DST (2018)

[english si]

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.

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.

[kphoger]

The LA Times

Obviously, the best way to proceed is with a nationwide standard

The political conservative in me just shivered a little.

[tradephoric]

The LA Times

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.

[vdeane]

The LA Times

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!

[tradephoric]

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).

[kalvado]

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. 

[michravera]

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!"

[tradephoric]

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).

[kphoger]

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.

[NWI_Irish96]

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. 

[tradephoric]

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

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

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.   

[vdeane]

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.

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.

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

(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?

[kphoger]

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.

[tradephoric]

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.

[tradephoric]

^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....

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[tradephoric]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[kphoger]

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?

[vdeane]

Probably not any at present, but this latest tangent is referring to studies saying to start school at 8:30.

[kphoger]

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.   ↓↓

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?