more likely to vote in the poll conducted. The lowest level of engagement (outside of the UK, which is understandable since they likely won't be bound by this) appears to be Italy, one of the countries far enough south to actually have anything to lose by given up some morning sunshine in winter; many of the others are so far north that even switching the clocks will not make the sun rise before the morning commute is over.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2018, 11:27:18 AM
Europe question. The time zone map looks fine, with one exception. Spain.
Spain is in the same time zone as most of Europe. But Portugal is an hour behind. Now, the interaction between Portugal and Spain is huge, and the border is just a line or a river. The interaction between Spain and France is far less and the border is a mountain range. This places Spain out of sync with its obvious partner, and pushes sun up sun down times way out of what goes on elsewhere.
Why would they not change the time zone at the Spanish-French border?
France is out of its time zone too, though not to the same extreme. There's been talk in Spain of switching their time zone back; maybe this will finally make that happen. If they did, and France stayed in its current time zone, I wonder what Andorra would do.
Quote from: vdeane on August 31, 2018, 01:18:54 PM
I can't help but wonder if people who support year-round summer time were more likely to vote in the poll conducted. The lowest level of engagement (outside of the UK, which is understandable since they likely won't be bound by this) appears to be Italy, one of the countries far enough south to actually have anything to lose by given up some morning sunshine in winter; many of the others are so far north that even switching the clocks will not make the sun rise before the morning commute is over.
One of the articles mentioned that each member state will be able to decide if they wish to stay on summer time or winter time year-round. The focus seems to be on eliminating the biannual time changes in Europe and there will inevitably be debate if winter time or summer time is more appropriate for each member state.
The good news is Europe is seriously proposing dropping the biannual time changes. State legislators in some of the most populous states here in America (ie. Florida and California) have already pushed for getting rid of the antiquated biannual time changes.. It's time for the federal government to take up the issue and follow Europe's lead. While the media seems to have a visceral hatred for Trump, the fact that Europe has proposed getting rid of daylight saving time already should tamp down the negativity towards Trump and his administration proposing a similar change moving forward.
I'd rather they do that as a coordinated thing with the time zone UTC offsets adjusted as needed rather than having it all done willy-nilly. That would be chaos, plus having a permanent time zone labeled as "summer" is rather stupid IMO.
I still don't see how it's antiquated. Sure, the energy savings is gone due to AC (actually, in Europe they might still have energy savings, since I think AC usage is less there, so lighting would still dominate energy usage), but there are other benefits, like having the compromise between evening daylight and having sunrise at a reasonable hour.
I think I forgot to mention the whole thing about effects on people's bodies and stuff. I still don't get that. I generally sleep 11-6 on week nights, 1 or 2-11 on Friday night, and 12 or 1-10 on Saturday night, so I would think that would cause any change for DST to be far less in comparison.
"It's time for the federal government to take up the issue and follow Europe's lead. "
That's funny...you seem completely hellbent on the US following Europe's lead in using roundabouts. Suddenly Europe is the greatest nation ever because of its DST consideration?
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2018, 11:27:18 AMWhy would they not change the time zone at the Spanish-French border?
Because Facism, that's why. They haven't undone the Franco 'solidarity with Hitler' change from the 30s, just as the French, Belgians, Dutch (from UTC+0:20), etc haven't undone their similar changes after being invaded by the Nazis. France was going to return to WET on 18-Nov-45, but didn't.
Portugal would naturally be -1, as would Galicia.
I'd imagine that, when the EU abolishes changing clocks, this issue would be revisited properly. The plan is for each of the 27 member states (and I'm sure the Norway, Switzerland and the microstates will follow suit - either as made to by EEA rules, or for practicality purposes. The UK and Western Balkans wouldn't be as forced to drop clock changes by legal/peer pressure, but are likely to follow suit) to pick a time zone to follow all year.
Andorra would be more likely to go with Spain (well Catalonia, which might not want the same!), rather than France, if there's a difference. It could, for giggles, continue changing, being aligned with Spain in winter and France in summer!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2018, 10:08:56 PM
"It's time for the federal government to take up the issue and follow Europe's lead. "
That's funny...you seem completely hellbent on the US following Europe's lead in using roundabouts. Suddenly Europe is the greatest nation ever because of its DST consideration?
It's just convenient that Europe is proposing eliminating the biannual time changes before America does. The rest of the world has such a visceral hatred for Trump that anything his administration proposes would likely be seen as evil. But if you have Angela Merkel opening her mouth about the matter before Trump, well you can't blame Trump if he jumps on board with the proposal too. It wasn't his idea after all. Maybe the elimination of the biannual time changes moving forward is what can bring Europe and America together.
Angela Merkel backs EU plot to ABOLISH daylight saving timehttps://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1012492/EU-daylight-saving-time-angela-merkel-jean-claude-juncker-uk-switzerland
Quote from: tradephoric on September 04, 2018, 11:14:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2018, 10:08:56 PM
"It's time for the federal government to take up the issue and follow Europe's lead. "
That's funny...you seem completely hellbent on the US following Europe's lead in using roundabouts. Suddenly Europe is the greatest nation ever because of its DST consideration?
It's just convenient that Europe is proposing eliminating the biannual time changes before America does. The rest of the world has such a visceral hatred for Trump that anything his administration proposes would likely be seen as evil. But if you have Angela Merkel opening her mouth about the matter before Trump, well you can't blame Trump if he jumps on board with the proposal too. It wasn't his idea after all. Maybe the elimination of the biannual time changes moving forward is what can bring Europe and America together.
Angela Merkel backs EU plot to ABOLISH daylight saving time
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1012492/EU-daylight-saving-time-angela-merkel-jean-claude-juncker-uk-switzerland
I can only wonder why a very technical decision has to be so political.
But I guess these are the times when, if POTUS sneezes once in front of the Congress, "bless you" vote can be "no" strictly along party lines after few days of debates.
Scientific studies have shown that our current system of waking up in the dark is quite unhealthy. Productivity would also likely be improved if we worked natural hours (relative to the sun) instead of extremely early ones.
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/snoozers-are-in-fact-losers
Quote
According to Roenneberg, poor sleep timing stresses our system so much that it is one of the reasons that night-shift workers often suffer higher-than-normal rates of cancer, potentially fatal heart conditions, and other chronic disease, like metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Another study, published earlier this year and focussing on medical-school performance, found that sleep timing, more than length or quality, affected how well students performed in class and on their preclinical board exams. It didn't really matter how long they had slept or whether they saw themselves as morning people or not; what made a difference was when they actually went to bed–and when they woke up. It's bad to sleep too little; it's also bad, and maybe even worse, to wake up when it's dark.
Fortunately, the effects of sleep inertia and social jetlag seem to be reversible. When Wright asked a group of young adults to embark on a weeklong camping trip, he discovered a striking pattern: before the week was out, the negative sleep patterns that he'd previously observed disappeared. In the days leading up to the trip, he had noted that the subjects' bodies would begin releasing the sleep hormone melatonin about two hours prior to sleep, around 10:30 p.m. A decrease in the hormone, on the other hand, took place after wake-up, around 8 a.m. After the camping trip, those patterns had changed significantly. Now the melatonin levels increased around sunset–and decreased just after sunrise, an average of fifty minutes before wake-up time. In other words, not only did the time outside, in the absence of artificial light and alarm clocks, make it easier for people to fall asleep, it made it easier for them to wake up: the subjects' sleep rhythms would start preparing for wake-up just after sunrise, so that by the time they got up, they were far more awake than they would have otherwise been. The sleep inertia was largely gone.
Wright concluded that much of our early morning grogginess is a result of displaced melatonin–of the fact that, under current social-jetlag conditions, the hormone typically dissipates two hours after waking, as opposed to while we're still asleep. If we could just synchronize our sleep more closely with natural light patterns, it would become far easier to wake up. It wouldn't be unprecedented. In the early nineteenth century, the United States had a hundred and forty-four separate time zones. Cities set their own local time, typically so that noon would correspond to the moment the sun reached its apex in the sky; when it was noon in Manhattan, it was five till in Philadelphia. But on November 18, 1883, the country settled on four standard time zones; railroads and interstate commerce had made the prior arrangement impractical. By 1884, the entire globe would be divided into twenty-four time zones. Reverting to hyperlocal time zones might seem like it could lead to a terrible loss of productivity. But who knows what could happen if people started work without a two-hour lag, during which their cognitive abilities are only shadows of their full selves?
Theodore Roethke had the right idea when he wrote his famous line "I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow." We do wake to a sleep of sorts: a state of not-quite-alertness, more akin to a sleepwalker's unconscious autopilot than the vigilance and care we'd most like to associate with our own thinking. And taking our waking slow, without the jar of an alarm and with the rhythms of light and biology, may be our best defense against the thoughtlessness of a sleep-addled brain, a way to insure that, when we do wake fully, we are making the most of what our minds have to offer.
Also, I'd appreciate it if we could stop needlessly inserting Trump into the DST thread.
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Also, I'd appreciate it if we could stop needlessly inserting Trump into the DST thread.
The next shoe to drop in this saga is the Trump administration coming out with their own proposal to eliminate the biannual time changes in America (by extending DST year-round). The pace of this discussion will likely gain strength in this country once the DST issue is voted on in California in the November midterms. Once you have Florida and California both proposing year-round DST, it would be hard for the federal government to ignore this issue (especially considering the European Union is proposing to abolish DST). It's completely appropriate to insert Trump's name into this discussion, seeing he's going to be the one shaping the DST conversation in this country moving forward.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 04, 2018, 02:31:19 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Also, I'd appreciate it if we could stop needlessly inserting Trump into the DST thread.
The next shoe to drop in this saga is the Trump administration coming out with their own proposal to eliminate the biannual time changes in America (by extending DST year-round). The pace of this discussion will likely gain strength in this country once the DST issue is voted on in California in the November midterms. Once you have Florida and California both proposing year-round DST, it would be hard for the federal government to ignore this issue (especially considering the European Union is proposing to abolish DST). It's completely appropriate to insert Trump's name into this discussion, seeing he's going to be the one shaping the DST conversation in this country moving forward.
If it's just in California and Florida (especially as a ballot question), that's at the state level, not at the national level, so Trump isn't involved.
Quote from: 1 on September 04, 2018, 02:33:28 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on September 04, 2018, 02:31:19 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Also, I'd appreciate it if we could stop needlessly inserting Trump into the DST thread.
The next shoe to drop in this saga is the Trump administration coming out with their own proposal to eliminate the biannual time changes in America (by extending DST year-round). The pace of this discussion will likely gain strength in this country once the DST issue is voted on in California in the November midterms. Once you have Florida and California both proposing year-round DST, it would be hard for the federal government to ignore this issue (especially considering the European Union is proposing to abolish DST). It's completely appropriate to insert Trump's name into this discussion, seeing he's going to be the one shaping the DST conversation in this country moving forward.
If it's just in California and Florida (especially as a ballot question), that's at the state level, not at the national level, so Trump isn't involved.
The Sunshine Protection Act has already passed the Florida legislator and was signed into law by the governor. The Sunshine Protection Act of 2018 was introduced in the US Senate on March 12, 2018 and if passed would amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make daylight savings time the new, permanent standard time in this country. A similar bill, H.R.6202 that was introduced on June 22, 2018, would allow States to elect to observe year-round daylight saving time. It has moved passed being just a state issue now that bills have been introduced in the US Congress.
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Scientific studies have shown that our current system of waking up in the dark is quite unhealthy. Productivity would also likely be improved if we worked natural hours (relative to the sun) instead of extremely early ones.
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/snoozers-are-in-fact-losers
Quote
According to Roenneberg, poor sleep timing stresses our system so much that it is one of the reasons that night-shift workers often suffer higher-than-normal rates of cancer, potentially fatal heart conditions, and other chronic disease, like metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Another study, published earlier this year and focussing on medical-school performance, found that sleep timing, more than length or quality, affected how well students performed in class and on their preclinical board exams. It didn't really matter how long they had slept or whether they saw themselves as morning people or not; what made a difference was when they actually went to bed–and when they woke up. It's bad to sleep too little; it's also bad, and maybe even worse, to wake up when it's dark.
Fortunately, the effects of sleep inertia and social jetlag seem to be reversible. When Wright asked a group of young adults to embark on a weeklong camping trip, he discovered a striking pattern: before the week was out, the negative sleep patterns that he'd previously observed disappeared. In the days leading up to the trip, he had noted that the subjects' bodies would begin releasing the sleep hormone melatonin about two hours prior to sleep, around 10:30 p.m. A decrease in the hormone, on the other hand, took place after wake-up, around 8 a.m. After the camping trip, those patterns had changed significantly. Now the melatonin levels increased around sunset–and decreased just after sunrise, an average of fifty minutes before wake-up time. In other words, not only did the time outside, in the absence of artificial light and alarm clocks, make it easier for people to fall asleep, it made it easier for them to wake up: the subjects' sleep rhythms would start preparing for wake-up just after sunrise, so that by the time they got up, they were far more awake than they would have otherwise been. The sleep inertia was largely gone.
Wright concluded that much of our early morning grogginess is a result of displaced melatonin–of the fact that, under current social-jetlag conditions, the hormone typically dissipates two hours after waking, as opposed to while we're still asleep. If we could just synchronize our sleep more closely with natural light patterns, it would become far easier to wake up. It wouldn't be unprecedented. In the early nineteenth century, the United States had a hundred and forty-four separate time zones. Cities set their own local time, typically so that noon would correspond to the moment the sun reached its apex in the sky; when it was noon in Manhattan, it was five till in Philadelphia. But on November 18, 1883, the country settled on four standard time zones; railroads and interstate commerce had made the prior arrangement impractical. By 1884, the entire globe would be divided into twenty-four time zones. Reverting to hyperlocal time zones might seem like it could lead to a terrible loss of productivity. But who knows what could happen if people started work without a two-hour lag, during which their cognitive abilities are only shadows of their full selves?
Theodore Roethke had the right idea when he wrote his famous line "I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow." We do wake to a sleep of sorts: a state of not-quite-alertness, more akin to a sleepwalker's unconscious autopilot than the vigilance and care we'd most like to associate with our own thinking. And taking our waking slow, without the jar of an alarm and with the rhythms of light and biology, may be our best defense against the thoughtlessness of a sleep-addled brain, a way to insure that, when we do wake fully, we are making the most of what our minds have to offer.
Also, I'd appreciate it if we could stop needlessly inserting Trump into the DST thread.
Now there's even scientific research that backs my side of the argument, meaning now it's just common sense not to want the sun to be up from 11:00 to 23:00. :nod:
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Scientific studies have shown that our current system of waking up in the dark is quite unhealthy. Productivity would also likely be improved if we worked natural hours (relative to the sun) instead of extremely early ones.
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/snoozers-are-in-fact-losers
Quote
According to Roenneberg, poor sleep timing stresses our system so much that it is one of the reasons that night-shift workers often suffer higher-than-normal rates of cancer, potentially fatal heart conditions, and other chronic disease, like metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Another study, published earlier this year and focussing on medical-school performance, found that sleep timing, more than length or quality, affected how well students performed in class and on their preclinical board exams. It didn't really matter how long they had slept or whether they saw themselves as morning people or not; what made a difference was when they actually went to bed–and when they woke up. It's bad to sleep too little; it's also bad, and maybe even worse, to wake up when it's dark.
Evolved from original statement of "shift work that involves circadian disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans."
Other papers refer to factors possibly contributing to the issue, but there is nothing specific about waking up in a dark.
Whatever it worth.
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Also, I'd appreciate it if we could stop needlessly inserting Trump into the DST thread.
MAKE AMERICA SUNNY AGAIN! I also inserted Angela Merkel's name into this discussion, do you want me to stop mentioning her too? Sure, Merkel made comments directly relating to EU's proposal to abolish DST but Trump is the president as the 115th Congress debates the merits of year-round DST. When the European Union is proposing abolishing DST it has become a national issue, and of course Trump is going to be an actor in this debate. If Hillary was president i would be inserting her name into this discussion and i bet your response would be different. Much of the world has a visceral hatred for Trump that some people can't even stand hearing his name.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 05, 2018, 10:28:48 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Also, I'd appreciate it if we could stop needlessly inserting Trump into the DST thread.
MAKE AMERICA SUNNY AGAIN! I also inserted Angela Merkel's name into this discussion, do you want me to stop mentioning her too? Sure, Merkel made comments directly relating to EU's proposal to abolish DST but Trump is the president as the 115th Congress debates the merits of year-round DST. When the European Union is proposing abolishing DST it has become a national issue, and of course Trump is going to be an actor in this debate. If Hillary was president i would be inserting her name into this discussion and i bet your response would be different. Much of the world has a visceral hatred for Trump that some people can't even stand hearing his name.
For starters, Merkel did something - probably in her official capacity, but words came from a specific person - so bringing up name is reasonable, if not unavoidable. Federal control over clock settings includes several different entities: there is a law - e.g. congress has to be involved if that law is to be amended - and new law needs to be signed by the president; secretary of transportation is an executive branch official formally in charge of the issue. President has only that much say here.
Change of DST dates is often attributed to Bush II, but I don't know much he was personally involved in the issue.
And I want to hope that any decisions will be taken rationally, not by a single person on a spur of the moment. Is that too much to aks?
Quote from: kalvado on September 05, 2018, 11:39:38 AMAnd I want to hope that any decisions will be taken rationally, not by a single person on a spur of the moment. Is that too much to ask?
I frankly don't see the President becoming personally involved until there is a bill to sign, because the DST issue is all downside and no upside--any change, no matter in what direction, will attract vociferous protest. And I believe this analysis holds regardless of who the President is.
The story I have heard is that the candy manufacturers drove the Bush-era DST reform, which was oriented at keeping more of the country in light during regular trick-and-treating hours on Halloween. It is the reason we have to pull the drapes shut and move to the back of the house when it is still light out on October 31.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 05, 2018, 10:28:48 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Also, I'd appreciate it if we could stop needlessly inserting Trump into the DST thread.
MAKE AMERICA SUNNY AGAIN! I also inserted Angela Merkel's name into this discussion, do you want me to stop mentioning her too? Sure, Merkel made comments directly relating to EU's proposal to abolish DST but Trump is the president as the 115th Congress debates the merits of year-round DST. When the European Union is proposing abolishing DST it has become a national issue, and of course Trump is going to be an actor in this debate. If Hillary was president i would be inserting her name into this discussion and i bet your response would be different. Much of the world has a visceral hatred for Trump that some people can't even stand hearing his name.
Merkel is actually involved in this issue. As far as I know, they only person involved in this issue at the US federal level is Marco Rubio. Right now, any speculation of Trump getting involved is just that - speculation. He certainly hasn't given any signs on wanting to join in on this debate to me. Given his tendency to tweet all the things he tweets, it's safe to say we'd know about it by now if he wanted to personally weigh in. And the way you phrase stuff broadcasts your political beliefs loud and clear in this thread, not just on issues, but on many others not germane to this forum.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 05, 2018, 12:59:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 05, 2018, 11:39:38 AMAnd I want to hope that any decisions will be taken rationally, not by a single person on a spur of the moment. Is that too much to ask?
I frankly don't see the President becoming personally involved until there is a bill to sign, because the DST issue is all downside and no upside--any change, no matter in what direction, will attract vociferous protest. And I believe this analysis holds regardless of who the President is.
The story I have heard is that the candy manufacturers drove the Bush-era DST reform, which was oriented at keeping more of the country in light during regular trick-and-treating hours on Halloween. It is the reason we have to pull the drapes shut and move to the back of the house when it is still light out on October 31.
Extending DST could be a winning issue for Trump to take on for a variety of reasons:
#1). The vast majority of people don't believe DST is necessary. In 2016, Accuweather conducted a poll of it's users and found that 83% felt like DST was unnecessary. While admittedly unscientific, it's right in line with the Europe-wide public survey just conducted that found over 80% of respondents wanted to abolish DST.
#2). As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, extended Daylight Saving Time saved 0.5% in energy consumption in this country each day of extended Daylight. This energy savings would almost certainly be larger if DST was extended year-round, as very few people are running their AC's 24/7 in the middle of January (even in the southern most states).
#3). Quarterly GDP growth would likely notch higher if DST was extended year-round. Potentially you could tack on about another quarter percentage point to quarterly GDP growth by simply extending DST year-round. Trump would love to see 5% quarterly GDP growth as opposed to 4.6%.
#4). You won't have an increase in people dropping dead of heart-attacks the Monday after a time-change. Also there won't be spikes in car accidents after the time changes if DST was extended year-round.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 05, 2018, 02:03:35 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 05, 2018, 12:59:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 05, 2018, 11:39:38 AMAnd I want to hope that any decisions will be taken rationally, not by a single person on a spur of the moment. Is that too much to ask?
I frankly don't see the President becoming personally involved until there is a bill to sign, because the DST issue is all downside and no upside--any change, no matter in what direction, will attract vociferous protest. And I believe this analysis holds regardless of who the President is.
The story I have heard is that the candy manufacturers drove the Bush-era DST reform, which was oriented at keeping more of the country in light during regular trick-and-treating hours on Halloween. It is the reason we have to pull the drapes shut and move to the back of the house when it is still light out on October 31.
Extending DST could be a winning issue for Trump to take on for a variety of reasons:
#1). The vast majority of people don't believe DST is necessary. In 2016, Accuweather conducted a poll of it's users and found that 83% felt like DST was unnecessary. While admittedly unscientific, it's right in line with the Europe-wide public survey just conducted that found over 80% of respondents wanted to abolish DST.
#2). As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, extended Daylight Saving Time saved 0.5% in energy consumption in this country each day of extended Daylight. This energy savings would almost certainly be larger if DST was extended year-round, as very few people are running their AC's 24/7 in the middle of January (even in the southern most states).
#3). Quarterly GDP growth would likely notch higher if DST was extended year-round. Potentially you could tack on about another quarter percentage point to quarterly GDP growth by simply extending DST year-round. Trump would love to see 5% quarterly GDP growth as opposed to 4.6%.
#4). You won't have an increase in people dropping dead of heart-attacks the Monday after a time-change. Also there won't be spikes in car accidents after the time changes if DST was extended year-round.
*its :rolleyes:
Counterpoint: Middle and high school children would be in second period when the sun came up if my location were to move to GMT-5 year round. This itself constitutes circadian disruption, whereas having the clocks on standard time year round would make get-up times and sunrise times align better over the year as a whole. Given the article above basically said that shift work that disrupts our natural circadian rhythm is bad for us, really it's a no-flipping-brainer. Now let me go to bed at 21:00, thank you very much, instead of staying up until midnight just to please some hedonistic owl.
Quote from: kalvado on September 04, 2018, 05:33:14 PM
Evolved from original statement of "shift work that involves circadian disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans."
Sounds like a California warning label.
Quote from: Brandon on September 05, 2018, 05:07:09 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 04, 2018, 05:33:14 PM
Evolved from original statement of "shift work that involves circadian disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans."
Sounds like a California warning label.
There are not many fool-proof ways of measuring carcinogenic effects. THose are long term effects, and it is hard to find big enough groups of people who are different by only a single factor of exposure to something for long enough periods of time. Experiments on animals with controlled conditions are not that conclusive (biochemistry is different); and setting up proper experiment on humans could be considered a crime against humanity...
Quote from: 20160805 on September 05, 2018, 04:59:01 PM
Counterpoint: Middle and high school children would be in second period when the sun came up if my location were to move to GMT-5 year round. This itself constitutes circadian disruption, whereas having the clocks on standard time year round would make get-up times and sunrise times align better over the year as a whole. Given the article above basically said that shift work that disrupts our natural circadian rhythm is bad for us, really it's a no-flipping-brainer. Now let me go to bed at 21:00, thank you very much, instead of staying up until midnight just to please some hedonistic owl.
You never mentioned when 2nd period begins in your location. In 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement recommending that middle and high schools start class no earlier than 8:30 am. On August 31st, California lawmakers narrowly passed SB328 ahead of a midnight deadline and the bill is expected to be signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. Once the bill is finalized, middle and high schools in California would be banned from starting classes before 8:30 a.m., with schools given 3 years to comply. If the nation went to year-round DST, dawn would begin in LA at 7:26 am during the shortest day of the year... a full hour before the start of school assuming the California school districts don't violate SB328.
California just voted to ban schools from starting before 8:30 a.m. so kids can sleep in https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/04/california-voted-to-ban-school-after-830-so-kids-can-sleep.html
Quote from: tradephoric on September 05, 2018, 06:37:07 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on September 05, 2018, 04:59:01 PM
Counterpoint: Middle and high school children would be in second period when the sun came up if my location were to move to GMT-5 year round. This itself constitutes circadian disruption, whereas having the clocks on standard time year round would make get-up times and sunrise times align better over the year as a whole. Given the article above basically said that shift work that disrupts our natural circadian rhythm is bad for us, really it's a no-flipping-brainer. Now let me go to bed at 21:00, thank you very much, instead of staying up until midnight just to please some hedonistic owl.
You never mentioned when 2nd period begins in your location. In 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement recommending that middle and high schools start class no earlier than 8:30 am. On August 31st, California lawmakers narrowly passed SB328 ahead of a midnight deadline and the bill is expected to be signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. Once the bill is finalized, middle and high schools in California would be banned from starting classes before 8:30 a.m., with schools given 3 years to comply. If the nation went to year-round DST, dawn would begin in LA at 7:26 am during the shortest day of the year... a full hour before the start of school assuming the California school districts don't violate SB328.
California just voted to ban schools from starting before 8:30 a.m. so kids can sleep in
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/04/california-voted-to-ban-school-after-830-so-kids-can-sleep.html
From page 34 of this thread, two and a half months ago:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2018, 08:25:01 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 26, 2018, 07:32:56 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2018, 07:01:41 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2018, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on June 25, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blog209.jpg (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 (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/back-to-school/canadian-high-schools-resisting-calls-for-later-class-start-times/article36016933/)). 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.
And as for when second period begins, at my high school it was 8:30 on MWF and 8:24 on T-days.
I just took a look at the Detroit Public Schools Community District Bell Schedule and of the 110 Detroit Public schools on the list, 35 have a 7:30 AM start time. Just delay the 7:30 AM start times to 8:30 AM start times. That way - assuming the nation does go to year-round DST - kids would be waiting for the bus in the exact same lighting conditions as they do today. The biggest argument against going to year-round DST in this country has been the safety of school children and the worry that kids would be waiting for the bus in the dark. That concern is essentially nullified if school districts throughout the country simply adhered to the recommendations made by the American Academy of Pediatrics to start school no earlier than 8:30 AM. Then year-round DST won't be viewed as this big scary idea that will kill all our children waiting for the bus... and we can consider the merits of permanent DST more rationally.
I think if we looked at every study conducted about how much time kids should spend doing certain stuff, they would need 38 hour days with 25 of those hours being between 8am and 8pm.
I should explain that my belief the President will take no interest in DST is based largely on how Presidents in general handle detail issues. DST is a question of detail, not fundamental principles like multilateralism versus bilateralism in international relations. For a President it is advantageous to allow technical issues that attract sharp controversy, like DST, to percolate through Congress so that on the surface at least, the solution that arrives on the desk awaiting signature commands the widest possible basis of consensus and the highest degree of democratic legitimacy. In actual practice it will boil down to a duel among lobbyists in which the group with the most effective combination of access and strategy wins.
In his autobiography (translated into English as
Inside the Third Reich), one of Albert Speer's most trenchant criticisms of Hitler as a manager was his tendency to spend massive amounts of time involving himself in matters of detail. In Speer's view the effective executive is one who protects his leisure time and thereby gives himself the flexibility to address fully large questions of principle as they arise.
All of that said, I am personally under few illusions about our current President's effectiveness as a manager. I can easily see him tweeting about DST though I believe it would be a mistake for him to do so.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 05, 2018, 02:03:35 PMThe vast majority of people don't believe DST is necessary. In 2016, Accuweather conducted a poll of it's users and found that 83% felt like DST was unnecessary. While admittedly unscientific, it's right in line with the Europe-wide public survey just conducted that found over 80% of respondents wanted to abolish DST.
There are two problems with these findings: (1) unscientific polls are unscientific; and (2) the polls measure respondents' unhappiness with the current regime of DST changes but not their willingness to accept the tradeoffs inherent in eliminating the time changes. Even if a poll surfaced that took (2) into account--and arguably one should be done as part of an even-handed reconnaissance of DST policy--it would likely run aground on the distinction between stated and revealed preferences.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 05, 2018, 02:03:35 PMAs part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, extended Daylight Saving Time saved 0.5% in energy consumption in this country each day of extended Daylight. This energy savings would almost certainly be larger if DST was extended year-round, as very few people are running their AC's 24/7 in the middle of January (even in the southernmost states).
0.5% daily power consumption saved per day moved from standard time to DST translates to considerably less than 0.5% yearly power consumption saved over the course of a year. The days where power consumption goes down are watered down by the more numerous days when it does not change. Also, since standard time is being retained rather than eliminated altogether, it is entirely likely that the marginal (per day) power savings is smaller in the middle of what is now standard time rather than at the edges where the DST transitions occur.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 05, 2018, 02:03:35 PMQuarterly GDP growth would likely notch higher if DST was extended year-round. Potentially you could tack on about another quarter percentage point to quarterly GDP growth by simply extending DST year-round. Trump would love to see 5% quarterly GDP growth as opposed to 4.6%.
A few observations here:
* Quarterly GDP growth figures reported in the media are implicitly annualized. When the media says GDP grew 5% in the last quarter, they do not mean that GDP is 5% higher at the end of the quarter than it was at the start. They mean that GDP would be 5% larger at the end of a full year if the same rate of growth were sustained for a further three quarters.
* 0.25% on top of 4.6% is 4.85%, not 5%.
* Posted GDP figures are subject to large swings according to where the country is in the business cycle and what is going on in the world of high finance in terms of leveraging. Focusing on DST rather than, say, balloon mortgages = getting mired in detail = falling behind the eight ball.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 05, 2018, 02:03:35 PMYou won't have an increase in people dropping dead of heart-attacks the Monday after a time-change. Also there won't be spikes in car accidents after the time changes if DST was extended year-round.
I personally believe the excess deaths associated with the DST changes is the best reason to get rid of them. And, strictly speaking, the spike in human deaths is largely confined to the spring, although in the fall animal collisions go up in the evenings as traffic shifts from daylight to dark.
I still wonder how those spikes in deaths happen. Are people really so consistent about sleep/wake times between the work week and weekend that they even notice it? Mine swings wildly enough that I don't, though I have been noticing that getting up in the morning is already getting harder as dawn gets later. And count me as one of those people who thinks that light winter evenings is just not natural. I still can't get used to it being light out on Halloween.
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2018, 01:26:49 PMI still wonder how those spikes in deaths happen. Are people really so consistent about sleep/wake times between the work week and weekend that they even notice it?
It is less to do with consistency between the work week and weekend and more to do with the return to DST being yet another change that has to be accommodated, like an additional straw on the camel's back. Most of us tough out the change, but it takes only a few people failing to do so in a country of over 300 million to raise deaths noticeably above the steady state.
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2018, 01:26:49 PMMine swings wildly enough that I don't, though I have been noticing that getting up in the morning is already getting harder as dawn gets later.
Since fairly large swings in waking and sleeping times are your personal norm, your coping skills are probably much stronger than those of someone (like me) who is accustomed to maintaining a consistent sleeping schedule.
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2018, 01:26:49 PM
I still wonder how those spikes in deaths happen. Are people really so consistent about sleep/wake times between the work week and weekend that they even notice it? Mine swings wildly enough that I don't, though I have been noticing that getting up in the morning is already getting harder as dawn gets later.
People are pretty consistent with their school/work schedules. On Friday November 2, 2018, millions of people in NYC will be heading home from work at 5:30PM while the sun is still out. The following Monday, millions of people from NYC will be heading home at 5:30PM in pitch darkness. There schedule is exactly the same, but the lighting conditions has gone from daylight to pitch darkness over the course of a weekend. That's a big jolt that millions of commuters in NYC are all trying to deal with at the same time. It's really not a surprise that there is a spike in car crashes after a time change. It's just not natural.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 11:05:21 PM
I think if we looked at every study conducted about how much time kids should spend doing certain stuff, they would need 38 hour days with 25 of those hours being between 8am and 8pm.
I've also noticed this same thing. Also remember 17:00 is supposedly a good bedtime for a 12 year old. :rolleyes:
Man, I didn't realize DST pissed off so many people to this level.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 06, 2018, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2018, 01:26:49 PM
I still wonder how those spikes in deaths happen. Are people really so consistent about sleep/wake times between the work week and weekend that they even notice it? Mine swings wildly enough that I don't, though I have been noticing that getting up in the morning is already getting harder as dawn gets later.
People are pretty consistent with their school/work schedules. On Friday November 2, 2018, millions of people in NYC will be heading home from work at 5:30PM while the sun is still out. The following Monday, millions of people from NYC will be heading home at 5:30PM in pitch darkness. There schedule is exactly the same, but the lighting conditions has gone from daylight to pitch darkness over the course of a weekend. That's a big jolt that millions of commuters in NYC are all trying to deal with at the same time. It's really not a surprise that there is a spike in car crashes after a time change. It's just not natural.
Still, driving at night isn't really that hard (not that my commute is ever at night; I get off work at 4:30, so dusk is around or after I get home year round). Plus you can see it getting darker by looking out the window, so it shouldn't be too much of a shock (beyond associating the light levels with the new times on the clock, which I admit does take a day or two).
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 06, 2018, 01:53:41 PM
Since fairly large swings in waking and sleeping times are your personal norm, your coping skills are probably much stronger than those of someone (like me) who is accustomed to maintaining a consistent sleeping schedule.
I might also be just that good at not noticing any negative effects... I tend to be slightly out of touch with physical needs (I don't notice thirst until I get to the point of wanting to chug a glass or three of water, for example), and since I don't use caffeine, some degree of tiredness tends to be the norm for me.
Quote from: vdeane on September 05, 2018, 01:05:57 PMMerkel is actually involved in this issue.
Merkel made a comment, but she doesn't have much power to do anything other than soft-power as it's an EU thing, rather than a German thing (though, unlike at home, she hasn't lost her clout in Brussels).
Especially as the EU Council of Ministers* has been even more sidelined since the unlawful** Selmayr takeover.
* A bit like the pre-1911 US Senate, only which representative the Government of the Member State sends to represent it changes meeting-meeting to match what is being discussed - the only formal power Mutti has in the EU is when she acts as Germany's representative.
** Beyond publishing a report saying the 'both the spirit and the letter of the rules' was broken this 'rules-based organisation' is not doing anything, naturally...
Provincial officials vote to end daylight savings time in BC
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/provincial-officals-vote-end-daylight-savings-time-2018
Well, here's an idea: https://xkcd.com/2050/
Thanks to DST, the sun actually rises and sets at 7 on the equinox, since solar noon isn't until (around) 1PM.
Just my opinion, of course, but having daylight from 7 to 7 is a lot better than having it 6 to 6 - even though it means waking up in the dark.
It sounds like a done deal.... European Commissioner for Transport Violeta Bulc on September 14th announced that the EU will stop the twice-yearly changing of clocks across the continent in October 2019. Each member state will have until April 2019 to decide whether to permanently stay on summer time or winter time.
European Union to stop changing clocks in 2019 amid fears of time zone chaos
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/19/european-union-stop-changing-clocks-2019/1355573002/
Now that Europe is getting rid of the clock changes in 2019, is it time for the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make Daylight Saving time permanent in America? Amending the Uniform Time Act would be a relatively simple process last done under the Bush administration as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Looks like Europe will go from having proper time zones to being a mish-mash of Summer and Winter time, which IMO is very inelegant and not what I'd like to see. We should be making time zones more elegant and standardized, not disjointed.
Honestly, the DST people have already ruined Halloween. Do we want them to ruin Christmas too? I LIKE looking at Christmas lights on my commute home!
Quote from: tradephoric on September 25, 2018, 09:30:26 AM
Now that Europe is getting rid of the clock changes in 2019, is it time for the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make Daylight Saving time permanent in America?
No.
Quote from: vdeane on September 25, 2018, 01:37:01 PM
Looks like Europe will go from having proper time zones to being a mish-mash of Summer and Winter time, which IMO is very inelegant and not what I'd like to see. We should be making time zones more elegant and standardized, not disjointed.
Could be a mish-mash. No way to know for sure, as it's entirely possible that each country will align itself with the countries north and south of it.
I would prefer a single time zone here in Seattle. In Winter, the sun sets way too early, and it still doesn't rise until rush hour is well on its way. What's another hour of darkness in the morning? Beats driving to work in the dark, and home in the dark (assuming 9-hour workday from 0730 to 1630). Driving to work in the dark is a given. At least with summer time, there's the chance you could be home before sunset.
My day is only 8 hours long (8:30-4:30), so I never leave before sunrise, and never get home after dusk (unless I'm running errands after work). Plus I can see out the window from where I sit, so who cares if it's dark when I get home? I don't need sunlight to watch TV or sit at the computer, and it's not like I can't see out the window at work. Maybe there would be less demand for evening daylight if more workplaces had significant window coverage. I can at least understand it for the unfortunate people who work in places with no windows.
I do find it interesting that people seem to be more fixated on sunset than sunrise. Twilight seems to be considered as "day" for morning but "night" for evening. In any case, I have been noticing that it's harder to get up in the morning, and this year has been a very hard transition for some reason. I've been exceedingly groggy most days now for the past three weeks.
Quote from: vdeane on September 25, 2018, 01:37:01 PM
Honestly, the DST people have already ruined Halloween.
How so? I would much rather have gone trick-or-treating with some daylight rather than in darkness.
QuoteDo we want them to ruin Christmas too? I LIKE looking at Christmas lights on my commute home!
At that time of year, and as far north as you are, you're going to have plenty of darkness in December for your evening commute.
Trick-or-treating was meant to be done at night.
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Trick-or-treating was meant to be done at night.
And on Halloween.
Quote from: vdeane on September 25, 2018, 02:19:53 PM
My day is only 8 hours long (8:30-4:30), so I never leave before sunrise, and never get home after dusk (unless I'm running errands after work). Plus I can see out the window from where I sit, so who cares if it's dark when I get home? I don't need sunlight to watch TV or sit at the computer, and it's not like I can't see out the window at work. Maybe there would be less demand for evening daylight if more workplaces had significant window coverage. I can at least understand it for the unfortunate people who work in places with no windows.
Your use of "who" and "I" in the same sentence confuses me. If it literally makes no difference to you, why do you care? For some who drive to work in the dark already, but would drive home with some light in late December (if it were summer time year-round), it does make a difference.
From a purely medical standpoint, actually being out in the sunlight is better than just looking at it through a window.
Quote from: vdeane on September 25, 2018, 02:19:53 PM
I do find it interesting that people seem to be more fixated on sunset than sunrise. Twilight seems to be considered as "day" for morning but "night" for evening. In any case, I have been noticing that it's harder to get up in the morning, and this year has been a very hard transition for some reason. I've been exceedingly groggy most days now for the past three weeks.
Well, most people wake up and immediately go to work. After work, there's usually 5-6 hours until bed-time. For that entire period after work to be dark for a month or two...it can be really depressing. Then you tie in my area's clouds and drizzle (very few sunny days in the winter), and winter is a tough time of year.
Personally, I don't find driving in the AM during dark hours to be difficult any time of year. Around here, rush hour starts going around 5 AM, which is still before sunrise on the longest day of the year (though only just barely). Based on that fact alone, I would guess that most people don't find driving to work in the dark to be an issue.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2018, 01:47:33 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on September 25, 2018, 09:30:26 AM
Now that Europe is getting rid of the clock changes in 2019, is it time for the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make Daylight Saving time permanent in America?
No.
It was more of a rhetorical question. At this point the writing is on the wall that time changes in America are numbered. Europe is getting rid of the time-changes next year and several state legislators have already shown support for getting rid of the time changes in America. It's just going to take some action from the federal government to get it done.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2018, 02:33:01 PM
At that time of year, and as far north as you are, you're going to have plenty of darkness in December for your evening commute.
I get off work at 4:30. I get home around 4:50, barring errands (usually grocery shopping or getting quarters from the bank). Earliest sunset here, at present, is around 4:21. Earliest end of civil twilight (around which people usually turn on their Christmas lights) is 4:53 or so. Earliest end of nautical twilight (when I personally consider night to begin) is around 5:28 (even when I do have errants, I'm home by this point). All those times (except for when I get off work/get home) shift forwards an hour in permanent DST. No Christmas lights then. I'll only get to see them once a week, on Saturday, when I get my takeout pizza/wings... and even then, it won't be true night any more when I leave (earliest end of anstronmetrical twilight is currently around 6:02), so I won't be able to appreciate the night sky. I also like driving through the suburbs at night, with the sky dark and the surroundings illuminated by the lights from the businesses, so I won't be able to enjoy that as much either.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 25, 2018, 04:13:00 PM
Your use of "who" and "I" in the same sentence confuses me. If it literally makes no difference to you, why do you care? For some who drive to work in the dark already, but would drive home with some light in late December (if it were summer time year-round), it does make a difference.
From a purely medical standpoint, actually being out in the sunlight is better than just looking at it through a window.
Well, I think my comments above show that it DOES make a difference for me. Unlike most Americans, who would have the same day length as the summer solstice year-round if it were possible, I actually like how the day length varies with the seasons. And, of course, you can't change sunset without also changing sunrise.
I'm not really out in the sunlight much
any time of the year. What time sunset is doesn't really affect that. Plus it's too cold to be outside much that time of the year anyways.
Quote
Well, most people wake up and immediately go to work. After work, there's usually 5-6 hours until bed-time. For that entire period after work to be dark for a month or two...it can be really depressing. Then you tie in my area's clouds and drizzle (very few sunny days in the winter), and winter is a tough time of year.
Personally, I don't find driving in the AM during dark hours to be difficult any time of year. Around here, rush hour starts going around 5 AM, which is still before sunrise on the longest day of the year (though only just barely). Based on that fact alone, I would guess that most people don't find driving to work in the dark to be an issue.
It's not driving being difficult that's the problem (I'm awake by the time I'm ready to leave). It's getting out of bed. Maybe you don't have a hard time getting out of bed when it's dark out, but I do. I already feel like I get up way, way too early (my alarm goes off at 5:50; if I'm good that day, I only keep hitting the snooze alarm until 6:08-6:17, but often I don't have the willpower to drag myself out of bed until 6:20-6:30; in an ideal world, I'd sleep until until at least 9-10 every single day, and I do on Sunday - Saturdays, I sleep in even later!). Latest end of "true night" around here is currently around 5:43. If we had year-round DST, it would literally be as dark as midnight when I get up a large chunk of the year. You think THAT doesn't have a psychological impact?
5 AM start to rush hour? Yeesh. Proof positive that big cities have too much congestion to be livable! Around here, rush hour doesn't start until 7:30, and the peak time is 8.
I don't mind clouds/drizzle. I find the dreary conditions to be very meditative, in fact. I do have an overall melancholic disposition, though. In any case, plenty of sunny days in winter around here. Most days, in fact, when it's not snowing.
Since I'm a girl, there's only so much I can compress my routine. I can't do the "roll out of bed, pull some clothes on, get in car, and go to work" routine that many guys have (hair and eyebrows that aren't messy, in particular, take quite a bit of time, and I insist on eating breakfast).
Quote from: vdeane on September 25, 2018, 01:37:01 PMLooks like Europe will go from having proper time zones to being a mish-mash of Summer and Winter time.
Yeah, 'proper' time zones like having Vigo nearly 2 hours (3 in summer) ahead of solar time just because one long-dead fascist dictator decided on moving a whole country to Berlin time because he thought another fascist dictator could do with some solidarity as that dictator violently took over most of Europe... :rolleyes:
Possible time zone changes, no matter how unlikely, are as follows:
- Azores from -1 to 0: almost certainly going to happen. Year-round summer time.
- Canary Islands from 0 to +1: if the rest of Spain stays CET then this might happen. However WET is year-round summer time anyway.
- Portugal from 0 to +1: possible, but more likely Spain will go the other way. WET is year-round summer time anyway for almost everyone in Portugal
- Ireland from 0 to +1: perhaps, as it would align with UK 7 months, rather than 5 months, until they drop summer time, but I'd imagine that they'd not want to admit that they are tied to the UK, so they'll sell it as being about France and Germany. I doubt they'd seek an opt out of the directive - and the EU Commission would reject it as it wouldn't help their strategy of escalating the Northern Irish question as a way of forcing the UK into a position where it has to choose to kneecap itself as a lesson to others who might want to leave their mafia gang.
- Spain from +1 to 0: still likely, though the the wind has been knocked out of the sails of the WET campaign that was almost there in getting Spain to change timezone (the EU Commission's plan to stop this divergence from a potential Single European Time worked, even though it meant doing disgusting populism, ie asking people what they think!). Should this happen, Catalonia will de facto stay CET out of spite unless France goes also
- France +1 to 0: Macron won't allow it (not least as it gets in his way of being Emperor, I mean President). I'd say that the slim odds of diverging from a CET-Germany go from about 10% to about 1%. Victory for the Commission with this shrewd political move. (as an aside, Corsica wouldn't move - a bit like Catalonia, only with more power to do so, and with more reason not to move)
- Benelux +1 to 0: Highly unlikely - Germany would need to go to +2 (so they aren't breaking alignment with Germany) and France 0, and the three countries decide to align, and align with France and geography rather than sitting in the middle or aligning with Germany
- Germany +1 to +2: would the draw of Berlin time outweigh Germany being stereotypically the sorts who love the idea of year-round summer time, attracted by the arguments and indifferent to the counter-arguments? They won't like being on Eastern European Time though, with the negative connotations of 'Eastern Europe'. I'd say that about 80% to 20% that they stick on CET. But if they don't, dominoes will fall...
- France +1 to +2: the EU-skeptic Parliament that will be elected won't allow it, and it would just be a few thousand Frenchies who'd favour alignment with Germany whatever in this case - but all of them have considerable power. Maybe odds of 10% if the Germans go for EET.
- Benelux +1 to +2: Unlikely they will do this, even if Germany does.
- Sweden +1 to +2: Highly unlikely as Denmark won't change if Germany does (as they hate the Germans due to the war), and Malmo-Copenhagen being one time zone is more important than aligning with Finland in the north, or with places across the sea
- Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary +1 to +2: Only would happen if Germany goes. It's their natural time (save some fringes in the east) and they really don't like the term 'Eastern Europe' as it makes them sound like bumpkins. None are likely to not change if Germany does change.
- Italy +1 to +2: unlikely (and Sardinia won't go, for similar reasons to Catalonia and Corsica) and probably relies on France making the move too, but possible
- Finland +2 to +3: unlikely as no other EU member will move to FEET, 2 hours off most EU countries (should Germany not change) is too much, and if a large chunk of the EU will align with your time, why change to not align?
- Baltic states +2 to +3: snowball's chance in hell of these countries going to Moscow Time
- Cyprus +2 to +3: ditto, but Turkey rather than Russia are the bad guys
- Greece +2 to +3: a large chunk of the country is naturally CET. Highly unlikely
- Romania and Bulgaria +2 to +3: see Finland, plus these two countries are trying to shed off their 'Eastern bumpkins' vibe. To move to 'Far-eastern European Time' is not going to happen for marketing reasons as much as pragmatic. Plus, the only +3 country they'd border is Turkey, whom they don't really like.
I'd say (outside of the Atlantic Islands) Spain changing is most likely, though the likelihood is much down vs before, followed by Germany (and thus a domino effect in Central Europe). France changing to WET, at 1%, is going to be the next highest...
Non-EU states will change to the EU norm as follows:
- Iceland, Russia, Belarus, Turkey: don't do summer time anyway
- Microstates: will copy their neighbours, though Andorra is complicated by having two ways it will go (though Catalonia wanting to stay on CET to be different reduces that)
- Ukraine: won't go Moscow time, won't stick around with summer time when no one it does business does it
- Moldova: will follow Romania (and Transnistria will be fine with Kaliningrad time)
- Norway and Western Balkans: will follow the countries around them, won't change time zone
- Switzerland (and Liechtenstein): will be a bit more controversial, but not changing the clocks twice a year will not affect national identity of independent and neutral enough to outweigh pragmatism
- UK: because the EU-UK divorce will be as the EU wants - ie messy, the political capital to align with Europe on this will be initially low for a while. They'll do it, though won't go CET (year-round CET gets proposed every 5 years or so and falls flat on its face). It'll probably need Canada or Australia dropping summer time (the US doing so will make the EU-nationalists that will be the main cheerleaders go lukewarm)
I'd suggest Spain won't change if Germany does - again, 2 hours is too much of a difference.
So here's the most likely 2022 scenarios (pragmatic/political unofficial time zones ignored). I've assumed the UK hasn't quite made a decision, but other non-EU states have by then.
No big change:
WET: all Portugal (inc Azores), Canary Islands, Iceland, Ireland
WET with summer time: UK
CET: Spain, Andorra, France, Monaco, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Vatican, San Marino, Malta, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia
EET: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kalingrad, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus
FEET: Russia, Belarus, Turkey
Spain changes:
WET: all Portugal, all Spain, Iceland, Ireland
WET with summer time: UK
CET: Andorra, France (WET movement back on), Monaco, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Vatican, San Marino, Malta, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia
EET: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kalingrad, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus
FEET: Russia, Belarus, Turkey
Germany changes:
WET - renamed as Atlantic Time?: Azores + Madeira,
mainland Portugal(?), Canary Islands, Iceland
WET with summer time (GMT): UK
CET - renamed as WET: Ireland (two hour difference with Berlin gives excuse for the change, which they'll undo when UK drops summer time, citing the suicide and depression stats),
mainland Portugal(?), Spain, Andorra, France, Monaco, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
Italy(?), Vatican(?), San Marino(?)EET - renamed as CET: Germany, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Malta, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kalingrad, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus,
Italy(?), Vatican(?), San Marino(?)FEET - not renamed as they want to pretend there's distance: Russia, Belarus, Turkey
Also, don't forget that the EU could stop silly looking time zone islands within its member states. They make up rules as they go along.
I was thinking "proper time zones" in the sense that continental Europe has three time zones covering a contiguous area (IMO Spain and France, possibly Belgium and the Netherlands as well, should be on WET, but that's not what I was getting at with the post in question). The way I interpreted this stuff happening is that the existing time zone boundaries would remain the same, with each country choosing summer time or winter time, leading to the three time zones becoming (on paper) six, and potentially the nice, contiguous boundaries becoming more scattered, kinda like the border between Belgium and the Netherlands near Barrle-Hertog. For example, if Spain chose winter time but Portugal chose summer time, they'd have the same time on the clock but technically be in two different time zones (Western European Summer vs. Central European). Especially since trade talks about it as if it's part of a global movement for permanent DST/summer time.
Regarding Iceland, Turkey, and Belarus, while they don't change the clocks, are essentially on permanent summer time. Iceland appears to be thinking about going back to its traditional time zone at -1 (https://grapevine.is/news/2018/09/26/time-will-tell-if-iceland-changes-its-clocks/).
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2018, 01:46:22 PM
For example, if Spain chose winter time but Portugal chose summer time, they'd have the same time on the clock but technically be in two different time zones (Western European Summer vs. Central European).
Like Arizona and California 65% of the time?
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2018, 01:46:22 PM
I was thinking "proper time zones" in the sense that continental Europe has three time zones covering a contiguous area (IMO Spain and France, possibly Belgium and the Netherlands as well, should be on WET, but that's not what I was getting at with the post in question). The way I interpreted this stuff happening is that the existing time zone boundaries would remain the same, with each country choosing summer time or winter time, leading to the three time zones becoming (on paper) six, and potentially the nice, contiguous boundaries becoming more scattered, kinda like the border between Belgium and the Netherlands near Barrle-Hertog. For example, if Spain chose winter time but Portugal chose summer time, they'd have the same time on the clock but technically be in two different time zones (Western European Summer vs. Central European). Especially since trade talks about it as if it's part of a global movement for permanent DST/summer time.
Regarding Iceland, Turkey, and Belarus, while they don't change the clocks, are essentially on permanent summer time. Iceland appears to be thinking about going back to its traditional time zone at -1 (https://grapevine.is/news/2018/09/26/time-will-tell-if-iceland-changes-its-clocks/).
If they have the same time on the clock year-round, then they're in the same time zone by definition. :confused:
Quote from: 20160805 on September 26, 2018, 04:17:41 PM
If they have the same time on the clock year-round, then they're in the same time zone by definition. :confused:
If they were in two different time zones, but one was using summer time, and the other using winter time, they could be in two different time zones, but have the same time. The easiest way to avoid this, is to just choose the correct time zone for the chosen preference. I don't see this as a legitimate concern (
vdeane).
Quote from: 20160805 on September 26, 2018, 04:17:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2018, 01:46:22 PM
I was thinking "proper time zones" in the sense that continental Europe has three time zones covering a contiguous area (IMO Spain and France, possibly Belgium and the Netherlands as well, should be on WET, but that's not what I was getting at with the post in question). The way I interpreted this stuff happening is that the existing time zone boundaries would remain the same, with each country choosing summer time or winter time, leading to the three time zones becoming (on paper) six, and potentially the nice, contiguous boundaries becoming more scattered, kinda like the border between Belgium and the Netherlands near Barrle-Hertog. For example, if Spain chose winter time but Portugal chose summer time, they'd have the same time on the clock but technically be in two different time zones (Western European Summer vs. Central European). Especially since trade talks about it as if it's part of a global movement for permanent DST/summer time.
Regarding Iceland, Turkey, and Belarus, while they don't change the clocks, are essentially on permanent summer time. Iceland appears to be thinking about going back to its traditional time zone at -1 (https://grapevine.is/news/2018/09/26/time-will-tell-if-iceland-changes-its-clocks/).
If they have the same time on the clock year-round, then they're in the same time zone by definition. :confused:
If you consider Mountain Standard Time and Pacific Daylight Time to be the same time zone, then yes. I suspect that most people wouldn't actually consider those two to be the same time zone, even though the time on the clock is the same.
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2018, 04:26:53 PMQuote from: 20160805 on September 26, 2018, 04:17:41 PMIf they have the same time on the clock year-round, then they're in the same time zone by definition. :confused:
If you consider Mountain Standard Time and Pacific Daylight Time to be the same time zone, then yes. I suspect that most people wouldn't actually consider those two to be the same time zone, even though the time on the clock is the same.
Pointing out what you are ignoring...
And there's no way the EU would allow there to be 6 time zones with 3 different times - they forced Ireland to change from being on 'Irish Standard Time' of UTC+1 with winter time of UTC (which was just to be technically different to the UK) to have summer time. They would love just 1 time zone - the main reason why the EU Commission even considered asking the plebs about an issue directly (rather than electing faceless party stooges to think on their behalf) like 'war-mongering populists', was to take the wind out of the sails of the movement to change time zone in Spain (and, to a lesser extent, France). They view it bad enough with 3 member states an hour behind, and 8 member states an hour ahead, of the other 17 - best not let the norm fall to 16 or 15 of 27, and maybe the bonus of gaining another conformee in the form of Ireland or Portugal.
Perhaps the EU should take a look at China and ask themselves if they really want people to start observing unofficial time zones just because they want everyone on Berlin time.
In any case, I was assuming the EU proposal was like trade's proposal for the US to extend the date range for DST to cover the entire year and then have states decide on whether to observe "DST" or not - the articles don't really say anything contradicting that.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2018, 04:26:10 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on September 26, 2018, 04:17:41 PM
If they have the same time on the clock year-round, then they're in the same time zone by definition. :confused:
If they were in two different time zones, but one was using summer time, and the other using winter time, they could be in two different time zones, but have the same time. The easiest way to avoid this, is to just choose the correct time zone for the chosen preference. I don't see this as a legitimate concern (vdeane).
That's assuming time zones would be redrawn based on said preferences. That's not what the article said. Nor does it match up with anything trade has proposed for the US.
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2018, 05:37:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2018, 04:26:10 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on September 26, 2018, 04:17:41 PM
If they have the same time on the clock year-round, then they're in the same time zone by definition. :confused:
If they were in two different time zones, but one was using summer time, and the other using winter time, they could be in two different time zones, but have the same time. The easiest way to avoid this, is to just choose the correct time zone for the chosen preference. I don't see this as a legitimate concern (vdeane).
That's assuming time zones would be redrawn based on said preferences. That's not what the article said. Nor does it match up with anything trade has proposed for the US.
The article just states that individual states must decide "DST or not", but it doesn't outright prohibit each state from changing it's time zone as well, if it so chooses.
Will Proposition 7 pass in California in the upcoming midterms? Someone would have to lay me very high odds to bet against its passage.
2018 VOTER GUIDE: A look at California's Proposition 7: Permanent Daylight Saving Measure
https://abc7news.com/politics/2018-voter-guide-a-look-at-californias-proposition-7/4330830/
The LA Times has an editorial encouraging voters to vote YES on proposition 7 in the upcoming elections.
Vote yes on Proposition 7 to force another look at daylight saving timehttp://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-proposition-7-endorsement-20180929-story.html
Quote
A national conversation has gotten started. In fact, there's a growing national and even global movement to dump the time change. Lawmakers in more than a dozen U.S. states have considered legislation to remain on permanent daylight saving time, though only Florida has voted to do so. The European Union will stop changing its clocks next year, allowing its member countries to decide whether to adopt permanent daylight savings.
Obviously, the best way to proceed is with a nationwide standard, set by legislation such as the Sunshine Protection Act by U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that would make daylight saving time permanent across the nation. The inconvenience of a meaningless tradition is far better than the confusion that would come from states observing a mishmash of different times. In fact, the lack of a common approach to daylight saving time led Congress to adopt the Uniform Time Act of 1966, which set the dates when clocks moved back and forth.
Passing Proposition 7 wouldn't necessarily make California an outlier, but would allow the state the flexibility in the future to join a national movement to adopt permanent daylight saving time, as well as signaling to Congress that the time is up for this clock-changing nonsense.
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2018, 05:37:52 PMPerhaps the EU should take a look at China and ask themselves if they really want people to start observing unofficial time zones just because they want everyone on Berlin time.
They won't take a look as China is one of those big bad other blocs that Big Brother says we've always been at war with. ;)
The EU does care about convergence, but far far less than they care about divergence (even if it's within standards, but away from their ideal).
A Single European Time is one of those things that the most hardcore 'Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer' (as the UKIP MEP paraphrased in an interruption that caused him to be thrown out the chamber) EU-Nationalist see as a very low priority way down the list - if they felt it was practical and possible to prioritise implementation (or even if they didn't - cf the Single European Currency) they would do it. But for a country - especially big ones like France or Spain - to move away from the default time of CET would be a great horror. And there were murmurings that (Spain especially) such a thing might happen...
So have that the WET movements in Western Europe are maimed (if not destroyed), and it's done as an out-of-character "we listened to the people" (from the people who declare "there can be no democratic choice against the EU treaties") with national governments having a say on time zone (knowing full well that only a few might change, and those that are more likely are ones that will move towards conformity, rather than divergence), it's an excellent bit of politicking.
Now, I like the change, though it will only affect me secondhand (and hopefully not year-round CET as that - while unlikely to happen - will be a horror show), but the initial motives of the European Commission were stopping divergence, rather than making life easier - if it was the latter, then they wouldn't do all the digital nonsense they do (GDPR, Article 13, etc), nor make it harder for people to get US imports, etc.
Quote from: tradephoric on September 29, 2018, 03:28:26 PM
The LA Times
Quote
Obviously, the best way to proceed is with a nationwide standard
The political conservative in me just shivered a little.
Quote from: kphoger on October 01, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on September 29, 2018, 03:28:26 PM
The LA Times
Quote
Obviously, the best way to proceed is with a nationwide standard
The political conservative in me just shivered a little.
I never thought i'd say i agree with the LA Times, but with this i do. There has been a national standard since 1966 when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act. This act prevents one state from observing DST from April to October while their neighbor observes it from March to November. Amending the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make DST permanent in this country doesn't add a national standard... it just modifies the national standard that has existed for the past 50 years.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 01, 2018, 02:27:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 01, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on September 29, 2018, 03:28:26 PM
The LA Times
Quote
Obviously, the best way to proceed is with a nationwide standard
The political conservative in me just shivered a little.
I never thought i'd say i agree with the LA Times, but with this i do. There has been a national standard since 1966 when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act. This act prevents one state from observing DST from April to October while their neighbor observes it from March to November. Amending the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make DST permanent in this country doesn't add a national standard... it just modifies the national standard that has existed for the past 50 years.
I read the "the inconvenience of a meaningless tradition is far better than the confusion that would come from states observing a mishmash of different times" part as being against your proposal to just make DST permanent and let states opt out. In fact, it would seem to trend to NOT allow states to do so!
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2018, 08:40:00 PM
I read the "the inconvenience of a meaningless tradition is far better than the confusion that would come from states observing a mishmash of different times" part as being against your proposal to just make DST permanent and let states opt out. In fact, it would seem to trend to NOT allow states to do so!
You took that sentence out of context. The LA Times editorial makes it clear that they favor legislation that would make daylight saving time permanent across the nation... but ultimately that legislation must come from the federal government. If Proposition 7 passes in November, it's simply signalling that California wants the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make daylight saving time permanent nationwide (similar to the legislation already passed by Marco Rubio in Florida which was referenced in the article).
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2018, 08:40:00 PM
I read the "the inconvenience of a meaningless tradition is far better than the confusion that would come from states observing a mishmash of different times" part as being against your proposal to just make DST permanent and let states opt out. In fact, it would seem to trend to NOT allow states to do so!
Getting into mishmash of different times is easy even with existing layout. Once upon a time, I was fflying from Albany to Chicago and then driving to a small town in Indiana. Fact that a piece of Indiana choose to live on Chicago time was a contributing factor.
Absolutely worst thing would be allowing states to set their own DST dates. That has to be federal control no matter what. Letting states choose their own time zone - I suspect things would settle reasonably after some negotiations.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 02, 2018, 12:26:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2018, 08:40:00 PM
I read the "the inconvenience of a meaningless tradition is far better than the confusion that would come from states observing a mishmash of different times" part as being against your proposal to just make DST permanent and let states opt out. In fact, it would seem to trend to NOT allow states to do so!
You took that sentence out of context. The LA Times editorial makes it clear that they favor legislation that would make daylight saving time permanent across the nation... but ultimately that legislation must come from the federal government. If Proposition 7 passes in November, it's simply signalling that California wants the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make daylight saving time permanent nationwide (similar to the legislation already passed by Marco Rubio in Florida which was referenced in the article).
Shades of 1974. An idea so dumbass that Congress had to adopt it as an emergency measure. ... And then repeal as an emergency measure a year later. I think that the vote for repeal was more one-sided than the vote for enactment. Congress has never been so united on anything since then! It's one of Congress's shining moments. "We did something so dumbass a year ago that we need to undo it and we need such a groundswell of support that the President will recognize that he needn't bother to try to veto it!"
Quote from: michravera on October 02, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Shades of 1974. An idea so dumbass that Congress had to adopt it as an emergency measure. ... And then repeal as an emergency measure a year later. I think that the vote for repeal was more one-sided than the vote for enactment. Congress has never been so united on anything since then! It's one of Congress's shining moments. "We did something so dumbass a year ago that we need to undo it and we need such a groundswell of support that the President will recognize that he needn't bother to try to veto it!"
Yeah, and arbitrarily changing the clocks twice-a-year sounds like a great non-dumbass idea. Permanent daylight saving was largely derailed in 1974 due to parents not wanting their kids to wait for the bus in the morning darkness. A NY Times article published on January 31, 1974 entitled "Schools Ask End to Daylight Time" stated that eight Florida school-aged children had been killed in accidents since daylight time was imposed by Nixon on January 8, 1974, compared to just 2 during the same period a year ago. Of course, what about the potential lives saved in the evening when there was an extra hour of daylight? What about the other 49 states in the country... was there an increase in children deaths in the morning in other states or was it just Florida? Back in the 70s was the NY Times referred to as the "failing NY Times" ? Was "fake news" a thing? Legitimate questions....
The fact is a lot has changed since 1974. In 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement recommending that middle and high schools start class no earlier than 8:30 am. In response to their recommendation, California passed SB-328 which would have banned middle and high schools in California from starting classes before 8:30 a.m. Ultimately the bill was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, which to me is not necessarily a bad result as it did seem like a big government overreach, but even with the governor's veto there is nothing stopping local school boards from adhering to the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations. If we are so concerned about the health and safety of the children, then school should start at a healthy time (ie. after 8:30AM). Ultimately parents shouldn't be petitioning the state legislator to abandon the push for permanent daylight saving time across this country, instead they should be petitioning their local school boards to start classes later (if school start times were pushed back an hour then even with permanent DST, kids would be waiting for the bus in the same illumination conditions that they do currently).
Quote from: tradephoric on October 02, 2018, 02:24:43 PM
Permanent daylight saving was largely derailed in 1974 due to parents not wanting their kids to wait for the bus in the morning darkness. A NY Times article published on January 31, 1974 entitled "Schools Ask End to Daylight Time" stated that eight Florida school-aged children had been killed in accidents since daylight time was imposed by Nixon on January 8, 1974, compared to just 2 during the same period a year ago.
Am I missing something here? Sunrise happens
later by the clock
with DST, meaning kids are
more likely to be waiting for the bus before dawn. If sunrise is 6:30 AM when DST begins, then you "spring forward" and suddenly sunrise isn't till 7:30 AM.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 02, 2018, 02:24:43 PM
Quote from: michravera on October 02, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Shades of 1974. An idea so dumbass that Congress had to adopt it as an emergency measure. ... And then repeal as an emergency measure a year later. I think that the vote for repeal was more one-sided than the vote for enactment. Congress has never been so united on anything since then! It's one of Congress's shining moments. "We did something so dumbass a year ago that we need to undo it and we need such a groundswell of support that the President will recognize that he needn't bother to try to veto it!"
Yeah, and arbitrarily changing the clocks twice-a-year sounds like a great non-dumbass idea. Permanent daylight saving was largely derailed in 1974 due to parents not wanting their kids to wait for the bus in the morning darkness. A NY Times article published on January 31, 1974 entitled "Schools Ask End to Daylight Time" stated that eight Florida school-aged children had been killed in accidents since daylight time was imposed by Nixon on January 8, 1974, compared to just 2 during the same period a year ago. Of course, what about the potential lives saved in the evening when there was an extra hour of daylight? What about the other 49 states in the country... was there an increase in children deaths in the morning in other states or was it just Florida? Back in the 70s was the NY Times referred to as the "failing NY Times" ? Was "fake news" a thing? Legitimate questions....
The fact is a lot has changed since 1974. In 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement recommending that middle and high schools start class no earlier than 8:30 am. In response to their recommendation, California passed SB-328 which would have banned middle and high schools in California from starting classes before 8:30 a.m. Ultimately the bill was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, which to me is not necessarily a bad result as it did seem like a big government overreach, but even with the governor's veto there is nothing stopping local school boards from adhering to the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations. If we are so concerned about the health and safety of the children, then school should start at a healthy time (ie. after 8:30AM). Ultimately parents shouldn't be petitioning the state legislator to abandon the push for permanent daylight saving time across this country, instead they should be petitioning their local school boards to start classes later (if school start times were pushed back an hour then even with permanent DST, kids would be waiting for the bus in the same illumination conditions that they do currently).
It's difficult for schools to start later due to parents having to leave for work and the greater difficulty of securing child care in the morning compared to the afternoon/evening. Also, that AAP study draws its conclusions based on the sunrise/sunset schedule that existed at the time, which is nearly all of the country being on DST for 8 months per year, so if you eliminate DST you eliminate the need to have school start later.
A group in Indiana has also done a study that shows a higher rate of incidents involving children on mornings where the sunset is after 7am compared to before, so Florida is definitely not the only one.
Large chunks of the country are already one time zone farther east than they should be, which is in essence, permanent DST, with double DST in the summer. In South Bend, the sunrise/sunset on December 21 are 8:08 and 5:17. With year-round DST, that would be 9:08 and 6:17. It makes absolutely no sense to have a day like that.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 02, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
It's difficult for schools to start later due to parents having to leave for work and the greater difficulty of securing child care in the morning compared to the afternoon/evening. Also, that AAP study draws its conclusions based on the sunrise/sunset schedule that existed at the time, which is nearly all of the country being on DST for 8 months per year, so if you eliminate DST you eliminate the need to have school start later.
Here's a link to the APP study and i don't necessarily see where it looked specifically at sunrise/sunset times. It did state that research indicates that the average teenager in today's society has difficulty falling asleep before 11:00 PM and is best suited to wake at 8:00 AM or later. But really no mention of sunrise/sunset times in the study (i may have missed it though).
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2014/08/19/peds.2014-1697.full.pdf
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 02, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
A group in Indiana has also done a study that shows a higher rate of incidents involving children on mornings where the sunset is after 7am compared to before, so Florida is definitely not the only one.
For every study there seems to be a counter study. This 2004 study analyzed the effects of daylight and daylight saving time on US pedestrian fatalities and motor vehicle occupant fatalities. The study estimates that permanent DST would reduce pedestrian fatalities by 171 per year and reduce motor vehicle occupant fatalities by 195 per year. But in 1974, 6 school children died at the bus stop in Florida, so we can never look at going to permanent DST again in this country. Nevermind that new research estimates 171 pedestrian lives and 195 motor vehicle occupant lives would be saved each year if the nation went to permanent DST.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457503000150
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 02, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Large chunks of the country are already one time zone farther east than they should be, which is in essence, permanent DST, with double DST in the summer. In South Bend, the sunrise/sunset on December 21 are 8:08 and 5:17. With year-round DST, that would be 9:08 and 6:17. It makes absolutely no sense to have a day like that.
Any state still has the option to opt out of DST. You may very well see Indiana opt out of DST if it was made permanent and join Arizona and Hawaii to run standard time year round. What's the big deal? State choice is a good thing and Indiana would have that option.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 02, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
It's difficult for schools to start later due to parents having to leave for work and the greater difficulty of securing child care in the morning compared to the afternoon/evening. Also, that AAP study draws its conclusions based on the sunrise/sunset schedule that existed at the time, which is nearly all of the country being on DST for 8 months per year, so if you eliminate DST you eliminate the need to have school start later.
A group in Indiana has also done a study that shows a higher rate of incidents involving children on mornings where the sunset is after 7am compared to before, so Florida is definitely not the only one.
Large chunks of the country are already one time zone farther east than they should be, which is in essence, permanent DST, with double DST in the summer. In South Bend, the sunrise/sunset on December 21 are 8:08 and 5:17. With year-round DST, that would be 9:08 and 6:17. It makes absolutely no sense to have a day like that.
Yeah, to move the schools, people would need to adjust their work schedules. Since they would still want to shop, go to the doctor, etc., those places will need to adjust their hours too. Since they will still want to watch the news and evening TV and listen to radio morning shows, those hours will also need to be adjusted. By the time you're done, you might was well just switch the clocks and be done with it, since you'd have all the negative effects of the time change, but with the added issue of the hour looking wrong nearly half the year and people having to actually remember continuously rather than just change their clocks one afternoon.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 02, 2018, 06:07:33 PM
Here's a link to the APP study and i don't necessarily see where it looked specifically at sunrise/sunset times. It did state that research indicates that the average teenager in today's society has difficulty falling asleep before 11:00 PM and is best suited to wake at 8:00 AM or later. But really no mention of sunrise/sunset times in the study (i may have missed it though).
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2014/08/19/peds.2014-1697.full.pdf
Given that when people have a hard time waking up/falling asleep is based on sunrise/sunset times (especially for those of us who don't use caffeine), I would think they would need to be factored in.
Quote
Any state still has the option to opt out of DST. You may very well see Indiana opt out of DST if it was made permanent and join Arizona and Hawaii to run standard time year round. What's the big deal? State choice is a good thing and Indiana would have that option.
That would lead to having de facto and de jure time zones not matching at all (Eastern would be split into UTC-4 and UTC-5, while UTC-5 would have both CDT and EST), an organizational nightmare right up there with routes ending in overlaps, suffixed interstates, and duplicated 2dis. Yuck. IMO UTC offsets and legal time zones should have a 1:1 correspondence within a political block. It's one thing when, like Arizona, it's only part of the year. It's another thing to have it on a permanent basis.
What is Indiana's history with DST?
I remember several years ago, my brother lived in northwestern Owen County, Ky., which is in the Eastern Time Zone. Madison, Ind., was an hour behind. He was able to leave Owen County at 4 p.m local time and arrive in Madison at 4 p.m. local time.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 02, 2018, 02:24:43 PM
If we are so concerned about the health and safety of the children, then school should start at a healthy time (ie. after 8:30AM). Ultimately parents shouldn't be petitioning the state legislator to abandon the push for permanent daylight saving time across this country, instead they should be petitioning their local school boards to start classes later
Heaping silliness upon silliness:
1. Keep time based on sunrise and sunset.
2. Change everyone's clocks at the same time twice a year, because people like having more daylight in the evenings.
3. Adjust school schedules accordingly, because it's detrimental to children's well-being to have more daylight in the evenings.
Just eliminate steps 2 and 3. Problem solved.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 02, 2018, 02:24:43 PM
(if school start times were pushed back an hour then even with permanent DST, kids would be waiting for the bus in the same illumination conditions that they do currently).
Right back at you:
Not adopting permanent DST and
not pushing school start times back an hour has the same effect. How does changing two things instead of no things make more sense?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 02, 2018, 08:51:07 PM
What is Indiana's history with DST?
I remember several years ago, my brother lived in northwestern Owen County, Ky., which is in the Eastern Time Zone. Madison, Ind., was an hour behind. He was able to leave Owen County at 4 p.m local time and arrive in Madison at 4 p.m. local time.
1918: All of Indiana was officially put on Central Time, including DST.
1919: DST was repealed by Congress (some towns continued).
1942: Permanent DST was instituted by Congress.
1945: Permanent DST ended, and individual towns made up their own rules–Indiana included.
1949: The Indiana legislature put all of Indiana on CST (no CDT) amid a huge debate, but the law was unenforceable.
1956: A statewide referendum revealed that Indiana residents were quite divided on time zone and DST issues.
1957: The Indiana legislature affirmed Central Time for the state and allowed towns to adopt DST but not year-round.
1961: The 1957 law was repealed but not replaced; the ICC drew the Central/Eastern line down the middle of Indiana.
1966: Congress mandated uniform DST nationwide, but allowed whole states to opt out; Indiana did not opt out.
1968: The USDOT proposed moving most of the rest of Indiana to Eastern Time; TV stations went berserk.
1972: The proposal passed, leaving only those counties near Chicago or Evansville (six each) on Central Time.
Also in 1972, a Congressional amendment removed the whole-state restriction from a state's right to opt out of DST. The Indiana legislature jumped on that amendment, putting the Chicago- and Evansville-area counties on Central Time
with DST and the rest of the state on Eastern Time
without DST. Moreover, some of the counties near Louisville or Cincinnati unofficially kept on using DST anyway.
1977: Evansville-area Pike County switched over to Eastern Time.
1991: Chicago-area Starke County switched over to Eastern Time (upon their third request to the USDOT).
2005: The Indiana legislature mandated statewide DST by a decent margin in the Senate but a narrow margin in the House.
2006: Eight Chicago- or Evansville-area counties were moved over to Central Time; this caused problems.
2007: Most of the above counties switched back over to Eastern Time again.
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2018, 08:42:27 PM
Given that when people have a hard time waking up/falling asleep is based on sunrise/sunset times (especially for those of us who don't use caffeine), I would think they would need to be factored in.
Let's look at sunrise times if the nation were to go to permanent DST. So according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, teenagers are best suited to get up at 8:00AM or later. For the teenagers who wake up at 8:00AM in the 15 most populous cities in America, only teenagers in Columbus, Ohio would be getting up before dawn during the shortest day of the year. Keep in mind that the APP study wasn't considering winter DST vs winter non-DST, they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM and need 9 hours of sleep for properly development. It just turns out that the nation going to permanent DST would be perfect for the vast majority of teenagers in this country as they would be getting up around the break of dawn during the shortest day of the year.
^Now i know someone will think "yeah, but if you're a teenager in South Bend the sun doesn't get up till such and such." Again though, the states on the western edge of a time zone like Indiana may opt out of daylight saving time if it's made permanent and run standard time year-round. Besides, it's not like Indiana doesn't have a history of messing around with time....
Quote from: kphoger on October 02, 2018, 09:45:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 02, 2018, 08:51:07 PM
What is Indiana's history with DST?
I remember several years ago, my brother lived in northwestern Owen County, Ky., which is in the Eastern Time Zone. Madison, Ind., was an hour behind. He was able to leave Owen County at 4 p.m local time and arrive in Madison at 4 p.m. local time.
1918: All of Indiana was officially put on Central Time, including DST.
1919: DST was repealed by Congress (some towns continued).
1942: Permanent DST was instituted by Congress.
1945: Permanent DST ended, and individual towns made up their own rules–Indiana included.
1949: The Indiana legislature put all of Indiana on CST (no CDT) amid a huge debate, but the law was unenforceable.
1956: A statewide referendum revealed that Indiana residents were quite divided on time zone and DST issues.
1957: The Indiana legislature affirmed Central Time for the state and allowed towns to adopt DST but not year-round.
1961: The 1957 law was repealed but not replaced; the ICC drew the Central/Eastern line down the middle of Indiana.
1966: Congress mandated uniform DST nationwide, but allowed whole states to opt out; Indiana did not opt out.
1968: The USDOT proposed moving most of the rest of Indiana to Eastern Time; TV stations went berserk.
1972: The proposal passed, leaving only those counties near Chicago or Evansville (six each) on Central Time.
Also in 1972, a Congressional amendment removed the whole-state restriction from a state's right to opt out of DST. The Indiana legislature jumped on that amendment, putting the Chicago- and Evansville-area counties on Central Time with DST and the rest of the state on Eastern Time without DST. Moreover, some of the counties near Louisville or Cincinnati unofficially kept on using DST anyway.
1977: Evansville-area Pike County switched over to Eastern Time.
1991: Chicago-area Starke County switched over to Eastern Time (upon their third request to the USDOT).
2005: The Indiana legislature mandated statewide DST by a decent margin in the Senate but a narrow margin in the House.
2006: Eight Chicago- or Evansville-area counties were moved over to Central Time; this caused problems.
2007: Most of the above counties switched back over to Eastern Time again.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM
...which is totally dependent on other factors.
If parents are really concerned about their children's well-being, then they should
get them to bed on time.
A teenager going to bed at 11PM and getting up at 8AM doesn't seem outrageous to me. Hell, you are lucky if a teenager wakes up before noon.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2018, 08:42:27 PM
Given that when people have a hard time waking up/falling asleep is based on sunrise/sunset times (especially for those of us who don't use caffeine), I would think they would need to be factored in.
Let's look at sunrise times if the nation were to go to permanent DST. So according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, teenagers are best suited to get up at 8:00AM or later. For the teenagers who wake up at 8:00AM in the 15 most populous cities in America, only teenagers in Columbus, Ohio would be getting up before dawn during the shortest day of the year. Keep in mind that the APP study wasn't considering winter DST vs winter non-DST, they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM and need 9 hours of sleep for properly development. It just turns out that the nation going to permanent DST would be perfect for the vast majority of teenagers in this country as they would be getting up around the break of dawn during the shortest day of the year.
They're basing it on how things are now, not on your permanent DST desires. And, as I said, sunrise/sunset affects when you should be waking up based on your circadian rhythm (which uses sunlight to reset every day; studies have shown that most people naturally have a 25 hour rhythm when this doesn't occur), so no, changing those times would not be "perfect" for teenagers, since their rhythms will then be shifted further by that hour (especially since going to bed that late is not "cultural", it's biological). What will it take for you to get this through your head? Or do you want coffee to be a mandatory beverage for the entire nation? Humans were not meant to wake up before dawn!
You're also assuming that teenagers only need half an hour to wake up, get ready, and get to school. That might work for men who take their shower the night before, but for anyone else, they'll need longer. And that's assuming they can even get to school in that time. Some bus rides are long.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:20:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM
...which is totally dependent on other factors.
If parents are really concerned about their children's well-being, then they should get them to bed on time.
Good luck with that when the shifted circadian rhythm is a BIOLOGICAL FACT that parents are powerless to change.
Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2018, 01:35:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:20:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM
...which is totally dependent on other factors.
If parents are really concerned about their children's well-being, then they should get them to bed on time.
Good luck with that when the shifted circadian rhythm is a BIOLOGICAL FACT that parents are powerless to change.
This is why we shouldn't be artificially changing our clocks to make it be darker when children are getting up in the morning–which is exactly what DST does. Abolish DST.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2018, 01:35:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:20:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM
...which is totally dependent on other factors.
If parents are really concerned about their children's well-being, then they should get them to bed on time.
Good luck with that when the shifted circadian rhythm is a BIOLOGICAL FACT that parents are powerless to change.
This is why we shouldn't be artificially changing our clocks to make it be darker when children are getting up in the morning–which is exactly what DST does. Abolish DST.
Our current time shifts are such that most of the time sunrise wouldn't be that late anyways (since the shortest days are already on standard time), so adjusting the start/end dates to be on standard time longer would accomplish this too without sacrificing summer evening daylight or making sunrise too early on the longest day.
Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2018, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2018, 01:35:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:20:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM
...which is totally dependent on other factors.
If parents are really concerned about their children's well-being, then they should get them to bed on time.
Good luck with that when the shifted circadian rhythm is a BIOLOGICAL FACT that parents are powerless to change.
This is why we shouldn't be artificially changing our clocks to make it be darker when children are getting up in the morning–which is exactly what DST does. Abolish DST.
Our current time shifts are such that most of the time sunrise wouldn't be that late anyways (since the shortest days are already on standard time), so adjusting the start/end dates to be on standard time longer would accomplish this too without sacrificing summer evening daylight or making sunrise too early on the longest day.
In what city can a teenager wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time?
Probably not any at present, but this latest tangent is referring to studies saying to start school at 8:30.
Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2018, 02:20:42 PM
Probably not any at present, but this latest tangent is referring to studies saying to start school at 8:30.
This latest tangent is referring to teenagers getting up at 8 AM. ↓↓ See below. ↓↓
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
So according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, teenagers are best suited to get up at 8:00AM or later.
In what city can a teenager wake up at 8 AM and make it to school by 8:30 AM?
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
This is why we shouldn't be artificially changing our clocks to make it be darker when children are getting up in the morning–which is exactly what DST does. Abolish DST.
Hawaii and Arizona has essentially abolished DST - since they don't observe it. Nothing is stopping the other 48 states from joining Hawaii and Arizona in running standard time year-round. The point is if the country wanted to abolish DST they would have done so long ago. All the states could ban together tomorrow and say that they are going to stop observing DST. Of course that will never ever happen because it's a horrible idea. You really think people in Boston would favor 7:25PM sunsets during the summer over 8:25PM sunsets? By the end of the first inning at a Boston Red Sox game the sun would have already set.... by the 3rd inning it will be pitch dark out. You really think people in Chicago would want dawn to begin at 3:41AM as opposed to 4:41AM in the summer? Fifteen minutes after the Chicago bars close the sun would be rising.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:14:56 PM
In what city can a teenager wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time?
That's the whole point of the American Academy of Pediatrics study. They are arguing that early school start times (before 8:30AM) are a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep, as well as circadian rhythm disruption, of our nation's middle and high school students. The reason why kids can't wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time is because school start times are too damn early.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PM
You really think people in Chicago would want dawn to begin at 3:41AM as opposed to 4:41AM in the summer?
I'm not sure I've ever heard someone complain that the sun came up too early. And yes, I used to live in Chicago.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PM
Hawaii and Arizona has essentially abolished DST ... All the states could ban [sic] together tomorrow and say that they are going to stop observing DST. Of course that will never ever happen because it's a horrible idea.
Hawaii and Arizona didn't think it was a horrible idea.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
This is why we shouldn't be artificially changing our clocks to make it be darker when children are getting up in the morning–which is exactly what DST does. Abolish DST.
Hawaii and Arizona has essentially abolished DST - since they don't observe it. Nothing is stopping the other 48 states from joining Hawaii and Arizona in running standard time year-round. The point is if the country wanted to abolish DST they would have done so long ago. All the states could ban together tomorrow and say that they are going to stop observing DST. Of course that will never ever happen because it's a horrible idea. You really think people in Boston would favor 7:25PM sunsets during the summer over 8:25PM sunsets? By the end of the first inning at a Boston Red Sox game the sun would have already set.... by the 3rd inning it will be pitch dark out. You really think people in Chicago would want dawn to begin at 3:41AM as opposed to 4:41AM in the summer? Fifteen minutes after the Chicago bars close the sun would be rising.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:14:56 PM
In what city can a teenager wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time?
That's the whole point of the American Academy of Pediatrics study. They are arguing that early school start times (before 8:30AM) are a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep, as well as circadian rhythm disruption, of our nation's middle and high school students. The reason why kids can't wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time is because school start times are too damn early.
It's not practical to have school start times at or after 8:30 am when parents generally have to leave the house for work well before then.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 03, 2018, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
This is why we shouldn't be artificially changing our clocks to make it be darker when children are getting up in the morning–which is exactly what DST does. Abolish DST.
Hawaii and Arizona has essentially abolished DST - since they don't observe it. Nothing is stopping the other 48 states from joining Hawaii and Arizona in running standard time year-round. The point is if the country wanted to abolish DST they would have done so long ago. All the states could ban together tomorrow and say that they are going to stop observing DST. Of course that will never ever happen because it's a horrible idea. You really think people in Boston would favor 7:25PM sunsets during the summer over 8:25PM sunsets? By the end of the first inning at a Boston Red Sox game the sun would have already set.... by the 3rd inning it will be pitch dark out. You really think people in Chicago would want dawn to begin at 3:41AM as opposed to 4:41AM in the summer? Fifteen minutes after the Chicago bars close the sun would be rising.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:14:56 PM
In what city can a teenager wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time?
That's the whole point of the American Academy of Pediatrics study. They are arguing that early school start times (before 8:30AM) are a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep, as well as circadian rhythm disruption, of our nation's middle and high school students. The reason why kids can't wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time is because school start times are too damn early.
It's not practical to have school start times at or after 8:30 am when parents generally have to leave the house for work well before then.
Well, the obvious solution is that employers, schools, public transportation authorities, gyms, and coffee shops should all change their hours of operation. That's so much simpler than going through all the hassle of no longer changing our clocks twice a year.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
Well, the obvious solution is that employers, schools, public transportation authorities, gyms, and coffee shops should all change their hours of operation. That's so much simpler than going through all the hassle of no longer changing our clocks twice a year.
If we keep with the status quo, over the next 20 years people will change their clocks 40 times (and deal with sleep disruptions that a time change leads to). If we go to permanent DST in this county, people would adjust their schedules once as they get accustomed to living under permanent DST. What sounds simpler and less of a hassle... shifting 40 times over the next few decades or shifting your schedule just once? Never changing a clock again sounds simpler.
In the end, the European Union has vowed to get rid of the time changes. Assuming they are successful i see no scenario where America doesn't join them and get rid of the time changes as well. Really the debate is over. No time changes is coming to Europe and it's soon to follow in America.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 03:09:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
Well, the obvious solution is that employers, schools, public transportation authorities, gyms, and coffee shops should all change their hours of operation. That's so much simpler than going through all the hassle of no longer changing our clocks twice a year.
If we keep with the status quo, over the next 20 years people will change their clocks 40 times (and deal with sleep disruptions that a time change leads to). If we go to permanent DST in this county, people would adjust their schedules once as they get accustomed to living under permanent DST. What sounds simpler and less of a hassle... shifting 40 times over the next few decades or shifting your schedule just once? Never changing a clock again sounds simpler.
Sleep disruptions and clock changing already happen more than twice per year – the former when going east or west a significant distance, and the latter when adjusting the clock for being a few minutes ahead or behind, or when the power goes out.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 03:09:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
Well, the obvious solution is that employers, schools, public transportation authorities, gyms, and coffee shops should all change their hours of operation. That's so much simpler than going through all the hassle of no longer changing our clocks twice a year.
If we keep with the status quo, over the next 20 years people will change their clocks 40 times (and deal with sleep disruptions that a time change leads to). If we go to permanent DST in this county, people would adjust their schedules once as they get accustomed to living under permanent DST. What sounds simpler and less of a hassle... shifting 40 times over the next few decades or shifting your schedule just once? Never changing a clock again sounds simpler.
In the end, the European Union has vowed to get rid of the time changes. Assuming they are successful i see no scenario where America doesn't join them and get rid of the time changes as well. Really the debate is over. No time changes is coming to Europe and it's soon to follow in America.
I agree that we should stop changing our clocks twice a year. What you quoted was my sarcasm. I'm suggesting, however, that we abolish DST rather than implement permanent DST. Permanent DST just makes people more likely to have to get up before dawn, which is undesirable.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 03:16:50 PM
I agree that we should stop changing our clocks twice a year. What you quoted was my sarcasm. I'm suggesting, however, that we abolish DST rather than implement permanent DST. Permanent DST just makes people more likely to have to get up before dawn, which is undesirable.
Currently 96% of states prefer to observe DST in the summer over standard time (only Arizona and Hawaii opt out of DST). During the winter nobody seems happy. If DST is made permanent, people like yourself will complain that the sun rises too late. With the current setup, people complain that the sun sets too early. That isn't a fabrication - New England states have seriously debated changing to the Atlantic Time Zone so that the sun doesn't set too early during the winter months. Seeing that everyone seems miserable no matter what time setup is chosen during the winter, let's stick with what makes people happy during the summer... again 96% of states prefer Daylight Saving Time.
The other reason to choose permanent DST is that states would still have the option to opt out. With standard-time the only way states could change the sunrise/sunset times is if they successfully petition the federal government to change time-zones in their state (but that would require federal approval... a much messier process than a state just opting out of DST). If you seriously don't want to deal with biannual time changes, the only practical solution is permanent DST. Abolishing DST would create an onslaught of states petitioning the federal government to change time zones, and that would get very messy. Permanent DST = state choice. Abolishing DST = government control.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:14:56 PM
In what city can a teenager wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time?
I used to be able to (albeit just barely - and my alarm was always set for earlier than 8).
Granted, I went to a private school, and public schools tend to start significantly earlier.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PMThat's the whole point of the American Academy of Pediatrics study. They are arguing that early school start times (before 8:30AM) are a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep, as well as circadian rhythm disruption, of our nation's middle and high school students. The reason why kids can't wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time is because school start times are too damn early.
And, as the sun plays a major role in setting circadian rhythms, if it rose an hour later than now in winter when sunrises happen later (OK, because the clocks go back so late in fall, in some places it's late October that has latest sunrise), that time would move to 9am...
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 03, 2018, 02:46:44 PMIt's not practical to have school start times at or after 8:30 am when parents generally have to leave the house for work well before then.
We're talking teenagers, not kindergarteners!
Quote from: english si on October 03, 2018, 05:27:08 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PMThat's the whole point of the American Academy of Pediatrics study. They are arguing that early school start times (before 8:30AM) are a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep, as well as circadian rhythm disruption, of our nation's middle and high school students. The reason why kids can't wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time is because school start times are too damn early.
And, as the sun plays a major role in setting circadian rhythms, if it rose an hour later than now in winter when sunrises happen later (OK, because the clocks go back so late in fall, in some places it's late October that has latest sunrise), that time would move to 9am...
Teenagers in the most populous cities in the country who wake up at 8AM during the shortest day of the year would be waking up AFTER dawn has begun (that's assuming the country is on permanent DST). Dawn breaks, rooster crows, you get up... what's so unnatural about that? Of the 15 most populous cities in America, only teenagers in Columbus would be waking up before dawn on the shortest day of the year. So why would it be so much better for teenagers to wake up at 9AM if the country went to permanent DST?
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 06:07:14 PM
Dawn breaks, rooster crows, you get up... what's so unnatural about that?
You obviously haven't spent much time around roosters. :)
The whole premise of roosters crowing at the break of dawn is unnatural. Believe me, I
wish that's the way it were. They crow all ... freaking ... night ... long!
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 06:07:14 PM
Of the 15 most populous cities in America, only teenagers in Columbus would be waking up before dawn on the shortest day of the year.
Students waking up at 8 AM is completely unreasonable, even if classes didn't start till 8:30 AM. (Which, as has been mentioned, isn't very reasonable either because most parents start work by then.) Getting out of bed, having breakfast, getting cleaned up and dressed, gathering things, waiting at the bus stop, riding the bus to school–the morning routine takes longer than 30 minutes. You need to get it out of your head that dawn being before or after 8 AM matters, because it doesn't.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 06:07:14 PMDawn breaks, rooster crows, you get up... what's so unnatural about that?
Nothing's inherently unnatural about waking up at dawn (though "at the crack of dawn" is a phrase meaning really early that getting up then is an annoyance or an admirable achievement! refs: 1 (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/at-the-crack-of-dawn), 2 (http://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/get-up-at-the-crack-of-dawn), 3 (https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+the+crack+of+dawn)). Not that anyone was questioning this.
My point was simple:
- as you say - teenagers finding waking up at 8am difficult.
- This is because they need sleep post-dawn.
- You want to move these late dawns to an hour later by having year round DST.
- Therefore the time you gave for where they still find it difficult moves back an hour - ie 9am.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Quote from: english si on October 04, 2018, 10:50:30 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 06:07:14 PMDawn breaks, rooster crows, you get up... what's so unnatural about that?
Nothing's inherently unnatural about waking up at dawn (though "at the crack of dawn" is a phrase meaning really early that getting up then is an annoyance or an admirable achievement! refs: 1 (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/at-the-crack-of-dawn), 2 (http://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/get-up-at-the-crack-of-dawn), 3 (https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+the+crack+of+dawn)). Not that anyone was questioning this.
My point was simple:
- as you say - teenagers finding waking up at 8am difficult.
- This is because they need sleep post-dawn.
- You want to move these late dawns to an hour later by having year round DST.
- Therefore the time you gave for where they still find it difficult moves back an hour - ie 9am.
It's really not that hard to understand.
If teenagers need sleep post-dawn, then we should be moving clocks farther backwards, not forwards, so we can have dawn early enough that teenagers can have post-dawn sleep and still get to school by 8:30.
I've mostly heard that teens need 8 or 9 hours of sleep. They don't necessary need to be any certain time. If the kids went to bed at 9pm and woke up at 6am, they've gotten the sleep they need.
The issue arises when they're staying up till midnight or 1am on the phone, playing games on the computer, etc. Then yeah they need to wake up at 8am or later, but that's due to them staying up late the night before. If they stayed up till 3am playing games, an 8am wakeup call will still be early for them.
Abolishing DST is a half-assed solution. The real solution is to abolish time itself.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 06:07:14 PM
Dawn breaks, rooster crows, you get up... what's so unnatural about that?
Everything, for those of us who are true night owls and need at least some post-dawn sleep. Only a morning lark would think that moving dawn to when night owls wake up is a service to night owls.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 01:21:01 PM
I've mostly heard that teens need 8 or 9 hours of sleep. They don't necessary need to be any certain time. If the kids went to bed at 9pm and woke up at 6am, they've gotten the sleep they need.
The issue arises when they're staying up till midnight or 1am on the phone, playing games on the computer, etc. Then yeah they need to wake up at 8am or later, but that's due to them staying up late the night before. If they stayed up till 3am playing games, an 8am wakeup call will still be early for them.
Studies have shown that teenagers naturally shift to the night owl end of the spectrum, in addition to needing 9-9.5 hours of sleep each night.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
Abolishing DST is a half-assed solution. The real solution is to abolish time itself.
What if we just got rid of time
zones? Everyone use GMT.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 04:38:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
Abolishing DST is a half-assed solution. The real solution is to abolish time itself.
What if we just got rid of time zones? Everyone use GMT.
Discussed upthread. The serious downside I see is that some people (Hawaii, Australia, new zealand, to some extent even US west coast) would have
date change in the middle of the day
It makes a lot of sense to turn calendar while most people are asleep.
Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2018, 10:00:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 04:38:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
Abolishing DST is a half-assed solution. The real solution is to abolish time itself.
What if we just got rid of time zones? Everyone use GMT.
Discussed upthread. The serious downside I see is that some people (Hawaii, Australia, new zealand, to some extent even US west coast) would have date change in the middle of the day
It makes a lot of sense to turn calendar while most people are asleep.
There's also the problem of knowing if it's an appropriate time to contact someone, since 1400 could be in the middle of the night!
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 10:57:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2018, 10:00:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 04:38:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
Abolishing DST is a half-assed solution. The real solution is to abolish time itself.
What if we just got rid of time zones? Everyone use GMT.
Discussed upthread. The serious downside I see is that some people (Hawaii, Australia, new zealand, to some extent even US west coast) would have date change in the middle of the day
It makes a lot of sense to turn calendar while most people are asleep.
There's also the problem of knowing if it's an appropriate time to contact someone, since 1400 could be in the middle of the night!
In the day of e-mail and facebook this is only that big of an issue. Phone calls go either to relatives - and you likely know what is a good time to call (and phone is in mute for the night); or to businesses - and then worst case scenario is listening to "our customer service hours are 22 to 7 GMT" message.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:20:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM
...which is totally dependent on other factors.
If parents are really concerned about their children's well-being, then they should get them to bed on time.
I agree. If children and adults can get up at 6:00,
so can teenagers. I've also read that teens who have bedtimes before 22:00 are 20% less likely to be depressed or suicidal than those who didn't. And as someone who's been going to bed at 21:00 since I was 13, I can't say I disagree.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 03, 2018, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
This is why we shouldn't be artificially changing our clocks to make it be darker when children are getting up in the morning–which is exactly what DST does. Abolish DST.
Hawaii and Arizona has essentially abolished DST - since they don't observe it. Nothing is stopping the other 48 states from joining Hawaii and Arizona in running standard time year-round. The point is if the country wanted to abolish DST they would have done so long ago. All the states could ban together tomorrow and say that they are going to stop observing DST. Of course that will never ever happen because it's a horrible idea. You really think people in Boston would favor 7:25PM sunsets during the summer over 8:25PM sunsets? By the end of the first inning at a Boston Red Sox game the sun would have already set.... by the 3rd inning it will be pitch dark out. You really think people in Chicago would want dawn to begin at 3:41AM as opposed to 4:41AM in the summer? Fifteen minutes after the Chicago bars close the sun would be rising.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:14:56 PM
In what city can a teenager wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time?
That's the whole point of the American Academy of Pediatrics study. They are arguing that early school start times (before 8:30AM) are a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep, as well as circadian rhythm disruption, of our nation's middle and high school students. The reason why kids can't wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time is because school start times are too damn early.
It's not practical to have school start times at or after 8:30 am when parents generally have to leave the house for work well before then.
Another excellent counterpoint to these crazies. :)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 01:21:01 PM
I've mostly heard that teens need 8 or 9 hours of sleep. They don't necessary need to be any certain time. If the kids went to bed at 9pm and woke up at 6am, they've gotten the sleep they need.
The issue arises when they're staying up till midnight or 1am on the phone, playing games on the computer, etc. Then yeah they need to wake up at 8am or later, but that's due to them staying up late the night before. If they stayed up till 3am playing games, an 8am wakeup call will still be early for them.
Yup. I needed 7 at that age and had zero problems whatsoever with 21:00 to 5:00 (then again, even now I don't have a cellphone).
Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2018, 11:06:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 10:57:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2018, 10:00:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 04:38:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
Abolishing DST is a half-assed solution. The real solution is to abolish time itself.
What if we just got rid of time zones? Everyone use GMT.
Discussed upthread. The serious downside I see is that some people (Hawaii, Australia, new zealand, to some extent even US west coast) would have date change in the middle of the day
It makes a lot of sense to turn calendar while most people are asleep.
There's also the problem of knowing if it's an appropriate time to contact someone, since 1400 could be in the middle of the night!
In the day of e-mail and facebook this is only that big of an issue. Phone calls go either to relatives - and you likely know what is a good time to call (and phone is in mute for the night); or to businesses - and then worst case scenario is listening to "our customer service hours are 22 to 7 GMT" message.
Businesses have meetings and phone calls all the time. Looking up what time zone a place is in is a lot easier (and probably easier to remember) than remembering what hours every single place does business in. Most business at NYSDOT that isn't done in meetings is done over the phone.
Quote from: 20160805 on October 05, 2018, 08:26:28 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:20:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
they just seemed to conclude that culturally teenagers in this country don't go to bed till around 11PM
...which is totally dependent on other factors.
If parents are really concerned about their children's well-being, then they should get them to bed on time.
I agree. If children and adults can get up at 6:00, so can teenagers. I've also read that teens who have bedtimes before 22:00 are 20% less likely to be depressed or suicidal than those who didn't. And as someone who's been going to bed at 21:00 since I was 13, I can't say I disagree.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 03, 2018, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
This is why we shouldn't be artificially changing our clocks to make it be darker when children are getting up in the morning–which is exactly what DST does. Abolish DST.
Hawaii and Arizona has essentially abolished DST - since they don't observe it. Nothing is stopping the other 48 states from joining Hawaii and Arizona in running standard time year-round. The point is if the country wanted to abolish DST they would have done so long ago. All the states could ban together tomorrow and say that they are going to stop observing DST. Of course that will never ever happen because it's a horrible idea. You really think people in Boston would favor 7:25PM sunsets during the summer over 8:25PM sunsets? By the end of the first inning at a Boston Red Sox game the sun would have already set.... by the 3rd inning it will be pitch dark out. You really think people in Chicago would want dawn to begin at 3:41AM as opposed to 4:41AM in the summer? Fifteen minutes after the Chicago bars close the sun would be rising.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 02:14:56 PM
In what city can a teenager wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time?
That's the whole point of the American Academy of Pediatrics study. They are arguing that early school start times (before 8:30AM) are a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep, as well as circadian rhythm disruption, of our nation's middle and high school students. The reason why kids can't wake up at 8 AM and still make it to school on time is because school start times are too damn early.
It's not practical to have school start times at or after 8:30 am when parents generally have to leave the house for work well before then.
Another excellent counterpoint to these crazies. :)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 01:21:01 PM
I've mostly heard that teens need 8 or 9 hours of sleep. They don't necessary need to be any certain time. If the kids went to bed at 9pm and woke up at 6am, they've gotten the sleep they need.
The issue arises when they're staying up till midnight or 1am on the phone, playing games on the computer, etc. Then yeah they need to wake up at 8am or later, but that's due to them staying up late the night before. If they stayed up till 3am playing games, an 8am wakeup call will still be early for them.
Yup. I needed 7 at that age and had zero problems whatsoever with 21:00 to 5:00 (then again, even now I don't have a cellphone).
False.
http://theconversation.com/the-biological-reason-why-its-so-hard-for-teenagers-to-wake-up-early-for-school-88802
Quote from: 20160805 on October 05, 2018, 08:26:28 PMI've also read that teens who have bedtimes before 22:00 are 20% less likely to be depressed or suicidal than those who didn't.
Perhaps because their abnormal biology means that they aren't bullied by adults/society who think that regular teenage biology is some sort of moral failing?
QuoteAnd as someone who's been going to bed at 21:00 since I was 13, I can't say I disagree.
This is like saying "well I'm an Olympic Sprinter, so everyone can do a sub-10 second 100 metre dash".
You are an extreme outlier demanding that people match your experience.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 10:57:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2018, 10:00:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 04:38:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
Abolishing DST is a half-assed solution. The real solution is to abolish time itself.
What if we just got rid of time zones? Everyone use GMT.
Discussed upthread. The serious downside I see is that some people (Hawaii, Australia, new zealand, to some extent even US west coast) would have date change in the middle of the day
It makes a lot of sense to turn calendar while most people are asleep.
There's also the problem of knowing if it's an appropriate time to contact someone, since 1400 could be in the middle of the night!
If you abolish time, it's always an appropriate time to contact someone. It's also never an appropriate time to contact someone.
Abolishing time would also help engineers. Statics problems are much easier than dynamics problems.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 07, 2018, 09:46:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 10:57:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2018, 10:00:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 04:38:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
Abolishing DST is a half-assed solution. The real solution is to abolish time itself.
What if we just got rid of time zones? Everyone use GMT.
Discussed upthread. The serious downside I see is that some people (Hawaii, Australia, new zealand, to some extent even US west coast) would have date change in the middle of the day
It makes a lot of sense to turn calendar while most people are asleep.
There's also the problem of knowing if it's an appropriate time to contact someone, since 1400 could be in the middle of the night!
If you abolish time, it's always an appropriate time to contact someone. It's also never an appropriate time to contact someone.
You could always just say you didn't know any better.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 07, 2018, 09:46:25 AM
If you abolish time, it's always an appropriate time to contact someone. It's also never an appropriate time to contact someone.
Only in Alanland...
If we abolish time, we should abolish space as well. That way, we could get a fresh start for shape the universe as we would like :sombrero:.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 07, 2018, 04:29:30 PM
Only in Alanland...
must . . . . . resist . . . . the urge . . . . . . . . .
Who said it was hard to change a clock for DST? Apparently for Australian Apple Watch users it's not as easy as it sounds as the DST time change led to a bug causing their watches to crash. Supposedly Apple has released a software fix so that this bug won't affect users in other countries whose time change is just around the corner.
Some Apple Watch Series 4 models repeatedly crashing and rebooting due to daylight saving time bug
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/07/apple-watch-series-4-crash-loop-bug/
Quote from: tradephoric on October 12, 2018, 11:51:29 AM
Who said it was hard to change a clock for DST? Apparently for Australian Apple Watch users it's not as easy as it sounds as the DST time change led to a bug causing their watches to crash. Supposedly Apple has released a software fix so that this bug won't affect users in other countries whose time change is just around the corner.
Some Apple Watch Series 4 models repeatedly crashing and rebooting due to daylight saving time bug
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/07/apple-watch-series-4-crash-loop-bug/
Since you mentioned Australia, it might be a glitch that only happens with non-integer offsets (e.g. UTC+9½).
And/or it could be because Australia effectively goes from three time zones to five when they go on DST (not including the unofficial one), since only part of the country observes it.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 12, 2018, 11:51:29 AM
Who said it was hard to change a clock for DST? Apparently for Australian Apple Watch users it's not as easy as it sounds as the DST time change led to a bug causing their watches to crash. Supposedly Apple has released a software fix so that this bug won't affect users in other countries whose time change is just around the corner.
Some Apple Watch Series 4 models repeatedly crashing and rebooting due to daylight saving time bug
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/07/apple-watch-series-4-crash-loop-bug/
Our "atomic" clocks at work automatically adjust for the beginning and end of DST. Unfortunately, they use the
old start and end dates, so the time in the building is off by an hour for several weeks every year.
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 01:44:37 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 12, 2018, 11:51:29 AM
Who said it was hard to change a clock for DST? Apparently for Australian Apple Watch users it's not as easy as it sounds as the DST time change led to a bug causing their watches to crash. Supposedly Apple has released a software fix so that this bug won't affect users in other countries whose time change is just around the corner.
Some Apple Watch Series 4 models repeatedly crashing and rebooting due to daylight saving time bug
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/07/apple-watch-series-4-crash-loop-bug/
Our "atomic" clocks at work automatically adjust for the beginning and end of DST. Unfortunately, they use the old start and end dates, so the time in the building is off by an hour for several weeks every year.
My old VCR was the same way. Fortunately, there was a no-DST option to avoid this.
Quote from: mrsman on October 12, 2018, 02:23:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 01:44:37 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 12, 2018, 11:51:29 AM
Who said it was hard to change a clock for DST? Apparently for Australian Apple Watch users it's not as easy as it sounds as the DST time change led to a bug causing their watches to crash. Supposedly Apple has released a software fix so that this bug won't affect users in other countries whose time change is just around the corner.
Some Apple Watch Series 4 models repeatedly crashing and rebooting due to daylight saving time bug
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/07/apple-watch-series-4-crash-loop-bug/
Our "atomic" clocks at work automatically adjust for the beginning and end of DST. Unfortunately, they use the old start and end dates, so the time in the building is off by an hour for several weeks every year.
My old VCR was the same way. Fortunately, there was a no-DST option to avoid this.
But then it wouldn't change at all . . ???
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 03:23:56 PM
But then it wouldn't change at all . . ???
Presumably he would set it manually like a normal clock (or just remember to set the timer an hour off for half the year).
Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2018, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 03:23:56 PM
But then it wouldn't change at all . . ???
Presumably he would set it manually like a normal clock (or just remember to set the timer an hour off for half the year).
Ah. Well that wouldn't do me much good, when the clocks at work are mounted high enough to require a ladder to change them.
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2018, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 03:23:56 PM
But then it wouldn't change at all . . ???
Presumably he would set it manually like a normal clock (or just remember to set the timer an hour off for half the year).
Ah. Well that wouldn't do me much good, when the clocks at work are mounted high enough to require a ladder to change them.
I thought this was in reference to mrsman's VCR?
Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2018, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2018, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 03:23:56 PM
But then it wouldn't change at all . . ???
Presumably he would set it manually like a normal clock (or just remember to set the timer an hour off for half the year).
Ah. Well that wouldn't do me much good, when the clocks at work are mounted high enough to require a ladder to change them.
I thought this was in reference to mrsman's VCR?
Yes the auto DST function was great until DST was changed by Congress. Since then, the manual settings are necessary twice a year.
Most modern clocks that automatically change (like cell phones) do so by coordinating with the NIST radio signal in Fort Collins. No setting necessary.
https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/radio-stations/wwvb/help-wwvb-radio-controlled-clocks
Most of the clocks I have at home, except the VCR, microwaves, and wristwatches are coordinated with this.
Barrow, Alaska (population ~ 5000) is the northernmost city in the United States and the sun doesn't rise for 65 straight days during the winter. Considering the extreme weather conditions the residents of Barrow experience each winter, the idea that people in the Continental United States wouldn't be able to adapt to hour later sunrises in the winter is pretty ludicrous.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 14, 2018, 02:03:29 PM
Barrow, Alaska (population ~ 5000) is the northernmost city in the United States and the sun doesn't rise for 65 straight days during the winter. Considering the extreme weather conditions the residents of Barrow experience each winter, the idea that people in the Continental United States wouldn't be able to adapt to hour later sunrises in the winter is pretty ludicrous.
That's pretty poor arguing.
The Maasai people eat almost nothing but meat, milk, and blood. Two-thirds of their caloric intake is fat. Yet they have low rates of heart disease, and they tend to have low blood pressure and low cholesterol. Considering that, then, everybody in the world should be able to easily adapt to not eating any vegetables.
Quote from: kphoger on October 14, 2018, 04:24:11 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 14, 2018, 02:03:29 PM
Barrow, Alaska (population ~ 5000) is the northernmost city in the United States and the sun doesn't rise for 65 straight days during the winter. Considering the extreme weather conditions the residents of Barrow experience each winter, the idea that people in the Continental United States wouldn't be able to adapt to hour later sunrises in the winter is pretty ludicrous.
That's pretty poor arguing.
The Maasai people eat almost nothing but meat, milk, and blood. Two-thirds of their caloric intake is fat. Yet they have low rates of heart disease, and they tend to have low blood pressure and low cholesterol. Considering that, then, everybody in the world should be able to easily adapt to not eating any vegetables.
Barrow is just one example of many cities that are within the Arctic Circle. It's estimated that 4 million people live in the Arctic Circle with 307,257 inhabitants in Murmansk, Russia alone. Now if you consider the population that lives above 60th parallel north, the population expands dramatically. There are at least 17 cities with a population of over 100,000 that lie above 60th parallel north:
Helsinki, Finland 626,305 (2015)
Arkhangelsk, Russia 350,985 (2013)
Murmansk, Russia 307,257 (2010)
Anchorage, Alaska, USA 300,950 (2013)
Bergen, Norway 277,378 (2015)
Yakutsk, Russia 269,601 (2010)
Espoo, Finland 267,906 (2015)
Turku, Finland 252,468 (2015)
Tampere, Finland 223,238 (2015)
Vantaa, Finland 212,473 (2015)
Oulu, Finland 196,828 (2015)
Trondheim, Norway 183,960 (2014)
Norilsk, Russia 175,365 (2010)
Jyvaskyla, Finland 135,591 (2015)
Reykavik, Iceland 121,822 (2014)
Kuipio, Finland 110,999 (2015)
Lahti, Finland 103,725 (2015)
Obviously DST does very little for these citizens as at that latitude the sun is only visible for 5 hours and 52 minutes during the December solstice. There's just so little sun it doesn't matter what you do. Yet many people on this thread have argued that we shouldn't have DST during the winter because you want the sun to be out when people wake up. But imagine if we tinkered with the clocks so that the sun was up by 7AM in Helsinki. With 7AM sunrises, the sun would be setting in Helsinki at 12:52PM. Is that really better than the current 9:22AM sunrise and 3:13PM sunset that Helsinki observes during the winter solstice? Dark winter mornings in northern latitudes should be expected.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 14, 2018, 08:40:06 PMDark winter mornings in northern latitudes should be expected.
People do indeed live with late sun rises due to northern latitudes, but not without costs to their wellbeing - more suicide, more alcoholism, more depression, etc. So putting more people on darker winter mornings, and thus increasing* mental health issues, needs to have good justification. That hasn't been given!
*one of the reasons why these things increase by latitude is the later winter dawn - as shown by studies looking at the differences within timezones, the trials of year-round DST, etc.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 14, 2018, 02:03:29 PM
Barrow, Alaska (population ~ 5000) is the northernmost city in the United States and the sun doesn't rise for 65 straight days during the winter. Considering the extreme weather conditions the residents of Barrow experience each winter, the idea that people in the Continental United States wouldn't be able to adapt to hour later sunrises in the winter is pretty ludicrous.
People can adapt--that isn't the question. The question is whether or not people should be forced to adapt unnecessarily.
I get that there are points far enough north that you can't avoid very late sunrises for parts of the year. This is about artificially forcing late sunrises on places that aren't that far north.
As far as I'm concerned, time zone placement nor DST usage should force a sunrise to be after 8am on any day that has 9 or more hours of sunlight. Having sunrise after 8am on days with 11+ hours of sunlight is just obscene.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 15, 2018, 09:42:08 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 14, 2018, 02:03:29 PM
Barrow, Alaska (population ~ 5000) is the northernmost city in the United States and the sun doesn't rise for 65 straight days during the winter. Considering the extreme weather conditions the residents of Barrow experience each winter, the idea that people in the Continental United States wouldn't be able to adapt to hour later sunrises in the winter is pretty ludicrous.
People can adapt--that isn't the question. The question is whether or not people should be forced to adapt unnecessarily.
For example, they shouldn't be forced to adapt to twice a year schedule shakeup.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 15, 2018, 09:42:08 AM
I get that there are points far enough north that you can't avoid very late sunrises for parts of the year. This is about artificially forcing late sunrises on places that aren't that far north.
As far as I'm concerned, time zone placement nor DST usage should force a sunrise to be after 8am on any day that has 9 or more hours of sunlight. Having sunrise after 8am on days with 11+ hours of sunlight is just obscene.
Sunrse at 8 and 11 hour sunlight means that solar noon is somewhere around 1.30 pm, that is active DST and a western edge of time zone.
8 AM sunrize and 9 hours of sunlight means noon is about 12.30, which is either western edge of time zone without DST or eastern edge with DST.
Now, that also means 5 PM sunset - and someone will be unhappy about that as well.
Quote from: english si on October 15, 2018, 07:07:01 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 14, 2018, 08:40:06 PMDark winter mornings in northern latitudes should be expected.
People do indeed live with late sun rises due to northern latitudes, but not without costs to their wellbeing - more suicide, more alcoholism, more depression, etc. So putting more people on darker winter mornings, and thus increasing* mental health issues, needs to have good justification. That hasn't been given!
*one of the reasons why these things increase by latitude is the later winter dawn - as shown by studies looking at the differences within timezones, the trials of year-round DST, etc.
While permanent DST would lead to hour later sunrises in the morning, it would also lead to hour later sunsets in the evening. Assuming Americans wake up between 5AM and 8AM, it's undeniable that permanent DST would maximize the waking hours of daylight during the winter. How would increasing the waking hours of daylight Americans receive increase mental health issues? A good justification has been given to go to permanent DST... it would maximize Americans waking hours of daylight.
Ultimately, if you wake up at 5AM and go to bed at 9PM (ie. the early bird in the chart below), you are going to wake up and go to bed in darkness. Permanent DST wouldn't change the waking hours of daylight they receive, it would just shift it to be weighted more to the evening hours. But not everyone is waking up at 5AM. If you routinely wake up at 8AM, you would likely be waking up in daylight and get to enjoy an extra hour of daylight during the evening - a big WIN/WIN (of the top 20 metro regions, only night owls in Atlanta, Detroit, Seattle, and Minneapolis would be waking up in darkness).
Quote from: tradephoric on May 01, 2018, 04:51:47 PM
I put together a list of dawn/dusk times for the top 20 metro regions in America. I wanted to consider the lighting effects that winter DST would have on early birds (wake at 05:00, go to bed at 21:00) and night owls (wake at 08:00, go to bed at midnight). Running DST during the winter greatly minimizes the total minutes Awake in Darkness (AID) and the minutes Sleeping in Light (SIL) compared to standard time.
(https://i.imgur.com/bNDzuPH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/YiicpCs.png)
*The early bird in all 20 metro regions is never sleeping in light (SIL) regardless if it's running DST or Standard time. OTOH, night owls are sleeping in light (SIL) in all 20 metro regions when running Standard time during the winter.
*Detroit would experience the latest dawn out of the top 20 metro regions if the nation observed DST during the winter. The dawn would begin in Detroit at 8:26AM.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 15, 2018, 10:47:00 AM
While permanent DST would lead to hour later sunrises in the morning, it would also lead to hour later sunsets in the evening. Assuming Americans wake up between 5AM and 8AM, it's undeniable that permanent DST would maximize the waking hours of daylight during the winter.
You can also argue that it is mostly about sunlight during morning routine. Many people work in windowless rooms these days, so sunshine during work hours is of little use to them.
you really cannot please everyone, though.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 15, 2018, 10:47:00 AM
maximize the waking hours of daylight
vdeane already said that the human circadian rhythm does not work that way.
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 15, 2018, 09:42:08 AM
People can adapt--that isn't the question. The question is whether or not people should be forced to adapt unnecessarily.
For example, they shouldn't be forced to adapt to twice a year schedule shakeup.
That's an argument for 100 years ago, or parts of Indiana a few years ago. Unless you lived somewhere without DST, you are not adapting to a twice a year schedule shakeup as you've always had it.
Sure, getting rid of a twice a year schedule shakeup is a reasonable reason to ditch the clock changes, but does it outweigh the problems that the status quo tries to deal with? It getting dark too early and wanting later light to do outdoor activities (hence DST), but not having enough to take it from the morning in winter without causing health problems (hence DST is only in summer).
Quote from: tradephoric on October 15, 2018, 10:47:00 AMHow would increasing the waking hours of daylight Americans receive increase mental health issues?
Because, to do that, you are stealing the sleeping hours of daylight at that are needed for circadian rhythms, exacerbating the problems of social jetlag and late dawns that have causal relationships with increased mental health issues...
Quote from: english si on October 15, 2018, 12:00:56 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 15, 2018, 09:42:08 AM
People can adapt--that isn't the question. The question is whether or not people should be forced to adapt unnecessarily.
For example, they shouldn't be forced to adapt to twice a year schedule shakeup.
That's an argument for 100 years ago, or parts of Indiana a few years ago. Unless you lived somewhere without DST, you are not adapting to a twice a year schedule shakeup as you've always had it.
Sure, getting rid of a twice a year schedule shakeup is a reasonable reason to ditch the clock changes, but does it outweigh the problems that the status quo tries to deal with? It getting dark too early and wanting later light to do outdoor activities (hence DST), but not having enough to take it from the morning in winter without causing health problems (hence DST is only in summer).
(don't take it personally, this is just the style of an old teacher from my childhood). So imagine someone is punching you in a belly twice a day. You should adapt to that by now, shouldn't you? So there is no reason to change anything or call it abuse, right?
There is such a wide discrepancy of when people wake up in the morning that you can't say one way or another what method would be more beneficial. For someone who routinely wakes up at 5AM, they might not like permanent DST during the winter since they would be waking up in pitch darkness. Of course, even under standard time if you wake up at 5AM during the winter solstice you are almost certainly waking up in pitch darkness. So there's really no difference. At the end of the day if you wake up at 5AM during the winter you are going to be miserable... it's probably going to be dark and cold out... suck it up buttercup.
Now for someone who routinely wake up later in the morning, then there's a lot of benefit to permanent DST during the winter. For people waking up at 8AM in the nation's top 20 largest metro regions, only residents of Atlanta, Detroit, Seattle, and Minneapolis would be waking up in pitch dark (and at worse it would only be pitch dark for 26 minutes if you are a resident of Detroit). Not only would most 8AM risers wake up when it's already light out, they get to enjoy an extra hour of sunlight in the evenings. Who here has never slept in till 8AM during the weekends? Even if your work week sucks, at least your weekends can suck a little bit less if the nation went to permanent Daylight Saving Time.
Quote from: english si on October 15, 2018, 12:00:56 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 15, 2018, 10:47:00 AMHow would increasing the waking hours of daylight Americans receive increase mental health issues?
Because, to do that, you are stealing the sleeping hours of daylight at that are needed for circadian rhythms, exacerbating the problems of social jetlag and late dawns that have causal relationships with increased mental health issues...
Nobody needs sleeping hours of daylight before they wake up. Plenty of people wake up at 5AM during the winter when it's already pitch dark out. Should we adjust the clocks so it's light out by 4AM for those earlier risers to ensure they get a full hour of daylight before they wake up to help with their circadian rhythms? Maybe you should push for negative DST during the winter. But good luck with that proposal... the sun would be setting in Boston by lunch time during the winter.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 15, 2018, 10:47:00 AM
Ultimately, if you wake up at 5AM and go to bed at 9PM (ie. the early bird in the chart below), you are going to wake up and go to bed in darkness.
Not everyone waking up early is an early bird. I wake up at 6 on weekdays. I'm an extreme night owl, but I wake up at 6 because of when I have to be at work.
Quote
If you routinely wake up at 8AM
...you don't have a regular office job. Sure, some computer programmers and service workers work odd hours, but the rest of us have to be in at the time our employer dictates, regardless of circadian rhythm.
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 10:58:38 AM
Many people work in windowless rooms these days, so sunshine during work hours is of little use to them.
This, I suspect, is the reason for current pushes for permanent DST. Honestly, though, windowless workplaces should be banned.
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 15, 2018, 09:42:08 AM
People can adapt--that isn't the question. The question is whether or not people should be forced to adapt unnecessarily.
For example, they shouldn't be forced to adapt to twice a year schedule shakeup.
I actually find it easier to adapt to the time changes than to waking up in darkness. The former happens and then I'm adjusted, but I need to continually adjust to the latter every single day.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 15, 2018, 12:19:01 PM
Nobody needs sleeping hours of daylight before they wake up. Plenty of people wake up at 5AM during the winter when it's already pitch dark out. Should we adjust the clocks so it's light out by 4AM for those earlier risers to ensure they get a full hour of daylight before they wake up to help with their circadian rhythms? Maybe you should push for negative DST during the winter. But good luck with that proposal... the sun would be setting in Boston by lunch time during the winter.
If nobody needed sleeping hours of daylight, Starbucks wouldn't be in business. The reason they are is because our current way of living is not natural, and is largely a product of the industrial revolution (but also the agricultural revolution to some extent). Waking up before dawn isn't how things are meant to be, it's what has been forced on us by employers. People try to compensate for waking up too early by drinking lots of caffeine, but really, that's not good for one's health either.
Quote from: vdeane on October 15, 2018, 12:48:26 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 10:58:38 AM
Many people work in windowless rooms these days, so sunshine during work hours is of little use to them.
This, I suspect, is the reason for current pushes for permanent DST. Honestly, though, windowless workplaces should be banned.
Pretty much impossible in many cases. Large production floor or warehouse. Production may actually be affected by sporadic sunlight.. Not to mention that it is easier to build large building so that a lot of areas are well inside.
Quote from: vdeane on October 15, 2018, 12:48:26 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 15, 2018, 09:42:08 AM
People can adapt--that isn't the question. The question is whether or not people should be forced to adapt unnecessarily.
For example, they shouldn't be forced to adapt to twice a year schedule shakeup.
I actually find it easier to adapt to the time changes than to waking up in darkness. The former happens and then I'm adjusted, but I need to continually adjust to the latter every single day.
Well, we can say that most people wake up within 5-8AM window. Your complains are sort of specific for yor timing, those who wake up an hour earlier still have darkness when it is comfortable for you, those who wake up later - the other way around. It is really difficult to please everyone if you have only that much resources (daylight)
Yes, different time zone in winter would cater better to a different subset of population; but abolition of change would help everyone...
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 12:15:37 PMSo imagine someone is punching you in a belly twice a day. You should adapt to that by now, shouldn't you? So there is no reason to change anything or call it abuse, right?
I said not wanting the twice a year timeshift is a valid reason to seek a change the status quo. I'm merely saying it's not a change we're making you adapt to - it's the status quo that others, long dead, made others (also long dead) adapt to.
I'm not even demanding you put up with it (and I don't think any of the other anti-year-round-DST people are). I don't like people being punched in the belly twice a day, but the solution being promoted by most of those against twice-daily belly punches is kicking people in the nuts every few minutes for a couple of hours each and every day instead - clearly not an improvement in the general good!
The standard response in this thread to those of us not wanting to be daily kicked in the nuts repeatedly is a constant refrain (mostly from Trad, but others chip in on occasion) of "deal with it" and "adapt", which is not going to endear us to the proposal, but make us decrease our sympathy towards people being belly punched twice a day.
Quote from: english si on October 15, 2018, 01:28:19 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 12:15:37 PMSo imagine someone is punching you in a belly twice a day. You should adapt to that by now, shouldn't you? So there is no reason to change anything or call it abuse, right?
I said not wanting the twice a year timeshift is a valid reason to seek a change the status quo. I'm merely saying it's not a change we're making you adapt to - it's the status quo that others, long dead, made others (also long dead) adapt to.
I'm not even demanding you put up with it (and I don't think any of the other anti-year-round-DST people are). I don't like people being punched in the belly twice a day, but the solution being promoted by most of those against twice-daily belly punches is kicking people in the nuts every few minutes for a couple of hours each and every day instead - clearly not an improvement in the general good!
The standard response in this thread to those of us not wanting to be daily kicked in the nuts repeatedly is a constant refrain (mostly from Trad, but others chip in on occasion) of "deal with it" and "adapt", which is not going to endear us to the proposal, but make us decrease our sympathy towards people being belly punched twice a day.
An interesting dilemma - how can we talk about status quo, if that status quo changes twice a year? :meh:
And actually I am not pro/against year round DST. I am just for fixed time, DST or not. If anything, I think a shift of time zones (aka eastern parts of time zones going to DST while western parts keeping non-DST) may be a good idea. Since time zone boundaries are already have little resemblance to meridians they supposed to be drawn at, the idea is not as crazy as it sounds.
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 10:58:38 AM
You can also argue that it is mostly about sunlight during morning routine. Many people work in windowless rooms these days, so sunshine during work hours is of little use to them.
you really cannot please everyone, though.
This.
I work in a windowless room, and I have for most of my working life–either in a warehouse or an interior office. If I'm going to be getting off work in the dark regardless of when sunset is, then I sure as heck am not going to want my hour of sunlight stolen from me in the morning!
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 01:41:30 PMAn interesting dilemma - how can we talk about status quo, if that status quo changes twice a year? :meh:
The status quo is that the clocks change twice a year - that's very simple.
I think you can easily convince people that that is wrong, but you'll struggle to convince people on a specific time to lock into all year - hence why the status quo continues.
QuoteAnd actually I am not pro/against year round DST. I am just for fixed time, DST or not.
That's fine, just that the issue that you reacted to a reaction to wasn't getting rid of clock changes, but having DST in winter.
Quote from: english si on October 15, 2018, 02:32:41 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2018, 01:41:30 PMAn interesting dilemma - how can we talk about status quo, if that status quo changes twice a year? :meh:
The status quo is that the clocks change twice a year - that's very simple.
Pardon me being pedantic, but status quo for me is a EDT time (US eastern time, DST enabled) aka GMT-04. I don't know how you can call "status quo" and explicit change via switching to EST, aka GMT-5 due in a few weeks.
:popcorn:
[/quote]
Quote
QuoteAnd actually I am not pro/against year round DST. I am just for fixed time, DST or not.
That's fine, just that the issue that you reacted to a reaction to wasn't getting rid of clock changes, but having DST in winter.
Oh, but that reaction was a reaction to an original reaction to suggestion of abolishing practice of adjusting clocks... Or maybe there was one or two reactions in between, but I really just wanted to clearly state my position on the subject once again. I hope you can now tell where I am coming from.
The new question is not, will this thread will continue until DST ends for the year (just three more weeks!), but rather, will we will reach 2018 replies before the year is out. :bigass: :popcorn:
pardon me for not rereading 45 pages of this, but is your life really that dramatically affected by this or is it just a minor inconvenience being blown all the way to hell?
Seems the problem is that in the winter, we can't both wake up and get off work in daylight so the debate is which one are we more willing to live without. Maybe you guys need a "winter" home in Sydney or Rio.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 15, 2018, 12:19:01 PM
There is such a wide discrepancy of when people wake up in the morning that you can't say one way or another what method would be more beneficial. For someone who routinely wakes up at 5AM, they might not like permanent DST during the winter since they would be waking up in pitch darkness. Of course, even under standard time if you wake up at 5AM during the winter solstice you are almost certainly waking up in pitch darkness. So there's really no difference. At the end of the day if you wake up at 5AM during the winter you are going to be miserable... it's probably going to be dark and cold out... suck it up buttercup.
Now for someone who routinely wake up later in the morning, then there's a lot of benefit to permanent DST during the winter. For people waking up at 8AM in the nation's top 20 largest metro regions, only residents of Atlanta, Detroit, Seattle, and Minneapolis would be waking up in pitch dark (and at worse it would only be pitch dark for 26 minutes if you are a resident of Detroit). Not only would most 8AM risers wake up when it's already light out, they get to enjoy an extra hour of sunlight in the evenings. Who here has never slept in till 8AM during the weekends? Even if your work week sucks, at least your weekends can suck a little bit less if the nation went to permanent Daylight Saving Time.
And indeed, as an Atlanta resident who doesn't wake up especially early (7 AM) but is nevertheless
already attempting, with varying success, to wake up in pitch darkness in mid-October, I will continue to be adamantly against this ridiculous proposal.
Quote from: webny99 on October 15, 2018, 04:22:43 PM
The new question is not, will this thread will continue until DST ends for the year (just three more weeks!), but rather, will we will reach 2018 replies before the year is out. :bigass: :popcorn:
And people said the Alanland thread got old :pan:
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2018, 03:44:02 AM
Quote from: webny99 on October 15, 2018, 04:22:43 PM
The new question is not, will this thread will continue until DST ends for the year (just three more weeks!), but rather, will we will reach 2018 replies before the year is out. :bigass: :popcorn:
And people said the Alanland thread got old :pan:
At least that one was enjoyable.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 19, 2018, 05:03:04 PM
pardon me for not rereading 45 pages of this, but is your life really that dramatically affected by this or is it just a minor inconvenience being blown all the way to hell?
Seems the problem is that in the winter, we can’t both wake up and get off work in daylight so the debate is which one are we more willing to live without. Maybe you guys need a “winter” home in Sydney or Rio.
This has long been my position. It is one thing to try to shift something desirable for more convenient utilization. Like
EXTRA daylight in the summertime. From about the end of September to the First of April, there isn't a whole lot of EXTRA daylight to save. Extension of DST into November is a Commie Plot (probably the KGB). You can't switch a useful commodity and magically make more of it. When you only have 10 hours of full daylight, You can't get up, do a 45 minute commute, work an 8-hour day, take a 1-hour lunch, and do the 45-minute commute again in the 10 hours (much less have anything left over for whatever you find desirable). It takes 10.5 hours to do all of that. There is no magic to be had.. Give me 14 hours and jacking around the 3.5 surplus hours (with even some longer twilight) can be accomplished through other means.
The stats show that DST's original intent, saving of energy, works less than 1% under modern circumstances. Extension beyond the End of March to the Beginning of October doesn't even accomplish *ANY* savings and is actually detrimental to the cause. In addition, the worst day for traffic accidents is the Monday Morning after the switch
ONTO DST. Extension into daylight deprived months is a lose-lose. An
energy cost
AND a
lives cost.
I would prefer to remain on standard time all year, as they do in Japan and Korea. If we are to have DST, I would like it confined to about 4 months in mid-summer as they do (or did) in Brazil. If we are to have half the year in DST, I would prefer that it be roughly equinox-to-equinox (in the US Late March to Late September) as they do in EU.
You can't save that which you don't have!
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 19, 2018, 05:03:04 PM
pardon me for not rereading 45 pages of this, but is your life really that dramatically affected by this or is it just a minor inconvenience being blown all the way to hell?
Quote from: Eth on October 19, 2018, 09:41:29 PM
already attempting, with varying success, to wake up in pitch darkness in mid-October
Yeah, come over to my house and tell my kids, whose alarm clock goes off
in the dark at 7:06 AM, who stumble out of bed like zombies and crash in a fetal position on the couch–that they just need to suck it up, it's just a minor inconvenience
every damned day for a month or two every year.
Quote from: michravera on October 22, 2018, 10:33:02 AM
The stats show that DST's original intent, saving of energy, works less than 1% under modern circumstances. Extension beyond the End of March to the Beginning of October doesn't even accomplish *ANY* savings and is actually detrimental to the cause....
But there does appear to be energy savings when DST is extended into daylight deprived months. After Bush extended DST in 2005, the Department of Energy studied the impacts of extended Daylight Saving Time on national energy consumption. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended the duration of Daylight Saving Time in the spring by changing its start date from the first Sunday in April to the second Sunday in March, and in the fall by changing its end date from the last Sunday in October to the first Sunday in November. A report was released to Congress in October 2008 that concluded "the total electricity savings of Extended Daylight Saving Time were about 1.3 Tera Watt-hour (TWh). This corresponds to 0.5 per cent per each day of Extended Daylight Saving Time."
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/epact_sec_110_edst_report_to_congress_2008.pdf
Even if DST doesn't reduce energy consumption during the hot summer months, not many people are begging to get rid of it because people enjoy more sunshine during their summer evenings. Just try to convince the 20.3 people living in the NYC MSA that the sun setting at 7:31PM during the longest day of the year is preferable to the sun setting at 8:31PM. And for the benefit of having a 7:31PM sunset, the residents of NYC would get to enjoy dawn beginning at 3:51AM running standard time (when the vast majority of NYC residents are up apparently?). This is mainly conceptual, but this is a rough idea of the potential energy savings Daylight Saving Time provide by month (ie. negative energy savings during the hot summer months but positive savings during the cold winter months compared to standard time).
(https://i.imgur.com/HKkHuCe.png)
Quote from: tradephoric on October 22, 2018, 02:40:53 PM
people enjoy more sunshine during their summer evenings.
Not people who are trying to get a baby or toddler to bed on time, they don't. Try sleep-training a child when bedtime is fully light outside.
^I'm just suggesting we poll the 20.3 million people living in the largest metropolitan area in this country and see if they would prefer a summer sunset of 7:31PM or 8:31PM. There are plenty of young couples with babies living in NYC too. But you really think the 7:31PM sunset would win out in that poll? Not a chance in hell... especially considering how early the sun would rise running standard time during the summer.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 22, 2018, 03:08:26 PM
^I'm just suggesting we poll the 20.3 million people living in the largest metropolitan area in this country and see if they would prefer a summer sunset of 7:31PM or 8:31PM. There are plenty of young couples with babies living in NYC too. But you really think the 7:31PM sunset would win out in that poll? Not a chance in hell... especially considering how early the sun would rise running standard time during the summer.
I never said it would win out in a poll in any given city. Obviously, parents with babies would be a minority in the poll. And even within that subset, there are plenty of parents who don't care if their babies get a full night's sleep or not (meaning they're putting their babies to bed at 10 PM anyway).
Quote from: tradephoric on October 22, 2018, 02:40:53 PM
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/epact_sec_110_edst_report_to_congress_2008.pdf
Frankly speaking, I have hard time believing their numbers.
If you look at Fig. 2-1 on page 3 - basically the key graph for conclusions - they discuss a period of 5-9 PM and 6-7 AM as regions with most effect. They do not consider relative growth of consumption in 9 PM-2AM window, which should approximately negate any PM savings. Not sure what is the reason for that, maybe it is systematic effect of year-to-year change. But the way numbers are manipulated doesn't make me comfortable with conclusions.
Frankly speaking, there is only that much statistics and extracting effect below noise pattern is quite difficult...
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2018, 03:19:35 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 22, 2018, 03:08:26 PM
^I'm just suggesting we poll the 20.3 million people living in the largest metropolitan area in this country and see if they would prefer a summer sunset of 7:31PM or 8:31PM. There are plenty of young couples with babies living in NYC too. But you really think the 7:31PM sunset would win out in that poll? Not a chance in hell... especially considering how early the sun would rise running standard time during the summer.
I never said it would win out in a poll in any given city. Obviously, parents with babies would be a minority in the poll. And even within that subset, there are plenty of parents who don't care if their babies get a full night's sleep or not (meaning they're putting their babies to bed at 10 PM anyway).
Not to mention that you'd have a summer sunrise at 4:15 AM. Bars in NYC would be closing just before sunrise. To most, 4:15 is the middle of the night.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 02:28:56 PM
Fifteen minutes after the Chicago bars close the sun would be rising.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2018, 04:24:18 PM
Bars in NYC would be closing just before sunrise.
Red herring is back on the menu.
Quote from: michravera on October 22, 2018, 10:33:02 AMI would prefer that it be roughly equinox-to-equinox (in the US Late March to Late September) as they do in EU.
If only we did - we don't change back until Sunday - a whole month too late.
It's little coincidence that the number of people stating they are a little tired or a bit under-the-weather when I ask them how they are in October is always about a third of the year's total. I know anecdote is not the singular of data, but next week people will be a little less gloomy.
---
Re: bars closing just before the sun rises - whatever happened to the idea of partying the night away?
I gather that, even with the relatively strict licencing laws that were in place at the time, you could go into a club in Aberdeen after the pubs had kicked out and it be before sunset, then leave when the club when it closed and it be after sunrise.
As I've said several times already, I have both really early and really late sunrises here. Neither is great, but the early ones aren't anywhere near as annoying as the late ones. Though the same with sunsets - early sunsets and late sunsets are both annoying, but late sunsets are less annoying.
Sunrise was after 7:15 this morning. If DST had not been imposed it would have happened just after 6:15 and I wouldn't have unnecessarily have gotten up in the dark and left in pre-dawn minimal brightness.
The sunset for Hartford, CT on Sunday was 6:00 PM even. I'll remember that come November 4th!
Much of Europe sets their clocks back this Sunday the 28th.
Yeah, mid-October would be a really good time for DST to end. October mornings are very challenging. Also, Halloween should occur after DST ends.
Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2018, 09:19:33 AM
Yeah, mid-October would be a really good time for DST to end. October mornings are very challenging. Also, Halloween should occur after DST ends.
Mid-October mornings would be especially challenging if there was a time change to deal with. A recent study found that there was a 11% increase in in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes during the transition from summer time to standard time. OTOH, no increases in unipolar depressive episodes were seen when transitioning from standard time to summer time.
QuoteDaylight Savings Time Transitions and the Incidence Rate of Unipolar Depressive Episodes
https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2017/05000/Daylight_Savings_Time_Transitions_and_the.7.aspx
Background: Daylight savings time transitions affect approximately 1.6 billion people worldwide. Prior studies have documented associations between daylight savings time transitions and adverse health outcomes, but it remains unknown whether they also cause an increase in the incidence rate of depressive episodes. This seems likely because daylight savings time transitions affect circadian rhythms, which are implicated in the etiology of depressive disorder. Therefore, we investigated the effects of daylight savings time transitions on the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes.
Methods: Using time series intervention analysis of nationwide data from the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register from 1995 to 2012, we compared the observed trend in the incidence rate of hospital contacts for unipolar depressive episodes after the transitions to and from summer time to the predicted trend in the incidence rate.
Results: The analyses were based on 185,419 hospital contacts for unipolar depression and showed that the transition from summer time to standard time were associated with an 11% increase (95% CI = 7%, 15%) in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes that dissipated over approximately 10 weeks. The transition from standard time to summer time was not associated with a parallel change in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes.
Conclusion: This study shows that the transition from summer time to standard time was associated with an increase in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes. Distress associated with the sudden advancement of sunset, marking the coming of a long period of short days, may explain this finding. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B179.
Below is the most interesting paragraphs of the study to me. Any potential benefits of having more sunlight in the morning when transitioning from summer time to standard time was offset by the phychological effect of the sudden loss of sunlight in the evening.
QuoteThe fall daylight savings time transition thus entails increased exposure to sunlight in the morning and decreased exposure to sunlight in the evening. As depression can be treated effectively by bright light therapy in the morning, especially in individuals with a phase-delayed circadian misalignment, who are overrepresented among those with unipolar depression, we would expect increased exposure to sunlight in the morning to decrease the incidence of unipolar depressive episodes. Instead, we observed the opposite and can therefore rule out this explanation.
This observation means that other mechanisms than those outlined above must be at play to explain the increased incidence in unipolar depressive episodes at the transition from summer time to standard time. One possible explanation is that the sudden advancement of sunset from 6 pm to 5 pm (Figure 4), which in Denmark marks the coming of a long period of very short days, has a negative psychological impact on individuals prone to depression, and pushes them over the threshold to develop manifest depression. Furthermore, individuals having previously developed depression in the winter (as part of seasonal affective disorder) may perceive the transition from summer time to standard time as an omen of a new depression to come, which could have a depressogenic effect in itself. Some may argue that we should then observe an opposite effect, that is, a reduction in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes, at the transition from standard time to summer time in the spring. However, the absence of such an effect could be explained by a valence-specific cognitive bias (i.e., an inclination to focus on negative events or emotions rather than positive ones), which is a well-known feature of unipolar depression.
The strange thing I've noticed is that we set our clocks ahead much closer to the vernal equinox than we set our clocks back after the autumnal equinox. If we were to balance it out, we would either have to set our clocks back either the last Sunday in September or the first Sunday in October. Or, we would have to set our clocks ahead the first or second Sunday in February. Of course, the first Sunday would never fly because you'd be combining it with Super Bowl Sunday. But I wouldn't mind going DST in mid February, as February is such a dull, depressing month once the Super Bowl is over; that extra hour of daylight would be a spirit booster.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 24, 2018, 02:59:31 AMBut I wouldn't mind going DST in mid February, as February is such a dull, depressing month once the Super Bowl is over; that extra hour of daylight would be a spirit booster.
Yes, because DST magically slows the earth's rotation to give you more daylight. :pan:
I still don't understand how "noon should be close to midday" is contestable. Sunrise here is currently 4.8 hours before 12:00, while sunset is 6.7 hours after 12:00. That just bothers me in general. The sun should be at its highest point close to 12:00.
Heck, if nobody cares about morning sunlight and wants extra daylight in the evening, then.... Let's assume people wake up at 6:30 AM and go to bed at 10:30 PM, and let's work with 14 hours of daylight in one of the warmer months. Then let's just change the clocks so the sun rises at 8 AM and sets at 10 PM. Everyone should be SUPER happy then.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 11:38:19 AM
I still don't understand how "noon should be close to midday" is contestable. Sunrise here is currently 4.8 hours before solar noon, while sunset is 6.7 hours after solar noon. That just bothers me in general. The sun should be at its highest point close to 12:00.
The obvious argument: Most people are awake at 8 PM. Most people are not awake at 4 AM.
However, this does
not necessarily mean that the sun should follow the same times as when people are awake (see vdeane's responses about circadian rhythm).
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 11:38:19 AM
I still don't understand how "noon should be close to midday" is contestable. Sunrise here is currently 4.8 hours before solar noon, while sunset is 6.7 hours after solar noon. That just bothers me in general. The sun should be at its highest point close to 12:00.
Why should it be that way? I see zero reasons, and I advocate solar noon (as in highest position of the sun), at 1-2 PM as a most convenient timing. That is permanent DST, after all.
BTW, make sure you use "solar noon" properly, it is not the same as 12.00 noon on the clock.
Quote from: 1 on October 24, 2018, 11:42:49 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 11:38:19 AM
I still don't understand how "noon should be close to midday" is contestable. Sunrise here is currently 4.8 hours before solar noon, while sunset is 6.7 hours after solar noon. That just bothers me in general. The sun should be at its highest point close to 12:00.
The obvious argument: Most people are awake at 8 PM. Most people are not awake at 4 AM.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the sun should follow the same times as when people are awake (see vdeane's responses about circadian rhythm).
I agree that the sun should not follow the same times as when people are awake, because doing so would assume we all sleep an average of 12 hours per day.
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 11:38:19 AM
I still don't understand how "noon should be close to midday" is contestable. Sunrise here is currently 4.8 hours before 12:00, while sunset is 6.7 hours after 12:00. That just bothers me in general. The sun should be at its highest point close to 12:00.
Why should it be that way? I see zero reasons, and I advocate solar noon (as in highest position of the sun), at 1-2 PM as a most convenient timing. That is permanent DST, after all.
BTW, make sure you use "solar noon" properly, it is not the same as 12.00 noon on the clock.
Because that's the way it was developed. It's the whole reason we even
have phrases like "high noon" and "solar noon". Hell, it's even where we get the terms "AM" and "PM". (And yes, I mis-typed. I've corrected the "solar noon" thing in my post.)
Quote from: 1 on October 24, 2018, 11:42:49 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 11:38:19 AM
I still don't understand how "noon should be close to midday" is contestable. Sunrise here is currently 4.8 hours before solar noon, while sunset is 6.7 hours after solar noon. That just bothers me in general. The sun should be at its highest point close to 12:00.
The obvious argument: Most people are awake at 8 PM. Most people are not awake at 4 AM.
Assuming a typical schedule of waking up at 6AM and going to bed at 11PM, that person would have finished half of their waking day at about 2:30PM. Shifting the typical schedule an hour earlier (5AM wake up/10PM go to bed), then half the day would be at 1:30PM. Cultural "half day point" lining up with the sun being at its highest point doesn't seem totally unreasonable.
Quote from: 1 on October 24, 2018, 11:42:49 AM
However, this does not necessarily mean that the sun should follow the same times as when people are awake (see vdeane's responses about circadian rhythm).
A recent study analyzing 185,419 hospital contacts for unipolar depression found that there was a 11% increase in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes during the transition from summer time to standard time. Even as sunlight is shifted to the morning after the fall time change, there was a spike in depression (presumably because the sunset was suddenly an hour earlier... just as people are ready to relax after coming home from school/work it's already pitch dark out). This study goes against conventional wisdom (IE. vdeane's responses).
QuoteThe fall daylight savings time transition thus entails increased exposure to sunlight in the morning and decreased exposure to sunlight in the evening. As depression can be treated effectively by bright light therapy in the morning, especially in individuals with a phase-delayed circadian misalignment, who are overrepresented among those with unipolar depression, we would expect increased exposure to sunlight in the morning to decrease the incidence of unipolar depressive episodes. Instead, we observed the opposite
https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2017/05000/Daylight_Savings_Time_Transitions_and_the.7.aspx
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 12:54:55 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 11:38:19 AM
I still don't understand how "noon should be close to midday" is contestable. Sunrise here is currently 4.8 hours before 12:00, while sunset is 6.7 hours after 12:00. That just bothers me in general. The sun should be at its highest point close to 12:00.
Why should it be that way? I see zero reasons, and I advocate solar noon (as in highest position of the sun), at 1-2 PM as a most convenient timing. That is permanent DST, after all.
BTW, make sure you use "solar noon" properly, it is not the same as 12.00 noon on the clock.
Because that's the way it was developed. It's the whole reason we even have phrases like "high noon" and "solar noon". Hell, it's even where we get the terms "AM" and "PM". (And yes, I mis-typed. I've corrected the "solar noon" thing in my post.)
So what? Things were developed in funny ways, but it doesn't affect how we use them today. Thursday is now longer the day of the god Thor, for one - and October is no longer the eighth month of a year....
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 01:19:57 PM
So what? Things were developed in funny ways, but it doesn't affect how we use them today.
It makes about as much sense as shifting our temperature scale by 10° because people get hot at around 90° instead of 100°.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 01:19:57 PM
So what? Things were developed in funny ways, but it doesn't affect how we use them today.
It makes about as much sense as shifting our temperature scale by 10° because people get hot at around 90° instead of 100°.
I agree that starting working day at 7, having wakeup time at 5 and bedtime of 9-10 PM is a better option. But if we cannot make people go to bed at 9, we have to make sure clocks read 11 PM at 9...
And yes, the shift should be by 32 deg, with a unit scaled by a factor of 0.555
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 01:19:57 PM
So what? Things were developed in funny ways, but it doesn't affect how we use them today.
It makes about as much sense as shifting our temperature scale by 10° because people get hot at around 90° instead of 100°.
I agree that starting working day at 7, having wakeup time at 5 and bedtime of 9-10 PM is a better option. But if we cannot make people go to bed at 9, we have to make sure clocks read 11 PM at 9...
And now we're back to Benjamin Franklin's parody again...
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2017, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: Benjamin Franklin: "An Economical Project," as a letter to the editor of the Journal of Paris, 1784
(1) Let a tax be laid of a louis per window, on every window that is provided with shutters to keep out the light of the sun.
(2) Let ... guards be placed in the shops of the wax and tallow chandlers, and no family be permitted to be supplied with more than one pound of candles per week.
(3) Let guards also be posted to stop all the coaches, &c. that would pass the streets after sunset, except those of physicians, surgeons, and midwives.
(4) Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing; and if that is not sufficient?, let cannon be fired in every street, to wake the sluggards effectually, and make them open their eyes to see their true interest.
All the difficulty will be in the first two or three days; after which the reformation will be as natural and easy as the present irregularity; for, ce n'est que le premier pas qui coûte. Oblige a man to rise at four in the morning, and it is more than probable he will go willingly to bed at eight in the evening; and, having had eight hours sleep, he will rise more willingly at four in the morning following.
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
And yes, the shift should be by 32 deg, with a unit scaled by a factor of 0.555
I see what you did there, and I knew you'd do it, and it's not at all what I said.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2018, 01:16:54 PM
A recent study analyzing 185,419 hospital contacts for unipolar depression found that there was a 11% increase in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes during the transition from summer time to standard time. Even as sunlight is shifted to the morning after the fall time change, there was a spike in depression (presumably because the sunset was suddenly an hour earlier... just as people are ready to relax after coming home from school/work it's already pitch dark out). This study goes against conventional wisdom (IE. vdeane's responses).
I'd be curious about comparing the last week of February/second week of October (which have similar daylight lengths, just offset about 40 minutes from each other due DST and the tilt of the Earth) as a way to compare typical conditions in each period in about as close to an apples to apples comparison as one can get. That way the findings wouldn't be affected by the sudden jolt around DST.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 01:52:23 PM
I see what you did there, and I knew you'd do it, and it's not at all what I said.
What we are talking about is adjustment of general population daily schedule with respect to solar cycle. Clock is an
instrument of synchronizing these individual schedules with each other and astronomy (sun position), nothing more.
Moreover, use of this tool did change over time, from each city having its own time to time zones with uniform time to DST - all of these degrading your "solar noon at 12.01 PM" approach, but allowing better schedule synch and presumably convenient alignment of solar cycle to... lets call it business cycle of human life.
So I don't see anything wrong with further degradation of "solar noon sets clock" concept - as long as modern requirements to clock settings (synch of schedule for many people across the globe and
convenient - not numerically precise - alignment of solar cycle) are achieved.
I am pretty sure that 12=noon concept was largely independent on everyday life of most population back when it was used, as people worked sunrise to sunset in the field and whistle to whistle in most factories....
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 02:32:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 01:52:23 PM
I see what you did there, and I knew you'd do it, and it's not at all what I said.
What we are talking about is adjustment of general population daily schedule with respect to solar cycle. Clock is an instrument of synchronizing these individual schedules with each other and astronomy (sun position), nothing more.
Moreover, use of this tool did change over time, from each city having its own time to time zones with uniform time to DST - all of these degrading your "solar noon at 12.01 PM" approach, but allowing better schedule synch and presumably convenient alignment of solar cycle to... lets call it business cycle of human life.
So I don't see anything wrong with further degradation of "solar noon sets clock" concept - as long as modern requirements to clock settings (synch of schedule for many people across the globe and convenient - not numerically precise - alignment of solar cycle) are achieved.
I am pretty sure that 12=noon concept was largely independent on everyday life of most population back when it was used, as people worked sunrise to sunset in the field and whistle to whistle in most factories....
What you quoted was a reply to your comment about temperature, not time.
But anyway... I have never suggested that our time spent awake should mirror the time the sun is up. You seem to think I'm advocating that 12:00 be the middle of our
waking hours, but that would be foolish. To me, common sense is that people should wake up and start their day when the sun comes up–then those with shorter work schedules will perhaps have some leisure time while the daylight lasts, whereas those with longer work schedules probably won't. And that reflects what you described about farmers (sunrise to sunset) and factory workers (16-hour shifts in the days before unions, although that may have required pre-dawn waking). While dairy farmers do get up before dawn because dairy farming robs you of ALL leisure time (their last milking is also late at night), grain farmers don't typically hit the hay (pun not intended, but I'll go with it) as soon as the sun sets. When the sun goes down, they come inside for supper and family time. I believe people naturally fare better with pre-bedtime darkness than with post-waking darkness.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 02:47:46 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 02:32:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 01:52:23 PM
I see what you did there, and I knew you'd do it, and it's not at all what I said.
What we are talking about is adjustment of general population daily schedule with respect to solar cycle. Clock is an instrument of synchronizing these individual schedules with each other and astronomy (sun position), nothing more.
Moreover, use of this tool did change over time, from each city having its own time to time zones with uniform time to DST - all of these degrading your "solar noon at 12.01 PM" approach, but allowing better schedule synch and presumably convenient alignment of solar cycle to... lets call it business cycle of human life.
So I don't see anything wrong with further degradation of "solar noon sets clock" concept - as long as modern requirements to clock settings (synch of schedule for many people across the globe and convenient - not numerically precise - alignment of solar cycle) are achieved.
I am pretty sure that 12=noon concept was largely independent on everyday life of most population back when it was used, as people worked sunrise to sunset in the field and whistle to whistle in most factories....
What you quoted was a reply to your comment about temperature, not time.
But anyway... I have never suggested that our time spent awake should mirror the time the sun is up. You seem to think I'm advocating that 12:00 be the middle of our waking hours, but that would be foolish. To me, common sense is that people should wake up and start their day when the sun comes up–then those with shorter work schedules will perhaps have some leisure time while the daylight lasts, whereas those with longer work schedules probably won't. And that reflects what you described about farmers (sunrise to sunset) and factory workers (16-hour shifts in the days before unions, although that may have required pre-dawn waking). While dairy farmers do get up before dawn because dairy farming robs you of ALL leisure time (their last milking is also late at night), grain farmers don't typically hit the hay (pun not intended, but I'll go with it) as soon as the sun sets. When the sun goes down, they come inside for supper and family time. I believe people naturally fare better with pre-bedtime darkness than with post-waking darkness.
I deleted last two lines before posting - I had a small rant that, unlike temperature, time of the day is a relative thing.
But anyway, we have 3 things to somehow align: sun (given by mother nature), clock (just a messenger - don't hit to hard) and a schedule your boss wants you to be available.
Your 21st century urban boss is acting, most likely, under assumption that while certain leeway may be possible, 8-5 with 1 hour brake is the well accepted default. Or something along those lines. Changing that perception is possible - and actually I advocate that upstream. But school districts are usually along same lines - sans leeway part. They may look at the sun - but only as a secondary message. THis is not farming, where cows and corn don't care about numbers on the clock - this is an office decision.
That leaves clock as the easiest part to tune. And now it is not two clock arms pointing up, but school district published bus schedule what determines when the sun better be at the top of the curve. ANd my perception is that in this context solar noon at 1.30 PM is the best bet. Better than noon at 12.01 PM. At least that number is negotiable.
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
8-5 with 1 hour brake is the well accepted default. Or something along those lines.
8 AM at the latest. I hardly know anyone who starts work later than 8:00, but a LOT who start before that. Assuming a start time of 8:00, a sunrise later than 7:00 (outside the dead of winter or northerly locations) should be avoided as it makes most people wake up before dawn.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
8-5 with 1 hour brake is the well accepted default. Or something along those lines.
8 AM at the latest. I hardly know anyone who starts work later than 8:00, but a LOT who start before that. Assuming a start time of 8:00, a sunrise later than 7:00 (outside the dead of winter or northerly locations) should be avoided as it makes most people wake up before dawn.
It doesn't change anything in a grand scheme of things, Moreover, seems like a regional preference. And even then, local government may recommend stretch out starting times for different groups just to ease traffic problem.
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:05:39 PM
And even then, local government may recommend stretch out starting times for different groups just to ease traffic problem.
Wait, what? The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2018, 01:56:47 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2018, 01:16:54 PM
A recent study analyzing 185,419 hospital contacts for unipolar depression found that there was a 11% increase in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes during the transition from summer time to standard time. Even as sunlight is shifted to the morning after the fall time change, there was a spike in depression (presumably because the sunset was suddenly an hour earlier... just as people are ready to relax after coming home from school/work it's already pitch dark out). This study goes against conventional wisdom (IE. vdeane's responses).
I'd be curious about comparing the last week of February/second week of October (which have similar daylight lengths, just offset about 40 minutes from each other due DST and the tilt of the Earth) as a way to compare typical conditions in each period in about as close to an apples to apples comparison as one can get. That way the findings wouldn't be affected by the sudden jolt around DST.
Right; the underlying point here is that daylight is
decreasing around the fall time change. I think
that has a lot more to do with the increase in cases of depression than the supposed "lost hour". In other words, the likelihood of a case of depression is unrelated to how the daylight is assigned on the clock - it
solely has to do with the
total amount of daylight, which happens to be shrinking at its fastest rate in October. Therefore, cases of depression ought to be at a low in the spring and a high in the autumn, DST or no DST, so that data point can't really be used one way or the other.
Quote from: webny99 on October 24, 2018, 04:33:52 PM
total amount of daylight, which happens to be shrinking at its fastest rate in October
September, actually. The amount of daylight change per day is greatest on the equinox.
Quote from: 1 on October 24, 2018, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 24, 2018, 04:33:52 PM
total amount of daylight, which happens to be shrinking at its fastest rate in October
September, actually. The amount of daylight change per day is greatest on the equinox.
Right, but the shrinking is the most meaningful/noticeable in October, because the total is
not only shrinking, it is also now adding up to less than 12 hours. That is to say, commutes and day to day activities that are done in daylight in August will
also be done in daylight in September, even though daylight is being lost at a faster rate. Come October, and commutes and other morning/evening activities start happening in the dark.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:05:39 PM
And even then, local government may recommend stretch out starting times for different groups just to ease traffic problem.
Wait, what? The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
At least here in NY that did happen. Large company wanted to realign 6 to 6 shift for some group of employers, but was told that it would place undue strain on traffic - and shift remained what it is.
I wouldn't be surprised if tax reduction (Payment In Leu Of Taxes = PILOT) agreements give local governments some leverage, and no larger business goes without one over here.
Incidentally, it is about roundabouts unable to handle extra traffic during rush hour.
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
At least here in NY that did happen. Large company wanted to realign 6 to 6 shift for some group of employers, but was told that it would place undue strain on traffic - and shift remained what it is.
In my opinion, that is a
huge overreach of government power.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
At least here in NY that did happen. Large company wanted to realign 6 to 6 shift for some group of employers, but was told that it would place undue strain on traffic - and shift remained what it is.
In my opinion, that is a huge overreach of government power.
Honestly speaking, I am not with you. There is definitely some public interest in stretching out commute and reducing peak traffic - hence reducing wait times. Maybe you live in the area where traffic not an issue; for me being able to commute outside peak hours saves maybe 1/2 to a full hour daily. And it has to be some entity with broader reach - either government or maybe chamber of commerce - which can coordinate that to some extent.
Company didn't really loose to much with 6-6 vs 7-7 shifts in round-the-clock operations. I can see other types of business, e.g. retail, to be more sensitive to the issue - but some types of retail are already regulated (alcohol, blue laws, etc).
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
At least here in NY that did happen. Large company wanted to realign 6 to 6 shift for some group of employers, but was told that it would place undue strain on traffic - and shift remained what it is.
In my opinion, that is a huge overreach of government power.
Sounds to me like the government strongly recommended it, and the employer went along. I don't have any problems with that. Now, if the government legislated or ordered such, then yes, Mr. Hoger is correct.
As for the depression thing, the Monday after DST ends is a jolt. Walking out of the office into fading daylight, having to use headlights to illuminate much/most of the drive, and having it be dark when you pull up at home is a sad thing. You can't see to pick up fallen limbs out of your yard, take the garbage down to the road, or even unload your car if you stopped at the store on the way home. And the most previous workday, you could.
I've said before that sunrise time doesn't affect me. It doesn't matter what time the sun comes up, I'm not getting up without the aid of an alarm. If not awakened by my bladder or some other factor, it's not unusual for me to sleep until 11 a.m. on days I don't have to get up. And I'm not exactly a night owl. Which means that I'm not going to do well to adjust my work schedule (it's an option I have available) to start the day at 7 after DST ends. My increasing difficulty in getting up and getting going in the mornings is at cross purposes with my desire to not end the day in darkness.
Guess I'll chip in my thoughts on DST.
I don't worry about it that much. I lose an hour, I gain an hour. It doesn't really impact me that much, and going to school in the dark is no problem. I have no idea why it's even considered a problem in the first place, but hey.
My perspective on DST will probably change when I get older and have a job with a commute, but that's my stance for now.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
At least here in NY that did happen. Large company wanted to realign 6 to 6 shift for some group of employers, but was told that it would place undue strain on traffic - and shift remained what it is.
In my opinion, that is a huge overreach of government power.
And you may be interested to see how things work in NY... One of local municipalities announced trick-or-treat hours (2-8 pm)... I am not sure if those are recommendation-only, or timing would be enforced, though.
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 09:05:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
At least here in NY that did happen. Large company wanted to realign 6 to 6 shift for some group of employers, but was told that it would place undue strain on traffic - and shift remained what it is.
In my opinion, that is a huge overreach of government power.
And you may be interested to see how things work in NY... One of local municipalities announced trick-or-treat hours (2-8 pm)... I am not sure if those are recommendation-only, or timing would be enforced, though.
Trick or treat hours are not unique to New York. First encountered that nonsense outside of DC. Actually, communities suggesting little kids go on the 30th instead of the 31st, too, come to think of it.
Just over the past 10 years, trick or treaters have diminished in number drastically around my home. All the rules are probably killing the fun thing off.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
8-5 with 1 hour brake is the well accepted default. Or something along those lines.
8 AM at the latest. I hardly know anyone who starts work later than 8:00, but a LOT who start before that. Assuming a start time of 8:00, a sunrise later than 7:00 (outside the dead of winter or northerly locations) should be avoided as it makes most people wake up before dawn.
Maybe that's a regional thing. For the past 20 year I've usually had to be in by 8:30 (although I sometimes get in somewhere between 8 and 8:30.)
Quote from: jon daly on October 24, 2018, 09:54:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
8-5 with 1 hour brake is the well accepted default. Or something along those lines.
8 AM at the latest. I hardly know anyone who starts work later than 8:00, but a LOT who start before that. Assuming a start time of 8:00, a sunrise later than 7:00 (outside the dead of winter or northerly locations) should be avoided as it makes most people wake up before dawn.
Maybe that's a regional thing. For the past 20 year I've usually had to be in by 8:30 (although I sometimes get in somewhere between 8 and 8:30.)
Maybe, but I start at 7:30, and I don't regard that as super early. I actually know more people with a 7:00 start time than an 8:00 start time. 8:30 seems kind of late.
So, yeah, I not only woke up and left for work in the dark this morning, I also
arrived in the dark. Sunrise on the last Saturday of DST isn't until 7:45, later than it is on the actual shortest day of the year.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
At least here in NY that did happen. Large company wanted to realign 6 to 6 shift for some group of employers, but was told that it would place undue strain on traffic - and shift remained what it is.
In my opinion, that is a huge overreach of government power.
When Amazon opened a warehouse in the Allentown, NJ area, it caused a huge congestion issue. While the government didn't regulate Amazon's working hours, it worked with the company to convince them to spread out the shifts to reduce congestion. That was fine, and succeeded in eliminating the massive congestion that had occurred.
Quote from: webny99 on October 24, 2018, 10:13:47 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 24, 2018, 09:54:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
8-5 with 1 hour brake is the well accepted default. Or something along those lines.
8 AM at the latest. I hardly know anyone who starts work later than 8:00, but a LOT who start before that. Assuming a start time of 8:00, a sunrise later than 7:00 (outside the dead of winter or northerly locations) should be avoided as it makes most people wake up before dawn.
Maybe that's a regional thing. For the past 20 year I've usually had to be in by 8:30 (although I sometimes get in somewhere between 8 and 8:30.)
Maybe, but I start at 7:30, and I don't regard that as super early. I actually know more people with a 7:00 start time than an 8:00 start time. 8:30 seems kind of late.
So, yeah, I not only woke up and left for work in the dark this morning, I also arrived in the dark. Sunrise on the last Saturday of DST isn't until 7:45, later than it is on the actual shortest day of the year.
It could also be an industry thing. I've worked in finance most of my adult life. The market doesn't close until 4. A few folks leave at 4, but 4:30 or 5 is much more common.
Quote from: jon daly on October 25, 2018, 06:35:13 AM
It could also be an industry thing. I've worked in finance most of my adult life. The market doesn't close until 4. A few folks leave at 4, but 4:30 or 5 is much more common.
It's also a corporate culture thing.
Most of my company's offices in the US see people trickle in between 8 and 9, and trickle out between 4 and 530.
I am a telecommuter on "self-managed time" (I don't have defined hours; just a charge to get the work done), and I end up working mostly 10-7.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
8-5 with 1 hour brake is the well accepted default. Or something along those lines.
8 AM at the latest. I hardly know anyone who starts work later than 8:00, but a LOT who start before that. Assuming a start time of 8:00, a sunrise later than 7:00 (outside the dead of winter or northerly locations) should be avoided as it makes most people wake up before dawn.
Unless you can say your roads are nearly empty at 8am when people are in work, there are thousands of people still commuting to work. Yes, there may be a few reasons why people are on the roads between 8 and 10am, but not thousands.
In my workplace, the majority of people start between 7:30 and 9:30, but there's some outliers that start around 7 or 10, and then of course there's those that just come in early or state late because they feel like it.
Quote from: Rothman on October 24, 2018, 09:30:00 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 09:05:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 04:14:40 PM
The government is going to tell private companies what time their employees should start work?
At least here in NY that did happen. Large company wanted to realign 6 to 6 shift for some group of employers, but was told that it would place undue strain on traffic - and shift remained what it is.
In my opinion, that is a huge overreach of government power.
And you may be interested to see how things work in NY... One of local municipalities announced trick-or-treat hours (2-8 pm)... I am not sure if those are recommendation-only, or timing would be enforced, though.
Trick or treat hours are not unique to New York. First encountered that nonsense outside of DC. Actually, communities suggesting little kids go on the 30th instead of the 31st, too, come to think of it.
Just over the past 10 years, trick or treaters have diminished in number drastically around my home. All the rules are probably killing the fun thing off.
Most municipal governments in Kentucky set trick-or-treat hours, typically from 6-8 p.m. It's more of a city thing than a county thing, however. When I was growing up, the tradition in one rural community was to trick-or-treat locally on the 30th, and then go to town (Beattyville) on the 31st to trick-or-treat there during their official hours.
Increasingly in these parts, when the 31st is on a Sunday or Wednesday, trick-or-treat is moved to the 30th so as not to conflict with church services.
I'm so glad to live in a city that has trick-or-treating ON HALLOWEED, and AFTER DARK. Shoot, howdy, I don't know if I could live in a place like Des Moines, which has it during daylight hours and not even on the 31st.
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2018, 03:24:31 PM
I'm so glad to live in a city that has trick-or-treating ON HALLOWEED, and AFTER DARK. Shoot, howdy, I don't know if I could live in a place like Des Moines, which has it during daylight hours and not even on the 31st.
Where I live, it gets dark partway through the two hours (I believe 5—7.)
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2018, 03:24:31 PM
HALLOWEED
Normally, I would not mix cannabis candy with normal candy. However, given that the phrase is
trick or treat, and it is a trick...
Quote from: 1 on October 25, 2018, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2018, 03:24:31 PM
I'm so glad to live in a city that has trick-or-treating ON HALLOWEED, and AFTER DARK. Shoot, howdy, I don't know if I could live in a place like Des Moines, which has it during daylight hours and not even on the 31st.
Where I live, it gets dark partway through the two hours (I believe 5—7.)
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2018, 03:24:31 PM
HALLOWEED
Normally, I would not mix cannabis candy with normal candy. However, given that the phrase is trick or treat, and it is a trick...
Most people start trick or treating at 4:20 that day.
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2018, 03:24:31 PM
I'm so glad to live in a city that has trick-or-treating ON HALLOWEED, and AFTER DARK. Shoot, howdy, I don't know if I could live in a place like Des Moines, which has it during daylight hours and not even on the 31st.
I think you'd need to live in Canada to celebrate Halloweed after dark.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 25, 2018, 09:37:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2018, 03:24:31 PM
I'm so glad to live in a city that has trick-or-treating ON HALLOWEED, and AFTER DARK. Shoot, howdy, I don't know if I could live in a place like Des Moines, which has it during daylight hours and not even on the 31st.
I think you'd need to live in Canada to celebrate Halloweed after dark.
Or one of many US states.
Or anywhere that doesn't have summer time at the end of October...
Quote from: english si on October 26, 2018, 05:04:17 AM
Or anywhere that doesn't have summer time at the end of October...
Canada is the only place in the Northern Hemisphere where Hollyweed is legal.
(A few US states have forgotten that federal law trumps state law.)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2018, 07:53:46 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 24, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
8-5 with 1 hour brake is the well accepted default. Or something along those lines.
8 AM at the latest. I hardly know anyone who starts work later than 8:00, but a LOT who start before that. Assuming a start time of 8:00, a sunrise later than 7:00 (outside the dead of winter or northerly locations) should be avoided as it makes most people wake up before dawn.
Unless you can say your roads are nearly empty at 8am when people are in work, there are thousands of people still commuting to work. Yes, there may be a few reasons why people are on the roads between 8 and 10am, but not thousands.
In my workplace, the majority of people start between 7:30 and 9:30, but there's some outliers that start around 7 or 10, and then of course there's those that just come in early or state late because they feel like it.
"Rush Hour" in the Bay Area goes from about 6:00 to 10:30 and from 15:00 to about 20:00. Our part-time HOV regulations go from 5:00 or 6:00 to 9:00 or 10:00 and from 15:00-18:00 or 19:00. Express Lanes are regulated from 5:00-20:00.
It is legendary at some Tech companies that some people barely make it into work in time for lunch. The serious traffic occurs near the top of the hour at which times meetings are scheduled. I used to schedule my morning meetings at 9:22 to help avoid such problems (it didn't work).
We never get kids at our door (Trick or Trunk seems to be more of a thing in southern New England.) So I have no idea when Halloween is legal here. But I do remember it being postponed by Superstorm Sandy one year and another storm a year or two before that.
Many NJ towns have curfews, generally about 8pm. Most people are going to trick-or-treat from 3pm to 8pm. Earlier and they're still in school, and people aren't home from work to hand out candy anyway.
In regards to trunk-or-treating...I thought the whole purpose was for groups of people THAT KNOW EACH OTHER to gather around and the kids go from one car to another to get candy. This year especially, it seems like people are just asking others on open, publicly accessible Facebook groups if they know of truck-or-treats they can go to, which seems to heavily defeat the safety purpose of them in the first place. And I'm sure some of these people have no interest in handing out candy...they just want more for their kids.
A number of communities are sponsoring public events in lieu of door-to-door visits. They encourage people to donate candy, or set up tables at these events, and there's often live entertainment. They don't outlaw door-to-door candy collecting, but they really promote the public events.
Wow, what a hoot! Who knew a simple typo could be so much fun?
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2018, 08:11:27 AM
Canada is the only place in the Northern Hemisphere where Hollyweed is legal.
(A few US states have forgotten that federal law trumps state law.)
México8% of North America by area
21% of North America by population
Marijuana possession up to 5 grams has been legal since 2009.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2018, 08:11:27 AM
(A few US states have forgotten that federal law trumps state law.)
Supremacy law is meaningless if the government doesn't enforce it. If they did strongly enforce it, the backlash would be insane.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2018, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2018, 08:11:27 AM
(A few US states have forgotten that federal law trumps state law.)
Supremacy law is meaningless if the government doesn't enforce it. If they did strongly enforce it, the backlash would be insane.
But that doesn't make a thing "legal."
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2018, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2018, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2018, 08:11:27 AM
(A few US states have forgotten that federal law trumps state law.)
Supremacy law is meaningless if the government doesn't enforce it. If they did strongly enforce it, the backlash would be insane.
But that doesn't make a thing "legal."
On paper.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 23, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
A recent study found that there was a 11% increase in in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes during the transition from summer time to standard time. OTOH, no increases in unipolar depressive episodes were seen when transitioning from standard time to summer time.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2018, 01:16:54 PM
A recent study analyzing 185,419 hospital contacts for unipolar depression found that there was a 11% increase in the incidence rate of unipolar depressive episodes during the transition from summer time to standard time. Even as sunlight is shifted to the morning after the fall time change, there was a spike in depression (presumably because the sunset was suddenly an hour earlier.
Eliminate DST, and there's no longer any transition at all. Problem solved.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 03, 2018, 06:07:14 PM
if the country went to permanent DST
Quote from: tradephoric on October 22, 2018, 03:08:26 PM
I'm just suggesting we poll the 20.3 million people living in the largest metropolitan area in this country and see if they would prefer a summer sunset of 7:31PM or 8:31PM.
I'm suggesting we poll the Kansas City metro area (2.2 million) and see if they would prefer a winter sunrise of 7:37 AM or 8:37 AM.
I'm suggesting we poll the Pittsburgh metro area (2.6 million) and see if they would prefer a winter sunrise of 7:43 AM or 8:43 AM.
I'm suggesting we poll both the Minneapolis metro area (3.6 million) and Salt Lake City metro area (1.1 million) and see if they would prefer a winter sunrise of 7:51 AM or 8:51 AM.
I'm suggesting we poll the Seattle metro area (3.9 million) and see if they would prefer a winter sunrise of 7:57 AM or 8:57 AM.
I'm suggesting we poll the Detroit metro area (4.2 million) and see if they would prefer a winter sunrise of 8:01 AM or 9:01 AM.
Et cetera.
Trick or treating rules are a thing?
Chambersburg doesn't really care about trick or treaters. I've seen people walking around my neighborhood as late as 9:30 or 10 o'clock at night. Here we start at sundown, which is usually around 6:30 to 7, so there's a generous three hours for going door to door.
Morocco suddenly announced today it will be staying on DST (GMT+1) and will not be turning its clocks back an hour on Sunday morning.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2018, 05:19:27 PMMorocco suddenly announced today it will be staying on DST (GMT+1) and will not be turning its clocks back an hour on Sunday morning.
Which, as an authoritarian state, doesn't give a crap about mental health or what people might think (before Trad claims it as a victory)
Okay, DST is ending in Europe tonight. As here I use the local time of wherever Big Rig Steve is now (currently it's Pacific as he's in Sacramento CA) but using the European DST rules it means it will be one hour behind for the next week. So once again and like it happened back in March I'll be setting my forum hour to Alaska time zone (i.e. Pacific without DST)! Note that I use this time when quoting hours, I have set the forum to display my actual time zone... with American DST rules (meaning it will display one hour ahead of my actual time for that same week).
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 27, 2018, 07:30:45 AM
Okay, DST is ending in Europe tonight. As here I use the local time of wherever Big Rig Steve is now (currently it's Pacific as he's in Sacramento CA) but using the European DST rules it means it will be one hour behind for the next week. So once again and like it happened back in March I'll be setting my forum hour to Alaska time zone (i.e. Pacific without DST)! Note that I use this time when quoting hours, I have set the forum to display my actual time zone... with American DST rules (meaning it will display one hour ahead of my actual time for that same week).
Good lord that seems like it would get confusing after a while. Why not pick one time zone and stick with it?
I used to stick with Eastern (or more precisely, six hours behind my actual time), but then I decided to spicy up my forum time :sombrero:.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 27, 2018, 05:24:42 PM
I used to stick with Eastern (or more precisely, six hours behind my actual time), but then I decided to spicy up my forum time :sombrero:.
As long as you can continue to make sense of it, more power to you.
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
As far as I understand, they are talking 70 MPH in 40 MPH zone. Was it so dark she couldn't see her speed on a dashboard?
I hesitate to go above +20 even on a highway...
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
As far as I understand, they are talking 70 MPH in 40 MPH zone. Was it so dark she couldn't see her speed on a dashboard?
I hesitate to go above +20 even on a highway...
None of the articles I've read mentioned speed as a factor, and speeding was not among the several charges listed. Not sure where you are seeing 70mph.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
This can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether,
but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
This can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether, but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
This accident can equally be used to argue that we should forego pickup trucks altogether. After all, it is definitely another unrelated factor
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
This can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether, but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
This accident can equally be used to argue that we should forego pickup trucks altogether. After all, it is definitely another unrelated factor
The difference in visibility between 58 minutes before dawn and 2 minutes after is most definitely related to vehicle accidents.
No, we should forgo accidents.
I thought of this thread immediately when I heard tell of the incident.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:39:15 AMNone of the articles I've read mentioned speed as a factor, and speeding was not among the several charges listed. Not sure where you are seeing 70mph.
It's dark, he can't see it...
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 12:03:18 PMThis can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether, but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
Europe is/was basically the Sunday after the solstice (last Sunday in March) to the ~5th Sunday after the solstice (last Sunday in October). The US+Canada go forward a couple of weeks earlier than that, and one week later. North America less lopsided than Europe but 2 before and 6 after (vs 1 after and 5 after) is still with an autumnal change a month later than the equivalent time for a vernal change.
And Halloween has only just started here (though we still have 5 minutes of Civil Twilight left, and night-proper isn't until 1830), because ancient/Catholic notions of 'eve' aren't the day before, but the sunset before, and the sun set 30 minutes ago at 1637 (sun rose at 0654). Though there's been three minutes while I looked that up and typed it out and dealt with the replies since stopping my post going through.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
This can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether, but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
This accident can equally be used to argue that we should forego pickup trucks altogether. After all, it is definitely another unrelated factor
The difference in visibility between 58 minutes before dawn and 2 minutes after is most definitely related to vehicle accidents.
For this to be the factor, someone would need to argue that school bus flashing lights are not visible in the darkness. My poker face is not good enough for that
Quote from: 1 on October 31, 2018, 12:54:32 PM
No, we should forgo accidents.
Humans are the root cause here.
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 02:02:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 31, 2018, 12:54:32 PM
No, we should forgo accidents.
Humans are the root cause here.
No, it couldn't have happened indoors–humans or not. We should forgo the outside world.
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 02:00:09 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
This can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether, but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
This accident can equally be used to argue that we should forego pickup trucks altogether. After all, it is definitely another unrelated factor
The difference in visibility between 58 minutes before dawn and 2 minutes after is most definitely related to vehicle accidents.
For this to be the factor, someone would need to argue that school bus flashing lights are not visible in the darkness. My poker face is not good enough for that
Coming around that curve, the kids would have come into view before the bus, and the kids would have been more visible in the light.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 02:11:46 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 02:00:09 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
This can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether, but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
This accident can equally be used to argue that we should forego pickup trucks altogether. After all, it is definitely another unrelated factor
The difference in visibility between 58 minutes before dawn and 2 minutes after is most definitely related to vehicle accidents.
For this to be the factor, someone would need to argue that school bus flashing lights are not visible in the darkness. My poker face is not good enough for that
Coming around that curve, the kids would have come into view before the bus, and the kids would have been more visible in the light.
I assume there's no corn left standing in the fields of Indiana this time of year, which leads me to believe the school bus lights should have been plenty visible–curve or no curve.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:39:15 AM
None of the articles I've read mentioned speed as a factor, and speeding was not among the several charges listed. Not sure where you are seeing 70mph.
I think I saw it somewhere, no more. My bad.
Quote from: kphoger on October 31, 2018, 02:15:30 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 02:11:46 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 02:00:09 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
This can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether, but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
This accident can equally be used to argue that we should forego pickup trucks altogether. After all, it is definitely another unrelated factor
The difference in visibility between 58 minutes before dawn and 2 minutes after is most definitely related to vehicle accidents.
For this to be the factor, someone would need to argue that school bus flashing lights are not visible in the darkness. My poker face is not good enough for that
Coming around that curve, the kids would have come into view before the bus, and the kids would have been more visible in the light.
I assume there's no corn left standing in the fields of Indiana this time of year, which leads me to believe the school bus lights should have been plenty visible–curve or no curve.
This section of road is tree lined. I've driven it 20+ times and it's a blind curve. Not absolving the driver of blame for the accident, but the kids definitely would have been visible sooner if it had been an hour lighter. Feel free to go drive the road and judge for yourself.
Fair enough.
(Plus, there's this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/kCVmmoZXD642), posted just ½ mile in advance of the scene of the accident.)
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 02:21:26 PM
This section of road is tree lined. I've driven it 20+ times and it's a blind curve. Not absolving the driver of blame for the accident, but the kids definitely would have been visible sooner if it had been an hour lighter. Feel free to go drive the road and judge for yourself.
As far as I can tell, pickup driver would see school bus lights before kids in their lane.
Assuming school bus is where it was during the accident, an oncoming driver does see oncoming lane first:
(https://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/2018-10/800-IndianaBusCrash-SantiagoFloresSouthBendTribuneViaAP.jpg)
I, too, thought of this thread, and figured someone would use this as their argument against DST. Of course, when the time changes next week, we'll have children getting off the school bus in the dark -- or we will in a week or two as the solstice draws nearer -- but I guess that's somehow different.
And since Halloween has been mentioned in this thread -- many communities in Kentucky changed their trick-or-treat hours and their public events from tonight (the 31st) to last night because of the weather forecast. High wind and heavy rain is predicted for tonight. It will be interesting to see if those fears bear out.
Morning rush has always been much more dense traffic-wise with everyone travelling in the same fairly narrow window, whereas school kids are typically the first part of the longer pm peak period. There's less traffic when kids return from school.
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
This can't necessarily be used to argue that we should forego DST altogether, but it can definitely be used to argue DST should end a few weeks sooner. It's dark enough in Upstate NY in late October... I can only imagine mornings 5+ hours west of me where sunrises are that much later. And it is very interesting that this happened within those few added weeks of DST.
This accident can equally be used to argue that we should forego pickup trucks altogether. After all, it is definitely another unrelated factor.
Hardly, as whether or not pickup trucks should be on the market is a settled matter and not an important, current, issue. There
is plenty of debate surrounding DST, however... so if one is looking to build an argument... :pan:
Frankly, this is absurd. People are blaming DST when they have no information on the incident. We do not know what the woman was doing or seeing yet at the time of the incident.
This is irresponsible on many fronts and a poor point of contention.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2018, 04:20:50 PM
I, too, thought of this thread, and figured someone would use this as their argument against DST. Of course, when the time changes next week, we'll have children getting off the school bus in the dark -- or we will in a week or two as the solstice draws nearer -- but I guess that's somehow different.
I sense sarcasm, but it should be pointed out that standard afternoon bus runs
never take place post-sunset, not even in the
eastern extremities of the time zones (Chicago, Boston), much less the western extremities such as Indiana. So yeah, it is somehow different; hardly even comparable, actually. Also, this:
Quote from: english si on October 31, 2018, 06:06:50 PM
Morning rush has always been much more dense traffic-wise with everyone travelling in the same fairly narrow window, whereas school kids are typically the first part of the longer pm peak period. There's less traffic when kids return from school.
I have wondered if anyone from Indiana (either living in the state or visiting frequently) is on this forum. Since the Eastern Time Zone section of Indiana was the most recent area of the US to adopt DST, I want to know their opinions on all of the state observing DST. Do they think all of the state (or most of the state) should have moved to Central Time back in 2006, or stuck with the old rules (Eastern Standard Time year round, no DST)? Or do they like the time zone as it is currently?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 07:50:55 PM
Frankly, this is absurd. People are blaming DST when they have no information on the incident. We do not know what the woman was doing or seeing yet at the time of the incident.
This is irresponsible on many fronts and a poor point of contention.
The point is that DST can be blamed without
any knowledge of the specifics. It was dark, when it could have been light, and that's all there is to it.
And these are the few weeks of the year when daylight could easily be realigned by ending DST earlier. This would prevent buses from picking up kids in the dark, which is dangerous, again, regardless of the specifics of the case in question. This just proves it. Even if darkness wasn't the only factor, it was undeniably
one of the factors.
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 07:50:55 PM
Frankly, this is absurd. People are blaming DST when they have no information on the incident. We do not know what the woman was doing or seeing yet at the time of the incident.
This is irresponsible on many fronts and a poor point of contention.
The point is that DST can be blamed without any knowledge of the specifics. It was dark, when it could have been light, and that's all there is to it.
No. It cannot. You take extra caution driving on a road like that in the dark exactly because of factors like wildlife on the road and such.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 31, 2018, 08:12:28 PM
I have wondered if anyone from Indiana (either living in the state or visiting frequently) is on this forum. Since the Eastern Time Zone section of Indiana was the most recent area of the US to adopt DST, I want to know their opinions on all of the state observing DST. Do they think all of the state (or most of the state) should have moved to Central Time back in 2006, or stuck with the old rules (Eastern Standard Time year round, no DST)? Or do they like the time zone as it is currently?
I remember it being weird going forward or back every time you crossed into Ohio as there was no time zone boundary there, and then other parts of the year you changed hours at Illinois. I can't speak for polls on the subject but my experience is that support for Central Time is substantial, but probably more in the western half than the eastern half. Southeast Indiana would likely want to stay on Eastern Time for Cincinnati and Louisville. Then there's Michigan above us, all of it on Eastern Time (except a few counties in the U.P.)
The question is which major city is more important: Chicago or New York? Geographically Central Time may be the best but until Michigan and Kentucky (the eastern half) opt to go to Central I think Indiana's position is the best it can be. I'm biased as I like Eastern time only because it seems to be the "privileged" time zone in this country. It's the timing of DST, and it's existence that's more of the problem.
But rest assure, many people do like Central time zone.
And as for the sad incident from Fulton County yesterday, our time zone discussion to me has little relevance if you ignore the flashing lights and stop sign from a school bus.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 07:50:55 PM
Frankly, this is absurd.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 08:28:10 PMfactors like wildlife on the road and such.
You got that right, and calling kids "wildlife" definitely takes the cake! :-D
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 09:15:27 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 07:50:55 PM
Frankly, this is absurd.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 08:28:10 PMfactors like wildlife on the road and such.
You got that right, and calling kids "wildlife" definitely takes the cake! :-D
Hitting wildlife is much more common than hitting kids. In NY, for example, it is 1 out of 70 drivers a year hits a deer, that translates into more than 50% probably throughout driving career.
And my first thought when I saw pictures of a car in school bus accident - damage was quite similar to what happened to our car when my wife met a deer on I-87. So it may pay off watching out for wildlife, it can be bad even if outcome of the accident is not newsworthy.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 31, 2018, 08:12:28 PM
I have wondered if anyone from Indiana (either living in the state or visiting frequently) is on this forum. Since the Eastern Time Zone section of Indiana was the most recent area of the US to adopt DST, I want to know their opinions on all of the state observing DST. Do they think all of the state (or most of the state) should have moved to Central Time back in 2006, or stuck with the old rules (Eastern Standard Time year round, no DST)? Or do they like the time zone as it is currently?
So it was very controversial back in 2006. The pro-DST group was thinking nationally and how difficult it was to do business with the state essentially being in different time zones during different parts of the year.
The anti-DST group was concerned about exactly what we have now, which is very skewed sunrise-sunset times. They were placated with the promise to look into moving from Eastern to Central, but in the bizarre system we have, the state government decides whether or not to observe DST but the Federal government decides your time zone, so that didn't get very far.
My personal preference would be that the entire country ditch DST and Indiana be on Eastern, but I think being one of only 2-3 states not observing DST causes too many problems, so given that I think the best option is for Indiana to be on Central with DST.
We will never know for sure if a change in time would have prevented this accident, but there is at least a chance that daylight could have. In any case, and 8:13-6:44 daylight window is very unnatural.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
If the nation went to permanent DST, this would pretty much force Indiana to abandon DST and join Arizona in running standard-time year round. Then this fatal bus crash in Indiana potentially doesn't happen right? So obviously anyone who is against permanent DST in this country is promoting death and destruction. Silly argument right? While pedestrian safety is a concern to consider when discussing the merits of Daylight Saving Time, citing one tragic event that happened in Indiana and citing it as a reason to do away with DST is more emotional than rational. But since you are the one that cited this specific case in Indiana, i can argue that going to permanent DST in this country could have prevented this fatal crash (since Indiana would very likely choose to run standard time year-round if DST was made permanent).
Quote from: tradephoric on November 01, 2018, 10:26:18 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 31, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/NTSB-team-heading-to-scene-of--499126381.html
This accident happened yesterday on a state highway in Indiana, at 7:15 am. If Indiana was on Central Time like it should be (or if it didn't observe DST or DST ended earlier), sunrise would have been at 7:13 instead of 8:13 and maybe this doesn't happen, but hey, the adults want to enjoy that hour of sunlight from 5:44 pm to 6:44 pm instead so that's how it is.
If the nation went to permanent DST, this would pretty much force Indiana to abandon DST and join Arizona in running standard-time year round. Then this fatal bus crash in Indiana potentially doesn't happen right? So obviously anyone who is against permanent DST in this country is promoting death and destruction. Silly argument right? While pedestrian safety is a concern to consider when discussing the merits of Daylight Saving Time, citing one tragic event that happened in Indiana and citing it as a reason to do away with DST is more emotional than rational. But since you are the one that cited this specific case in Indiana, i can argue that going to permanent DST in this country could have prevented this fatal crash (since Indiana would very likely choose to run standard time year-round if DST was made permanent).
Year-round DST is essentially moving your time zone one to the east and not having DST. So if the country instituted permanent DST and moved Indiana to Central Time to compensate then that's fine. Staying in the time zone you're in and adding permanent DST on top creates more of the late sunrises referenced in this accident.
Looking at the numbers... 75% of pedestrians accidents happen in the dark. BUt then, significant number of those are between 9 PM and 3 AM during summer months,
most seasonal effects are 6-9 PM in winter, with significantly smaller growth during morning hours. So year-round DST may be most pedestrian-friendly option.
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 01, 2018, 10:56:01 AM
Year-round DST is essentially moving your time zone one to the east and not having DST. So if the country instituted permanent DST and moved Indiana to Central Time to compensate then that's fine. Staying in the time zone you're in and adding permanent DST on top creates more of the late sunrises referenced in this accident.
Indiana being on Central Time observing DST year-round would lead to the same sunrise/sunset times as Indiana being on the Eastern Time observing standard time year-round. States have always had the option to opt out of DST as part of the Uniform Time Act of 1966. My point is if DST was made permanent in this country, Indiana would very likely opt out of DST and there would have been an hour earlier sunrise on that October morning when those 3 children were killed.
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 08:04:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2018, 04:20:50 PM
I, too, thought of this thread, and figured someone would use this as their argument against DST. Of course, when the time changes next week, we'll have children getting off the school bus in the dark -- or we will in a week or two as the solstice draws nearer -- but I guess that's somehow different.
I sense sarcasm, but it should be pointed out that standard afternoon bus runs never take place post-sunset, not even in the eastern extremities of the time zones (Chicago, Boston), much less the western extremities such as Indiana.
That may be true in more densely-populated areas with several schools, but in some large rural counties with consolidated schools, it's not the case. We have instances in rural Kentucky where some kids have to ride a bus for 90 minutes or longer, and if school lets out at 3 and they're not getting home until around 5, in some of those narrow valleys, it's going to be dark when they get off the bus.
Quote from: tdindy88 on October 31, 2018, 08:36:48 PM...but until Michigan and Kentucky (the eastern half) opt to go to Central...
I pray to God that doesn't happen, and will fight it with everything I have in me if it's ever proposed for Kentucky. I'm not a fan of Central time, and am even less of a fan this time of the year when it starts getting darker earlier, and especially after DST ends. You're looking at it being dark around 4:30 or 5 in the easternmost CST counties.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 07:50:55 PM
Frankly, this is absurd. People are blaming DST when they have no information on the incident. We do not know what the woman was doing or seeing yet at the time of the incident.
This is irresponsible on many fronts and a poor point of contention.
The point is that DST can be blamed without any knowledge of the specifics. It was dark, when it could have been light, and that's all there is to it.
No. It cannot. You take extra caution driving on a road like that in the dark exactly because of factors like wildlife on the road and such.
Not to mention that, at least in my experience, a big flashing beacon on top of a bus is much more noticeable
after dark than it is while it's light outside. Think about how you can tell an oncoming car is
going to crest a hill when you're driving at night–because you can see the glow from the headlights even before you can see any part of the vehicle.
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2018, 12:14:43 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 31, 2018, 07:50:55 PM
Frankly, this is absurd. People are blaming DST when they have no information on the incident. We do not know what the woman was doing or seeing yet at the time of the incident.
This is irresponsible on many fronts and a poor point of contention.
The point is that DST can be blamed without any knowledge of the specifics. It was dark, when it could have been light, and that's all there is to it.
No. It cannot. You take extra caution driving on a road like that in the dark exactly because of factors like wildlife on the road and such.
Not to mention that, at least in my experience, a big flashing beacon on top of a bus is much more noticeable after dark than it is while it's light outside. Think about how you can tell an oncoming car is going to crest a hill when you're driving at night–because you can see the glow from the headlights even before you can see any part of the vehicle.
That's a good point, if we're talking only about the bus, but I thought we were talking about the kids.
On a tangentially-related note, I don't think buses in NY are allowed, on state highways, to pick up kids on the wrong side of the road. I've never seen it; they're always on the correct side so no street-crossing is required outside of residential neighborhoods and local streets. I would be interested to know if this is just fluke that I've never seen it, or if it's actually state law, perhaps others would confirm.
Quote from: webny99 on November 01, 2018, 01:41:50 PM
That's a good point, if we're talking only about the bus, but I thought we were talking about the kids.
On a tangentially-related note, I don't think buses in NY are allowed, on state highways, to pick up kids on the wrong side of the road. I've never seen it; they're always on the correct side so no street-crossing is required outside of residential neighborhoods and local streets. I would be interested to know if this is just fluke that I've never seen it, or if it's actually state law, perhaps others would confirm.
I believe those are school district policies, not an actual law.
PS: suggested to mods splitting off school bus crash and related stuff into separate thread.
Quote from: tradephoric on November 01, 2018, 11:11:34 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 01, 2018, 10:56:01 AM
Year-round DST is essentially moving your time zone one to the east and not having DST. So if the country instituted permanent DST and moved Indiana to Central Time to compensate then that's fine. Staying in the time zone you're in and adding permanent DST on top creates more of the late sunrises referenced in this accident.
Indiana being on Central Time observing DST year-round would lead to the same sunrise/sunset times as Indiana being on the Eastern Time observing standard time year-round. States have always had the option to opt out of DST as part of the Uniform Time Act of 1966. My point is if DST was made permanent in this country, Indiana would very likely opt out of DST and there would have been an hour earlier sunrise on that October morning when those 3 children were killed.
Permanent DST is better than what we have now, but I'm just pointing out that permanent DST is really the same as not having DST at all and just changing time zones.
Using Rochester, IN as an example.
Current conditions, Eastern time zone with DST:
Friday 11/2: Sunrise at 8:16 (way too late), Sunset at 6:40
Monday 11/5: Sunrise at 7:20, Sunset at 5:37
If Indiana switched to Central time zone with DST:
Friday 11/2: Sunrise at 7:16, Sunset at 5:40 [fixed]
Monday 11/5: Sunrise at 6:20, Sunset at 4:37 (way too early)
With the current DST rules, you're either on Eastern time and get some way too late sunrises or you're on Central time and get some way too early sunsets. Being on Eastern time with no DST (or Central time with year round DST) creates the best set of sunrises and sunsets throughout the year.
I think the problem with year-round DST is that many states won't shift their time zones accordingly, and Indiana on Eastern time with year-round DST would be a disaster.
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 01, 2018, 01:54:21 PM
Current conditions, Eastern time zone with DST:
Friday 11/2: Sunrise at 8:16 (way too late), Sunset at 6:40
If Indiana switched to Central time zone with DST:
Friday 11/2: Sunrise at 7:16, Sunset at 7:40
This is the obvious solution. Switch to Central, get 2 hours of extra daylight.
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 01, 2018, 01:54:21 PM
I think the problem with year-round DST is that many states won't shift their time zones accordingly
↓ ↓ You already pointed out that they
can't shift their time zones. Request it they can, but change it they cannot[/yoda].
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 01, 2018, 08:24:36 AM
in the bizarre system we have, the state government decides whether or not to observe DST but the Federal government decides your time zone
Quote from: 1 on November 01, 2018, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 01, 2018, 01:54:21 PM
Current conditions, Eastern time zone with DST:
Friday 11/2: Sunrise at 8:16 (way too late), Sunset at 6:40
If Indiana switched to Central time zone with DST:
Friday 11/2: Sunrise at 7:16, Sunset at 7:40
This is the obvious solution. Switch to Central, get 2 hours of extra daylight.
LOL
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 01, 2018, 01:54:21 PMPermanent DST is better than what we have now, but I'm just pointing out that permanent DST is really the same as not having DST at all and just changing time zones.
The EU proposal, for instance, makes it clear that any member state that chooses not to change the clocks a final time, in 360 days time, but stay on summer time permanently, has in fact moved time zones.
Five children were hit by a car at a Tampa bus stop shortly after 8AM today. Sunrise in Tampa this morning was at 7:40 AM so i imagine this incident won't be cited by the anti-DST crowd here. Each year the Kansas State Department of Education School Bus Safety Unit releases a report that documents fatalities involving school children in or around the loading or unloading areas of a school bus. Last year there were 8 documented fatalities. Of the 8 fatalities, 4 of them occurred on the way home from school and 7 of them occurred in daylight.
https://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Bus/Surveys/2016-17LoadingSurvey1-18-18.pdf
Quote from: tradephoric on November 01, 2018, 07:49:14 PM
i imagine this incident won't be cited by the anti-DST crowd here.
I hope it won't.
I'm one of the anti-DST crowd, but I'm also in favor of reason.
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2018, 09:10:35 PMI'm one of the anti-DST crowd, but I'm also in favor of reason.
The two go hand in hand, surely... :P
Quote from: tradephoric on November 01, 2018, 07:49:14 PM
Five children were hit by a car at a Tampa bus stop shortly after 8AM today. Sunrise in Tampa this morning was at 7:40 AM so i imagine this incident won't be cited by the anti-DST crowd here. Each year the Kansas State Department of Education School Bus Safety Unit releases a report that documents fatalities involving school children in or around the loading or unloading areas of a school bus. Last year there were 8 documented fatalities. Of the 8 fatalities, 4 of them occurred on the way home from school and 7 of them occurred in daylight.
https://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Bus/Surveys/2016-17LoadingSurvey1-18-18.pdf
Except in the middle of summer when kids normally aren't in school, dawn and kids going to school are always going to be around the same time. If anyone tries combining the two, they do so knowing full well there's nothing that can be done about it. If you argue for later opening times, then that opens up later school days, and kids coming home closer to dusk.
Unlike most (or at least I assume), I actually observe the time change, in both spring and fall, on Saturday instead of Sunday. In the spring, it helps to theoretically "lose" your hour during the day so as not to lose any sleep, whereas in the fall, I tend to stick to the old time as long as possible, thereby getting a full extra hour of sleep.
Still trying to get used to the fact that it's just past 3:00 (or might as well be) and feels like it's getting dark already. Admittedly, mornings for the next weeks will be a major improvement over the past few weeks.
Quote from: webny99 on November 03, 2018, 04:12:12 PM
In the spring, it helps to theoretically "lose" your hour during the day so as not to lose any sleep
Not sure I could pull that off. I get tired when I get tired, so I'd still feel like I was waking up early the next day.
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2018, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on November 01, 2018, 07:49:14 PM
i imagine this incident won't be cited by the anti-DST crowd here.
I hope it won't.
I'm one of the anti-DST crowd, but I'm also in favor of reason.
One of my favorite curmudgeons, Bill Kauffmann, opposes DST.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111223751154393974
He gets points for opposing the metric system, but he dislikes the Interstate Highway System too much for my taste. (I suppose that makes him the anti-Fritz.)
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/bill-kauffman/aint-my-america/
It's now 7:12 p.m. Eastern time and it's dark outside.
Tomorrow night at this time, it will be 6:12 Eastern time and it will be dark outside. On a typical work day, I'll just be getting home.
Have I said lately how much I hate "falling back" and the resulting darkness at such an early hour in the evenings?
I realized this morning that my youngest son will likely wake my wife and me up before dawn no matter what. Our other two sons can sometimes manage to sleep through their alarm clock, but the youngest is a different breed.
Quote from: webny99 on November 03, 2018, 04:12:12 PM
Unlike most (or at least I assume), I actually observe the time change, in both spring and fall, on Saturday instead of Sunday. In the spring, it helps to theoretically "lose" your hour during the day so as not to lose any sleep, whereas in the fall, I tend to stick to the old time as long as possible, thereby getting a full extra hour of sleep.
Still trying to get used to the fact that it's just past 3:00 (or might as well be) and feels like it's getting dark already. Admittedly, mornings for the next weeks will be a major improvement over the past few weeks.
Same.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2018, 05:06:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 03, 2018, 04:12:12 PM
In the spring, it helps to theoretically "lose" your hour during the day so as not to lose any sleep
Not sure I could pull that off. I get tired when I get tired, so I'd still feel like I was waking up early the next day.
I'm almost never tired when I go to bed and almost always tired when I wake up, time change or not. The rare occasions when I am tired when I go to bed are when I've pushed myself way too hard and am completely exhausted.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2018, 07:13:29 PM
It's now 7:12 p.m. Eastern time and it's dark outside.
Tomorrow night at this time, it will be 6:12 Eastern time and it will be dark outside. On a typical work day, I'll just be getting home.
Have I said lately how much I hate "falling back" and the resulting darkness at such an early hour in the evenings?
You think that's bad. Today in CT, the sun set at 5:42 ET, which means it was dark by about 6:15 or so. Tomorrow, the sun sets at 4:41 PM, which means it will be dark by about 5:15. People that drove home in daylight Friday will drive home in darkness on Monday. By December, those figures will be 20 minutes earlier. This is why the northeast corridor needs to go to AST. Solar noon tomorrow is at 11:35 AM instead of 12:35 as it was today.
If we get rid of DST, how will we know when to change the batteries in smoke alarms?
One of my alarms started chirping about 4:20 am Friday. Had to get up and change the battery. By the time I was done, there wasn't enough time to go back to sleep.
Then another one starts chirping about 4:40 am Saturday! I thought it was the same one, that we had an expired battery in the drawer. But no, another one had to be changed.
Why did they expire just 1 and 2 days before I was going to change the batteries anyway?
I enjoyed my "extra hour" of sleep last night.
Quote from: GaryV on November 04, 2018, 07:55:21 AM
If we get rid of DST, how will we know when to change the batteries in smoke alarms?
One of my alarms started chirping about 4:20 am Friday. Had to get up and change the battery. By the time I was done, there wasn't enough time to go back to sleep.
Then another one starts chirping about 4:40 am Saturday! I thought it was the same one, that we had an expired battery in the drawer. But no, another one had to be changed.
Why did they expire just 1 and 2 days before I was going to change the batteries anyway?
I enjoyed my "extra hour" of sleep last night.
I have serious reservations regarding this campaign. These things will lose battery life at random times regardless. besides - it's another example of SkyNet watching over us.
Quote from: GaryV on November 04, 2018, 07:55:21 AM
If we get rid of DST, how will we know when to change the batteries in smoke alarms?
One of my alarms started chirping about 4:20 am Friday. Had to get up and change the battery. By the time I was done, there wasn't enough time to go back to sleep.
Then another one starts chirping about 4:40 am Saturday! I thought it was the same one, that we had an expired battery in the drawer. But no, another one had to be changed.
Why did they expire just 1 and 2 days before I was going to change the batteries anyway?
I enjoyed my "extra hour" of sleep last night.
Latest versions of code have some different requirements for fire alarms. 10 year batteries and grid primary power with battery backup seem to become the norm
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Our refrigerator is 30 years old, despite the shorter lifespan of new refrigerators. About 15—20 years ago, products stopped being built to last; older products that
are built to last probably don't need to be replaced.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Those 10-year individual devices are maintenance free, the battery is not replaceable and supposed to last for 10 years, then a new device must be installed. There are actually 10-year batteries for old style detectors as well. 10 years are actually subject to activation frequency and such...
To make things more interesting, newer code has requirements for
interconnected alarms in each area. For our house that means going from single alarm (we passed inspection OK) to 8-10, depending on how you count (at least 4 of those, 3 BR + corridor, must be within 10 feet radius). Fortunately, we're grandfathered in - this is major renovation/new construction only.
They have to be interconnected, so if one detects something - all of them sound. Since each spot has to be wired, going to grid power with battery backup is a no-brainer.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Traditional smoke detectors that work on ionizing radiation have to be replaced every ten years due to the decay of the americium in the detector.This is apparently wrong, just ignore me. :pan:
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 04, 2018, 09:34:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Traditional smoke detectors that work on ionizing radiation have to be replaced every ten years due to the decay of the americium in the detector.
negative. Am-241 has a half-life of more than 400 years, so source should be fine for 100 years or so without any questions.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 03, 2018, 11:56:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2018, 07:13:29 PM
It's now 7:12 p.m. Eastern time and it's dark outside.
Tomorrow night at this time, it will be 6:12 Eastern time and it will be dark outside. On a typical work day, I'll just be getting home.
Have I said lately how much I hate "falling back" and the resulting darkness at such an early hour in the evenings?
You think that's bad. Today in CT, the sun set at 5:42 ET, which means it was dark by about 6:15 or so. Tomorrow, the sun sets at 4:41 PM, which means it will be dark by about 5:15. People that drove home in daylight Friday will drive home in darkness on Monday. By December, those figures will be 20 minutes earlier. This is why the northeast corridor needs to go to AST. Solar noon tomorrow is at 11:35 AM instead of 12:35 as it was today.
Oh, I know all about that. I attended the Springfield, Mass., meet in November several years ago. My base of operations was Norwalk. It was getting dark by the time the meet ended, so most of the trip back to Norwalk ended up being in the dark. Which was a shame, really, because I used CT 8 and the Merritt (CT 15) to get from I-84 to Norwalk, and the scenery looked interesting, but I couldn't see any of it.
That trip was memorable because it was the first time I ever ate at Five Guys.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Our refrigerator is 30 years old, despite the shorter lifespan of new refrigerators. About 15—20 years ago, products stopped being built to last; older products that are built to last probably don't need to be replaced.
I never scraped off enough money at once to replace my tv, so I still have one from 1999 that works fine.
Quote from: jon daly on November 04, 2018, 06:11:13 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Our refrigerator is 30 years old, despite the shorter lifespan of new refrigerators. About 15—20 years ago, products stopped being built to last; older products that are built to last probably don't need to be replaced.
I never scraped off enough money at once to replace my tv, so I still have one from 1999 that works fine.
Depending on how much you view your TV, an old CRT unit burns more energy, I would hazard to guess 1-2 cents worth of power per day, or $5/year.
Add $25-50 disposal fee many places now charge for CRT units, and you may be saving less than you think...
Oh yeah it's more than that. It's not helping the electric bill.
Here's a good argument for why Indianapolis should be in the Central Time Zone: Nashville.
Indianapolis- 86:08:46 West
Nashville - 86:47:04 West
My guess the other reason they haven't been switched? South Bend/Elkhart and western lower Michigan.
I stayed in Indianapolis for 3 nights in August 2010. Preseason NFL football was on that weekend from Nashville. Looking out the hotel window and Nashville on TV? The dwindling light at dusk was virtually the same!
Going in the other direction...Putting Maine on Atlantic Standard Time would be a nice way to isolate them from the rest of New England. I will point out that Portland's sunset a couple days before the wintet solstice is as early as about 4:03 maybe?
The Hartford, CT sunset today? A whopping 4:42 pm.
^ That's about 3 minutes later than Mystic. I was actually in Rhode Island at the time, so the sun set even earlier.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
Our refrigerator is 30 years old, despite the shorter lifespan of new refrigerators. About 15—20 years ago, products stopped being built to last; older products that are built to last probably don't need to be replaced.
Funny you say that, because I'm sure my folks said pretty much the same thing in 1998.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2018, 03:29:26 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
Our refrigerator is 30 years old, despite the shorter lifespan of new refrigerators. About 15–20 years ago, products stopped being built to last; older products that are built to last probably don't need to be replaced.
Funny you say that, because I'm sure my folks said pretty much the same thing in 1998.
For my parents, that would be 2004, as it would've been 30 years since they bought their first (and so far, only) house.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2018, 05:06:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 03, 2018, 04:12:12 PM
In the spring, it helps to theoretically "lose" your hour during the day so as not to lose any sleep
Not sure I could pull that off. I get tired when I get tired, so I'd still feel like I was waking up early the next day.
For me, anyways, it is much harder to shave an hour's worth of activities off of my day, than it is to go to sleep an hour early. I tend to be the most awake/alert in the mid-morning and the evening, but even so, I have enough of what you might call a sleep backlog that I wouldn't have trouble falling asleep even during those time periods.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2018, 03:29:26 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
Our refrigerator is 30 years old, despite the shorter lifespan of new refrigerators. About 15—20 years ago, products stopped being built to last; older products that are built to last probably don't need to be replaced.
Funny you say that, because I'm sure my folks said pretty much the same thing in 1998.
I think every generation says that. I would say that my grandparents said the same thing in 1978, but I wasn't alive, so I wouldn't be able to verify. ;-)
Quote from: webny99 on November 05, 2018, 11:33:10 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2018, 03:29:26 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
Our refrigerator is 30 years old, despite the shorter lifespan of new refrigerators. About 15—20 years ago, products stopped being built to last; older products that are built to last probably don't need to be replaced.
Funny you say that, because I'm sure my folks said pretty much the same thing in 1998.
I think every generation says that. I would say that my grandparents said the same thing in 1978, but I wasn't alive, so I wouldn't be able to verify. ;-)
China and other nearby countries didn't make a whole bunch of our products until a few decades ago. I'm not sure if it was prominent in 1978, but definitely not a generation before that.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 04, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
Here's a good argument for why Indianapolis should be in the Central Time Zone: Nashville.
Indianapolis- 86:08:46 West
Nashville - 86:47:04 West
My guess the other reason they haven't been switched? South Bend/Elkhart and western lower Michigan.
I stayed in Indianapolis for 3 nights in August 2010. Preseason NFL football was on that weekend from Nashville. Looking out the hotel window and Nashville on TV? The dwindling light at dusk was virtually the same!
I've camped out a few times southeast of Nashville in June and the sun was well above the horizon at 5 a.m. local time.
I noticed that I was definitely a LOT more awake during my morning routine this morning. It was nice. I like being able to get in to work without panicking about running late because it took me a while to start doing things at a reasonable pace.
Oddly enough, I was unusually tired last night, so I might be having a harder time adjusting as I get older (maybe the true reason why there's such a big push these days to end the time changes?). Then again, I also was unusually tired Saturday night, which I would think would be unrelated to the time change, so it might be something else.
Quote from: kalvado on November 04, 2018, 09:26:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Those 10-year individual devices are maintenance free, the battery is not replaceable and supposed to last for 10 years, then a new device must be installed. There are actually 10-year batteries for old style detectors as well. 10 years are actually subject to activation frequency and such...
To make things more interesting, newer code has requirements for interconnected alarms in each area. For our house that means going from single alarm (we passed inspection OK) to 8-10, depending on how you count (at least 4 of those, 3 BR + corridor, must be within 10 feet radius). Fortunately, we're grandfathered in - this is major renovation/new construction only.
They have to be interconnected, so if one detects something - all of them sound. Since each spot has to be wired, going to grid power with battery backup is a no-brainer.
I just found about smoke alarm expiration dates very recently. I can say with confidence that there are ten-year smoke alarms with replaceable batteries. I know this because my wife just finished becoming a state-licensed home daycare provider. We had replaced all the batteries in the smoke alarms in advance of the fire marshall coming to inspect the house, but we ended up needing to replace two or three of the alarms themselves because they were expired. It was the first either one of us had heard of an expiration date on a smoke alarm. But do be assured that they were not "maintenance free", nor were the batteries "not replaceable". I know because I had personally just finished replacing their batteries.
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2018, 01:36:35 PM
Oddly enough, I was unusually tired last night, so I might be having a harder time adjusting as I get older
It certainly follows that when 10:00 was 11:00 the night before, you would feel more tired than you usually would at 10:00. I know I was extra-tired last night as well, so it doesn't seem that odd.
Quote from: kphoger on November 05, 2018, 02:20:26 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 04, 2018, 09:26:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Those 10-year individual devices are maintenance free, the battery is not replaceable and supposed to last for 10 years, then a new device must be installed. There are actually 10-year batteries for old style detectors as well. 10 years are actually subject to activation frequency and such...
To make things more interesting, newer code has requirements for interconnected alarms in each area. For our house that means going from single alarm (we passed inspection OK) to 8-10, depending on how you count (at least 4 of those, 3 BR + corridor, must be within 10 feet radius). Fortunately, we're grandfathered in - this is major renovation/new construction only.
They have to be interconnected, so if one detects something - all of them sound. Since each spot has to be wired, going to grid power with battery backup is a no-brainer.
I just found about smoke alarm expiration dates very recently. I can say with confidence that there are ten-year smoke alarms with replaceable batteries. I know this because my wife just finished becoming a state-licensed home daycare provider. We had replaced all the batteries in the smoke alarms in advance of the fire marshall coming to inspect the house, but we ended up needing to replace two or three of the alarms themselves because they were expired. It was the first either one of us had heard of an expiration date on a smoke alarm. But do be assured that they were not "maintenance free", nor were the batteries "not replaceable". I know because I had personally just finished replacing their batteries.
From what various fire department personnel have told me, it's not just the battery that needs to be replaced. The materials used in the process to detect heat and/or smoke also have a finite life due to dust and decomposition (the latter likely due to today's cheaper materials). While still usable after ten years, they're not as effective as they once were.
You could likely get more life out of them by a basic vacuuming, (like I recall my parents doing to theirs years ago), but they make today's smoke detectors as tamper-proof/evident as possible, making such a task not really worth the effort.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 05, 2018, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 05, 2018, 02:20:26 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 04, 2018, 09:26:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before–I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed–but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Those 10-year individual devices are maintenance free, the battery is not replaceable and supposed to last for 10 years, then a new device must be installed. There are actually 10-year batteries for old style detectors as well. 10 years are actually subject to activation frequency and such...
To make things more interesting, newer code has requirements for interconnected alarms in each area. For our house that means going from single alarm (we passed inspection OK) to 8-10, depending on how you count (at least 4 of those, 3 BR + corridor, must be within 10 feet radius). Fortunately, we're grandfathered in - this is major renovation/new construction only.
They have to be interconnected, so if one detects something - all of them sound. Since each spot has to be wired, going to grid power with battery backup is a no-brainer.
I just found about smoke alarm expiration dates very recently. I can say with confidence that there are ten-year smoke alarms with replaceable batteries. I know this because my wife just finished becoming a state-licensed home daycare provider. We had replaced all the batteries in the smoke alarms in advance of the fire marshall coming to inspect the house, but we ended up needing to replace two or three of the alarms themselves because they were expired. It was the first either one of us had heard of an expiration date on a smoke alarm. But do be assured that they were not "maintenance free", nor were the batteries "not replaceable". I know because I had personally just finished replacing their batteries.
From what various fire department personnel have told me, it's not just the battery that needs to be replaced. The materials used in the process to detect heat and/or smoke also have a finite life due to dust and decomposition (the latter likely due to today's cheaper materials). While still usable after ten years, they're not as effective as they once were.
You could likely get more life out of them by a basic vacuuming, (like I recall my parents doing to theirs years ago), but they make today's smoke detectors as tamper-proof/evident as possible, making such a task not really worth the effort.
Well, vacuuming ours wouldn't have helped one bit, considering that we were required to have them replaced. Vacuuming doesn't change the date on the sticker.
Quote from: kphoger on November 05, 2018, 03:42:25 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 05, 2018, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 05, 2018, 02:20:26 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 04, 2018, 09:26:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before—I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed—but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Those 10-year individual devices are maintenance free, the battery is not replaceable and supposed to last for 10 years, then a new device must be installed. There are actually 10-year batteries for old style detectors as well. 10 years are actually subject to activation frequency and such...
To make things more interesting, newer code has requirements for interconnected alarms in each area. For our house that means going from single alarm (we passed inspection OK) to 8-10, depending on how you count (at least 4 of those, 3 BR + corridor, must be within 10 feet radius). Fortunately, we're grandfathered in - this is major renovation/new construction only.
They have to be interconnected, so if one detects something - all of them sound. Since each spot has to be wired, going to grid power with battery backup is a no-brainer.
I just found about smoke alarm expiration dates very recently. I can say with confidence that there are ten-year smoke alarms with replaceable batteries. I know this because my wife just finished becoming a state-licensed home daycare provider. We had replaced all the batteries in the smoke alarms in advance of the fire marshall coming to inspect the house, but we ended up needing to replace two or three of the alarms themselves because they were expired. It was the first either one of us had heard of an expiration date on a smoke alarm. But do be assured that they were not "maintenance free", nor were the batteries "not replaceable". I know because I had personally just finished replacing their batteries.
From what various fire department personnel have told me, it's not just the battery that needs to be replaced. The materials used in the process to detect heat and/or smoke also have a finite life due to dust and decomposition (the latter likely due to today's cheaper materials). While still usable after ten years, they're not as effective as they once were.
You could likely get more life out of them by a basic vacuuming, (like I recall my parents doing to theirs years ago), but they make today's smoke detectors as tamper-proof/evident as possible, making such a task not really worth the effort.
Well, vacuuming ours wouldn't have helped one bit, considering that we were required to have them replaced. Vacuuming doesn't change the date on the sticker.
The vacuuming reference was meant to be in general, not specific to your situation. I figured trying to defeat a date code was obviously out of the question.
Quote from: webny99 on November 05, 2018, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2018, 01:36:35 PM
Oddly enough, I was unusually tired last night, so I might be having a harder time adjusting as I get older
It certainly follows that when 10:00 was 11:00 the night before, you would feel more tired than you usually would at 10:00. I know I was extra-tired last night as well, so it doesn't seem that odd.
That's the thing, though - in the past, I never noticed the change, nor am I usually tired at night period (if I am tired during evening/night, most if the time it means I've either been staying up too late the past few nights, I'm sick, I've done a ton of driving, or I pulled an all-nighter the previous night).
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2018, 08:53:22 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 05, 2018, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2018, 01:36:35 PM
Oddly enough, I was unusually tired last night, so I might be having a harder time adjusting as I get older
It certainly follows that when 10:00 was 11:00 the night before, you would feel more tired than you usually would at 10:00. I know I was extra-tired last night as well, so it doesn't seem that odd.
That's the thing, though - in the past, I never noticed the change, nor am I usually tired at night period (if I am tired during evening/night, most if the time it means I've either been staying up too late the past few nights, I'm sick, I've done a ton of driving, or I pulled an all-nighter the previous night).
It's affecting me more this year than ever before too: I'm tired by 9 PM, and then I wake up at 5 AM and can't get back to sleep.
Voters in California passed Proposition 7 by a 60/40 vote which will pave the way for year-round daylight saving time in the state. Over the past year, two of the three most populous states in the nation (California and Florida) have signaled to the federal government that they wish to abandon the biannual time changes and stay on daylight saving time year-round.
California voters embrace year-round daylight-saving time
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-voters-embrace-year-round-13369419.php
As of this morning 93% of precincts have reported and the results of Proposition 7 stands at 59.9% yes (3,974,358 votes) and 40.1% no (2,663,486 votes). https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures
(too lazy to read the linked articles)
How would this work, exactly? AIUI, anywhere that observes DST has to observe the same start and end times as everyone else. Therefore, if California and Florida were to be granted permission to go full-time DST, then wouldn't the government have to mandate full-time DST for every other state as well? So wouldn't the simpler solution be to simply put California on MST (just like Arizona) and Florida on AST? Then they can simply opt out of DST and the result is still what they want.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 12:06:14 PM
So wouldn't the simpler solution be to simply put California on MST (just like Arizona) and Florida on AST? Then they can simply opt out of DST and the result is still what they want.
You're expecting people to do sensible things. That almost never happens. :)
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 12:06:14 PM
(too lazy to read the linked articles)
How would this work, exactly? AIUI, anywhere that observes DST has to observe the same start and end times as everyone else.
Yeah, federal laws definitely supersede state ones, the same way as they do with marijuana.
Quote from: kalvado on November 04, 2018, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on November 04, 2018, 06:11:13 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 04, 2018, 08:58:59 AM
I suppose this is a slight threadjack, but I was at Home Depot last weekend and I noted their display of smoke detectors said you should replace the devices every ten years. I'd never heard that before—I just replace the 9-volt batteries in our three detectors as needed—but maybe kalvado's comment provides the answer. Are the newer devices that much better than the older ones that it's worth looking into replacing them? Ours are at least 17 years old because that's how long I've lived in this house, and I assume they're the original ones the builder installed when the house was built in 1993. They still work fine, based on the noise one of them made when I filled the kitchen with smoke while cooking on the stove a few weeks ago.
Our refrigerator is 30 years old, despite the shorter lifespan of new refrigerators. About 15–20 years ago, products stopped being built to last; older products that are built to last probably don't need to be replaced.
I never scraped off enough money at once to replace my tv, so I still have one from 1999 that works fine.
Depending on how much you view your TV, an old CRT unit burns more energy, I would hazard to guess 1-2 cents worth of power per day, or $5/year.
Add $25-50 disposal fee many places now charge for CRT units, and you may be saving less than you think...
My old CRT TV (bought in 2002) finally bit the dust last February. Got a new flat screen, but haven't noticed an appreciable difference in my electric bill since.
And there's something just plain wrong with the idea of having to pay a fee to have your old TV hauled away.
Quote from: roadman on November 07, 2018, 12:38:52 PM
And there's something just plain wrong with the idea of having to pay a fee to have your old TV hauled away.
When the old TV is hazardous waste (as my county classifies CRT TVs and computer monitors), it makes a lot of sense. FWIW, my county encourages disposal of flat-screen TVs through its household hazardous waste program, but does not charge a disposal fee for them.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 12:06:14 PM
How would this work, exactly? AIUI, anywhere that observes DST has to observe the same start and end times as everyone else. Therefore, if California and Florida were to be granted permission to go full-time DST, then wouldn't the government have to mandate full-time DST for every other state as well? So wouldn't the simpler solution be to simply put California on MST (just like Arizona) and Florida on AST? Then they can simply opt out of DST and the result is still what they want.
Yes, that's the easier (and more likely) way to do it. It's what Saskatchewan does in Canada; they run CST year round as a permanent MDT.
Saskatchewan can get away with this because it's on the time zone line anyway. But California isn't. The problem with California switching to permanent PDT/MST is Nevada, which would be almost completely surrounded by MST states while running PST itself. There would be a one-hour time change forward to drive
either west or east across the state. Issues might also arise where communities along the Nevada or Oregon borders would prefer to stay on the time zone of their neighboring states, either officially or unofficially. There is precedent for this, but it would be extremely confusing for the average traveler.
Quote from: kalvado on November 07, 2018, 12:30:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 12:06:14 PM
(too lazy to read the linked articles)
How would this work, exactly? AIUI, anywhere that observes DST has to observe the same start and end times as everyone else.
Yeah, federal laws definitely supersede state ones, the same way as they do with marijuana.
Except that state law enforcement can simply choose not to enforce marijuana laws. That's not really analogous to DST.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 12:06:14 PM
How would this work, exactly? AIUI, anywhere that observes DST has to observe the same start and end times as everyone else. Therefore, if California and Florida were to be granted permission to go full-time DST, then wouldn't the government have to mandate full-time DST for every other state as well? So wouldn't the simpler solution be to simply put California on MST (just like Arizona) and Florida on AST? Then they can simply opt out of DST and the result is still what they want.
While Florida and California wants to have later sunrises during the winter months, they don't want to be out of sync with the rest of the country. That's why these states are lobbying the federal government to make DST permanent throughout the entire country (by amending the Uniform Time Act of 1966) as opposed to just letting their individual states switch time zones. The legislation and propositions passed in these two states is just a way to lobby the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make DST permanent throughout the entire country.
Quote from: tradephoric on November 07, 2018, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 12:06:14 PM
How would this work, exactly? AIUI, anywhere that observes DST has to observe the same start and end times as everyone else. Therefore, if California and Florida were to be granted permission to go full-time DST, then wouldn't the government have to mandate full-time DST for every other state as well? So wouldn't the simpler solution be to simply put California on MST (just like Arizona) and Florida on AST? Then they can simply opt out of DST and the result is still what they want.
While Florida and California wants to have later sunrises during the winter months, they don't want to be out of sync with the rest of the country. That's why these states are lobbying the federal government to make DST permanent throughout the entire country (by amending the Uniform Time Act of 1966) as opposed to just letting their individual states switch time zones. The legislation and propositions passed in these two states is just a way to lobby the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make DST permanent throughout the entire country.
Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.
Quote from: Ned Flanders, The Simpsons, Season 14, Episode 13
Yep, we occupy that useless mass of land between Los Angeles and New York. Called America!
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 02:02:10 PM
Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.
Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.
Quote from: kalvado on November 07, 2018, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 02:02:10 PM
Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.
Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.
Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones. Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are. If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them (honestly, they would probably have less understanding), so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:26:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 07, 2018, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 02:02:10 PM
Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.
Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.
Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones. Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are. If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them (honestly, they would probably have less understanding), so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.
Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that. We afford rural areas far more power than urban areas. All under the false pretense that everybody in urban areas has the same mindset. That's bollocks.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 03:47:47 PM
Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that.
Last I checked, we are the only country that's the USA.
There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a
plural phrase, no a singular. Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:26:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 07, 2018, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 02:02:10 PM
Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.
Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.
Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones. Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are. If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them (honestly, they would probably have less understanding), so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.
If you will, this is about how government power should be distributed between different levels. Matters which concern some groups but not others (or worse, opposite requirements) should be regulated on a lower level. E.g. regarding this topic: those who mostly commute by subway have significantly different perception of daylight compared to drivers.
Problem here is that some issues can be resolved locally, but time zone necessarily involves synchronizing entire country (and entire world).
I am not sure what is the best approach in here. Thinking about it, maybe actually China does the right thing: one
size time fits all. Feel free to adjust your town's schedule to what is best for your area so effectively setting the local clock while keeping everyone in synch.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 03:47:47 PM
Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that.
Last I checked, we are the only country that's the USA.
What does that even mean? That we can't accept criticism? We're still on planet Earth.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:51:38 PM
There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular. Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.
But now that Manifest Destiny has made itself clear, and our population has exploded, we need to unify. That starts with recognizing population numbers, not electoral numbers.
Quote from: kalvado on November 07, 2018, 04:12:35 PM
Thinking about it, maybe actually China does the right thing: one size time fits all. Feel free to adjust your town's schedule to what is best for your area so effectively setting the local clock while keeping everyone in synch.
There should never be a jump of 2 hours by switching time zones (except for the International Date Line), let alone 4.
Quote from: 1 on November 07, 2018, 04:18:10 PM
There should never be a jump of 2 hours by switching time zones
Norway—Russia
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:51:38 PM
There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular. Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.
But now that Manifest Destiny has made itself clear, and our population has exploded, we need to unify. That starts with recognizing population numbers, not electoral numbers.
Eh, I disagree. This issue doesn't just happen on a national scale; it happens on a state level (or even lower) scale as well. Take Illinois, for example. Most of the state is fairly conservative, but Chicago is so big that it essentially controls the state's politics. That leads to a lot of frustration in the rural areas, who feel they don't get a voice.
Roughly 40% of the US population lives in one of the six most populous states. While not everyone in those states is going to vote the same way, it's definitely a factor that would lead to a lot of resentment among the smaller states, who become even more of a "flyover country" than they are currently.
Also, for an example of how the founding fathers intended the states to be independent, look no further than the 10th Amendment. That states that any power (explicit or implied) not given to Congress belongs to the states. Of course, early interpretations of various parts of the Constitution have drastically increased the federal government's power (like the commerce clause).
Quote from: 1 on November 07, 2018, 04:18:10 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 07, 2018, 04:12:35 PM
Thinking about it, maybe actually China does the right thing: one size time fits all. Feel free to adjust your town's schedule to what is best for your area so effectively setting the local clock while keeping everyone in synch.
There should never be a jump of 2 hours by switching time zones (except for the International Date Line), let alone 4.
Why? I have no problem dealing with 3 hours when flying east to west coast, for example. Of course, that is not a land crossing - but given seamless US-Canada border is no longer, and US-Mexico is a wall, not a big problem to adjust the clock while waiting in line.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 03:47:47 PM
Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that.
Last I checked, we are the only country that's the USA.
What does that even mean? That we can't accept criticism? We're still on planet Earth.
It means we shouldn't abandon American values just because other countries don't hold them. I believe there's something special about the way our government was framed, and I believe it's worth protecting.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:51:38 PM
There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular. Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.
But now that Manifest Destiny has made itself clear, and our population has exploded, we need to unify. That starts with recognizing population numbers, not electoral numbers.
Then you essentially doom rural America to having no political voice. As most people live in cities, politics would gradually come to ignore the needs and concerns of everyone else. Sorry but, just because your state has more people in it than mine, that doesn't mean your state's political leanings should have more influence on how my state is governed than the reverse.
Quote from: US 89 on November 07, 2018, 04:36:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:51:38 PM
There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular. Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.
But now that Manifest Destiny has made itself clear, and our population has exploded, we need to unify. That starts with recognizing population numbers, not electoral numbers.
Eh, I disagree. This issue doesn't just happen on a national scale; it happens on a state level (or even lower) scale as well. Take Illinois, for example. Most of the state is fairly conservative, but Chicago is so big that it essentially controls the state's politics. That leads to a lot of frustration in the rural areas, who feel they don't get a voice.
Roughly 40% of the US population lives in one of the six most populous states. While not everyone in those states is going to vote the same way, it's definitely a factor that would lead to a lot of resentment among the smaller states, who become even more of a "flyover country" than they are currently.
Also, for an example of how the founding fathers intended the states to be independent, look no further than the 10th Amendment. That states that any power (explicit or implied) not given to Congress belongs to the states. Of course, early interpretations of various parts of the Constitution have drastically increased the federal government's power (like the commerce clause).
I understand that rural areas sometimes resent urban areas, because they *seem* to take control of elections. But those areas take control of elections because there are more people in those areas. Those in rural areas are seeking an unequal level of power, and that is very undemocratic.
The argument that I've seen, is that those in urban areas do not understand the plight of those in rural areas. And I wouldn't argue that's false. But to imply that rural areas know what's best for everyone...that's obviously not true either. In light of that paradox (that neither knows what's best for the other), we should just let the popular vote decide things. It may come across as unfair to those in rural areas, but you cannot argue against a majority vote.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 04:49:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2018, 03:47:47 PM
Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that.
Last I checked, we are the only country that's the USA.
What does that even mean? That we can't accept criticism? We're still on planet Earth.
It means we shouldn't abandon American values just because other countries don't hold them. I believe there's something special about the way our government was framed, and I believe it's worth protecting.
What is an "American value"? What makes our values different from Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa...? We're still a country that uses politics to make decisions.
Maybe it's only being 22...maybe it'll become crystal clear in another few years. But I see nothing special about the American government. Sure, it was groundbreaking at the time. But most other countries operate the same way now, except, the way they decide things is different.
See my response to US89 above.
Here's a map of sunrise times during the winter solstice. In general, states highlighted in orange and red would be more receptive of permanent daylight saving time as the sun would still rise before 8:30AM (which is still earlier than the sunrise times in some parts of the country running standard time during the winter). It's not a surprise to me that California and Florida are included in this orange/red shading. Alabama, Mississippi, and Western Tennessee are other areas that would seem to benefit from permanent DST. OTOH, states highlighted in green shades may want to run standard time year-round... but there's not that much green on the map (and besides Michigan and Indiana, the areas in green shading have relatively sparse populations).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRCAhuHVQAAoV9s.jpg)
Quote from: tradephoric on November 07, 2018, 05:57:08 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRCAhuHVQAAoV9s.jpg)
OTOH, states highlighted in green shades may want to run standard time year-round...).
Being in Boise (one of the few green areas), I can totally get behind keeping standard time in the winter. Makes sense, sunrises are already a bit late as is, but still manageable and at a reasonable time to keep the sunset not too early (it's a bit after 5 PM on the shortest day). But standard time year round would be awful. The sunrise is 6:03 AM on the summer solstice now, no way it needs to be 5:03 AM. For 95% of the population, moving to standard time year round would simply mean 1 hour less daylight during awake hours in the summer. Awful. I've been to northern Idaho where they are on PDT and not MDT in the summer, it was a noticeable downgrade. So I say keep DST as is (or move the dates around a bit, that's fine too). If states farther south with less variance between summer and winter want to abolish DST (like Arizona has already done), by all means go for it. Los Angeles has 1 full hour more daylight to work with on the winter solstice than Boise does, giving them a lot more wiggle room and making something like permanent DST sensible. But for states like Idaho it's not as clear-cut.
Too many posts to try to quote from above, but some general observations on the turn the discussion took about urban vs. rural interests, and so on.
The United States was not set up to be a democracy or "one person, one vote." The power was supposed to be concentrated in the states. Presidential elections were not designed to be a popular vote nationwide. They were instead set up to be a collection of 50 -- well, 13 at the time -- individual state elections. That's why the Electoral College was established as the method of officially choosing the president. States were and are free to set their elections up however they wanted, be they winner-take-all for the electors, or awarding them proportionally according to the percentage of the vote in the states. That's a big reason why the current movement to have states award their electors to the winner of the popular vote nationwide rather than who wins within the state bothers me. It runs counter to the way the system was set up to run. And also the 17th Amendment. Senators were supposed to be chosen by the states to represent state interests, rather than by the voters. The House was to represent the people; the Senate to represent state governments.
States really should be free to decide what time zone(s) they want to be in, or whether or not they want to observe DST or standard time. Every time this debate has come up (annually, I think), I have mentioned Wayne County, Ky., and its switch from CT to ET several years ago. The county should not have had to obtain federal permission to switch.
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 07, 2018, 06:14:34 PM
Being in Boise (one of the few green areas), I can totally get behind keeping standard time in the winter. Makes sense, sunrises are already a bit late as is, but still manageable and at a reasonable time to keep the sunset not too early (it's a bit after 5 PM on the shortest day). But standard time year round would be awful. The sunrise is 6:03 AM on the summer solstice now, no way it needs to be 5:03 AM. For 95% of the population, moving to standard time year round would simply mean 1 hour less daylight during awake hours in the summer. Awful. I've been to northern Idaho where they are on PDT and not MDT in the summer, it was a noticeable downgrade. So I say keep DST as is (or move the dates around a bit, that's fine too). If states farther south with less variance between summer and winter want to abolish DST (like Arizona has already done), by all means go for it. Los Angeles has 1 full hour more daylight to work with on the winter solstice than Boise does, giving them a lot more wiggle room and making something like permanent DST sensible. But for states like Idaho it's not as clear-cut.
The daylight duration for Boise, Idaho is identical to Wolfeboro, New Hampshire... but the sun rises and sets exactly one hour later in Boise (after adjusting for timezone changes). So if New Hampshire went to permanent DST, the sunrise/sunset times in Wolfesboro during the winter solstice would match what the people of Boise currently experience. Similarly, if Idaho went to permanent standard time, the sunrise/sunset times in Boise during the summer solstice would match what the residents of Wolfeboro currently experience.
The sun setting at 8:30PM during the summer solstice sounds way too early... but that's coming from someone who lives on the western edge of a timezone who enjoys 9:30PM sunsets during the summer. If Michigan went to standard time year-round it would be brutal to lose that hour of evening summer sunlight.... but maybe someone in Boston would think a 9:30PM sunset is too damn late. Similarly, for someone living on the western edge of a timezone, what's the big deal if the sun rises at 9AM during the winter solstice... we are already use to late sunrises during the winter. Whereas if you live on the eastern edge of a timezone and are use to 7AM sunrises (even during the middle of the winter) a 9AM sunrise might sound insane to you. It's all perspective... but if the people of Boise, Idaho and Wolfeboro, New Hampshire can survive with their current sunrise/sunset times.. i think American's would be able to adapt to getting rid of the time changes.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:26:36 PM
Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones. Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are. If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them, so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.
I agree that individual states, especially more populous ones, shouldn't be able to throw their weight around to make national policies and decisions without consensus from a majority in all or at least most states.
Simultaneously, though, in many ways I resent smaller states being over-represented in the Senate and the electoral college. Sure, at the state level, each state should be able do whatever its people want, but no one individual voter or state should have outsized influence when it comes to the entire nation - in rural
or in urban areas.
Quote from: webny99 on November 07, 2018, 09:33:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 03:26:36 PM
Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones. Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are. If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them, so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.
I agree that individual states, especially more populous ones, shouldn't be able to throw their weight around to make national policies and decisions without consensus from a majority in all or at least most states.
Simultaneously, though, in many ways I resent smaller states being over-represented in the Senate and the electoral college. Sure, at the state level, each state should be able do whatever its people want, but no one individual voter or state should have outsized influence when it comes to the entire nation - in rural or in urban areas.
Of course those representation anomalies came about because it was the only way the larger (at that time) states were going to get the smaller states to go along with a new Constitution. That and the concessions made to southern states regarding their "peculiar institution". Since the latter was changed, perhaps representation in the Federal government can also someday be changed. But it's hardly the same type of moral issue.
Quote from: GaryV on November 07, 2018, 09:50:55 PM
But it's hardly the same type of moral issue.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking after I posted. We've strayed far from the implications of just two populous states advocating permanent DST..
Quote from: kalvado on November 07, 2018, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 02:02:10 PM
Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.
Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.
This actually highlights a problem I have with systems that lump voters together.
CA Prop 7 passed with 59.9% in favour. 4,107,458 voted in favour; 2,747,423 opposed. Assuming all Floridians were in favour (no way to know as it was a legislative bill), the support actually falls to 8.5%, since A) not all Californians voted, and B) not all who voted, voted in favour. This highlights an issue with winner-take all systems, which electoral systems inherently represent (49 jurisdictions have this rule). It falsely represents the wishes of all voters (electorates are tied heavily to population), regardless if everyone actually voted, and makes it look like support for something is greater than it is in reality.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 07, 2018, 07:08:12 PM
The United States was not set up to be a democracy or "one person, one vote." The power was supposed to be concentrated in the states. Presidential elections were not designed to be a popular vote nationwide. They were instead set up to be a collection of 50 -- well, 13 at the time -- individual state elections. That's why the Electoral College was established as the method of officially choosing the president. States were and are free to set their elections up however they wanted, be they winner-take-all for the electors, or awarding them proportionally according to the percentage of the vote in the states. That's a big reason why the current movement to have states award their electors to the winner of the popular vote nationwide rather than who wins within the state bothers me. It runs counter to the way the system was set up to run. And also the 17th Amendment. Senators were supposed to be chosen by the states to represent state interests, rather than by the voters. The House was to represent the people; the Senate to represent state governments.
Hell, let's just get rid of the Senate. Give the power to the House. Executive overreach has become a serious problem, but Congress is increasingly bogged down by its inability to agree on anything. Repealing the 17th would be a start, but I doubt that would be a popular move.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 08, 2018, 02:09:14 AM
Hell, let's just get rid of the Senate. Give the power to the House. Executive overreach has become a serious problem, but Congress is increasingly bogged down by its inability to agree on anything. Repealing the 17th would be a start, but I doubt that would be a popular move.
Especially with the smaller states that get equal representation in the Senate disproportionate to their populations (under both the 17th Amendment and the original Constitution) -- and benefit from the provision that even an otherwise kosher constitutional amendment may not deny them equal representation in the Senate without their consent
This thread was a repetitive mess anyway, and now that it's taking a turn into political stuff it's time to pull the plug.