Las Vegas is on the eastern edge of the Pacific Time Zone. In the winter, this creates the unfortunate situation of the sun setting around 4:30 PM, which is quite a bit early. I personally think Las Vegas would be better off moving to Mountain Time and dropping DST. This would put Las Vegas in sync with Arizona year-round, where the observed time would be in line with the rest of the Mountain Time Zone in the winter, but would be in line with Pacific Daylight Time in the summer. Just as this seems to work well for much of Arizona's climate, I think Las Vegas would benefit similarly.
What does anyone here think?
http://www.city-data.com/forum/las-vegas/1497773-should-las-vegas-switch-mountain-time.html
Arizona is confusing enough by bucking the DST trend, I don't support expanding that unless we're doing it nationally, in which case I support it. Given that Vegas is closely tied to California, it should remain on Pacific time.
I think the whole US should be on DST all year.
No, Las Vegas should be in the Pacific time zone as it is today.
Nearly everyone in the eastern part of a time zone experiences winter darkness starting about 430. The alternative is not having sunlight in the morning till 8 or 830.
The State of Utah is considering abandoning DST.
I wish New Jersey would.
Quote from: dfwtbear on January 10, 2015, 12:19:27 AM
I think the whole US should be on DST all year.
Ugh, no thanks. It's hard enough getting up in the morning when the sun rises at 7:25 on standard time. If we were on DST then, the sun would rise closer to 8:30. That's way too late.
Everyone should switch to Universal Time (http://vidthekid.info/vspace/pt.php?bid=9)
An awful lot of people come from Southern California to Las Vegas, so it would probably be better to keep them on the same time zone...
Quote from: rschen7754 on January 10, 2015, 01:49:22 PM
An awful lot of people come from Southern California to Las Vegas, so it would probably be better to keep them on the same time zone...
Exactly. Having a time change thrown in there would make things harder on the service workers in Las Vegas who would have to deal with California visitors not taking the time change into account when they schedule things in Vegas. ("What do you mean, I'm an hour late? I said I wanted tickets to the 7pm show! It's 7pm, look at my watch! You're not being very helpful.")
Anyone who doubts this would occur has never worked with the public. (I had someone come up to the counter yesterday and ask me what the name of the casino was. The casino is helpfully named after the town it is in and has several signs with the name in large friendly letters above the main entrances. It is also printed in 16-point font on each ticket printed by the slot machines.)
No, it should stay where it is. Unfortunately, the 4:30 PM sunset isn't a unique problem to Vegas. I have a few friends in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and the sunset there is around the same time. In fact, in December, it's often around 4:15!
If Nevada switched to Mountain time AND abandoned DST, there would only be a time difference with CA during the winter months.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 10, 2015, 08:19:06 PM
If Nevada switched to Mountain time AND abandoned DST, there would only be a time difference with CA during the winter months.
That is my whole point. In the summer Las Vegas is fine where it is in terms of daylight, but in the winter I think the city would benefit if sunsets were an hour later.
No, having the time be the same as it is in L.A. is more important than whether it's daylight or nighttime outside.
Days are shorter in winter. DST is a reasonable way to deal with it, so it gets light by 7:30 for the morning commute.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 09, 2015, 11:52:14 PMthe sun setting around 4:30 PM, which is quite a bit early.
Currently it's around 4pm here, but the 8am sunrises are not 'quite a bit early' during the week - I'd hate to think of the increased accidents with the sun doing 9-5 in mid-winter. I'm quite far south, Scotland has a good half-hour less (today the sun has been up for 36 minutes, not the 1h12 it has in London and it sets about the same time), if not more.
Quote from: dfwtbear on January 10, 2015, 12:19:27 AMI think the whole US should be on DST all year.
You do realise it doesn't save daylight, don't you? You don't get more light? We get people spouting such nonsense when they want the clocks changed to DST year round (or even CET with DST) assuming that making the evening rush hour light (which it wouldn't do in mid-winter) it won't make the morning rush hour darker (and schools are typically 9-3, so instead of both journeys being in the light, one will be in the dark).
DST is great in summer, in northern latitudes at least, because who needs 4am (and earlier) sunrises? Better to have 8pm sunsets become 9pm ones and outdoors opens up to use after work for longer. It sucks in early spring (the European switchover date is about right) as the mornings don't have enough sun to steal and give the evenings at that point. Late fall (the European switchover is about 4 weeks too late, and whose dumbass idea was it for the 7 months of DST not to be ~3.5 months either side of midsummer. I know that the year isn't symmetrical, but it's no way that lopsided!) is likewise bad, and winter is absurd for trying to shift the time later.
Quote from: dfwtbear on January 10, 2015, 12:19:27 AM
I think the whole US should be on DST all year.
Nixon tried that to "save energy". It didn't work. The sun came up so late in the winter that everyone had to have the lights on when schools and businesses opened - and then forgot to turn them off.
There was a great editorial cartoon at the time. Nixon said something like, "Boys and girls, here's how to make a blanket warmer. We cut a foot off this end, and then sew it onto the other end. This is called Daylight Saving Time."
Quote from: vtk on January 10, 2015, 10:04:03 AM
Everyone should switch to Universal Time (http://vidthekid.info/vspace/pt.php?bid=9)
This is a very interesting idea but I feel like there is one critical drawback - this is great for times but horrible for dates. For most people a day ends when we go to sleep and the next one begins when we wake up. Keeping track of dates therefore is usually dependent on the date changing while most people are asleep or at least not conducting business.
The trouble with just using UTC is that for people in the far west and far east, the date would change in the middle of the day. This would then lead to tons of confusion and missed appointments because when someone says "meet me at 01:00 on January 20th" it will have been January 19th when both of those people woke up and either one of them is liable to mistakenly think their meeting is tomorrow.
Vegas will never change to MT! The fact is LV is a convention city. Being on a different time zone from CA, ( a state with 36 million people and probably the #1 state in booking conventions), will lose a ton of business! Indianapolis used to never change for DST and found they lost a ton of conventions, and in turn, abandoned it! It would be a big mistake for Vegas to do so now IMHO!
iPad
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 10, 2015, 09:58:17 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 10, 2015, 08:19:06 PM
If Nevada switched to Mountain time AND abandoned DST, there would only be a time difference with CA during the winter months.
That is my whole point. In the summer Las Vegas is fine where it is in terms of daylight, but in the winter I think the city would benefit if sunsets were an hour later.
In which way? And how much of Nevada would you want to convert to non-DST?
You have plenty of people that live in the Vegas area, and as I pointed above, they would suffer in the morning with a much later sunrise.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 10, 2015, 09:58:17 PM
That is my whole point. In the summer Las Vegas is fine where it is in terms of daylight, but in the winter I think the city would benefit if sunsets were an hour later.
How would they benefit? Keep in mind that most casinos are intentionally designed with no windows so that gamblers lose track of time and to remove the temptation to leave to enjoy the daylight.
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
No, having the time be the same as it is in L.A. is more important than whether it's daylight or nighttime outside.
More important to Californians, not to locals. If I lived in Las Vegas I would much prefer winter sunsets to be an hour later, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Las Vegas locals would as well.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 11, 2015, 07:35:24 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
No, having the time be the same as it is in L.A. is more important than whether it's daylight or nighttime outside.
More important to Californians, not to locals. If I lived in Las Vegas I would much prefer winter sunsets to be an hour later, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Las Vegas locals would as well.
Important to locals who have jobs that depend on tourists and convention visitors, i.e. most of them.
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 07:44:21 PM
Important to locals who have jobs that depend on tourists and convention visitors, i.e. most of them.
What about the tourists from Arizona? Not all Las Vegas tourists are from California. In fact, the I-11 corridor has long been in the planning and is considered to be a future vital link from Phoenix to Las Vegas. If the Arizona tourists were not important then I-11 would have never even been thought of.
And without DST, the observed time in Las Vegas would only be different from California for part of the year (the winter). Most of the year Las Vegas would remain the same time as California.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 11, 2015, 07:47:36 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 07:44:21 PM
Important to locals who have jobs that depend on tourists and convention visitors, i.e. most of them.
What about the tourists from Arizona? Not all Las Vegas tourists are from California. In fact, the I-11 corridor has long been in the planning and is considered to be a future vital link from Phoenix to Las Vegas. If the Arizona tourists were not important then I-11 would have never even been thought of.
And without DST, the observed time in Las Vegas would only be different from California for part of the year (the winter). Most of the year Las Vegas would remain the same time as California.
Uh...
1) Arizona tourists are important, and they can still be important without overlooking the fact that something like 65% of Las Vegas's tourist revenue comes from California. The Arizona share still matters, but it's nowhere near that, and certainly you wouldn't change from California time to Arizona time just because of that share.
2) I-11 is not just for Las Vegas, the reason the feds want to fund large portions of it is to connect Mexico to Salt Lake and the ports in the Northwest that ship things to Asia. Arizona and Nevada would be footing more of the bill if it was just to connect Phoenix to Las Vegas.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 11, 2015, 07:35:24 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
No, having the time be the same as it is in L.A. is more important than whether it's daylight or nighttime outside.
More important to Californians, not to locals. If I lived in Las Vegas I would much prefer winter sunsets to be an hour later, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Las Vegas locals would as well.
This seems to be a very general guess what hundreds of thousands would like to have. Again - would those same people like the sun rising at 7am or 8am? Would those locals want their kids walking to school in darkness? Would golfers want to wait another hour before they can play golf?
Quote from: corco on January 11, 2015, 07:56:52 PM
1) Arizona tourists are important, and they can still be important without overlooking the fact that something like 65% of Las Vegas's tourist revenue comes from California. The Arizona share still matters, but it's nowhere near that.
Then what's the percentage of tourists/other business that comes from Arizona. If 65% of the revenue comes from California, then 35% comes from all other originations, meaning Arizona's contribution must be very small.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 11, 2015, 07:47:36 PM
And without DST, the observed time in Las Vegas would only be different from California for part of the year (the winter). Most of the year Las Vegas would remain the same time as California.
So just when you think you've got it figured out that L.A. and L.V. are in the same time zone, standard times comes around and screws you up? Not an improvement.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2015, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: corco on January 11, 2015, 07:56:52 PM
1) Arizona tourists are important, and they can still be important without overlooking the fact that something like 65% of Las Vegas's tourist revenue comes from California. The Arizona share still matters, but it's nowhere near that.
Then what's the percentage of tourists/other business that comes from Arizona. If 65% of the revenue comes from California, then 35% comes from all other originations, meaning Arizona's contribution must be very small.
Okay, that prompted me to check actual numbers.
http://www.lvcva.com/includes/content/images/media/docs/2013-Las_Vegas_Visitor_Profile.pdf is the closest thing I could find.
Page 87 has visitors by state in percentage. To summarize, in 2013:
California - 33%
Foreign - 20%
Other Western States - 13%
Southern States - 12%
Midwestern States - 10%
Arizona - 6%
Eastern States - 6%
"Other Western" includes visitors from outside of Clark County but still in NV, WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, UT, CO, NM, AK. Most of that population is on the pacific time zone.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 10, 2015, 08:37:01 AM
The State of Utah is considering abandoning DST.
And people in Colorado are pushing for year-round Daylight Time...
Besides, I like the fact that when leaving Mesquite, NV on the I-15 North on-ramp, it takes me a shade over
60 minutes to get up to the posted speed! :bigass:
YES!
And while we're at it, the whole country should abolish the useless DST system.
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 11, 2015, 10:23:33 PM
YES!
And while we're at it, the whole country should abolish the useless DST system.
Is it a "who can use the biggest font wins" contest?
I like DST. I'd much rather have a useful hour of daylight in the evening instead of between 3 and 4 AM in the summer, and I don't want to trade it for a dark morning commute in the winter.
Quote from: kkt on January 12, 2015, 01:18:00 AM
I like DST. I'd much rather have a useful hour of daylight in the evening instead of between 3 and 4 AM in the summer, and I don't want to trade it for a dark morning commute in the winter.
Then why not have that useful hour year-round, like Nevada's time zone switch would effectively do, and has already been done in Saskatchewan? There is absolutely nothing else worthwhile about daylight saving time in the present day, so why do you switch back in the winter? It's going to get dark no matter what in the winter. It's
winter after all, and completely illogical to go back the hour in the spring at the cost of our health. Screw the time changes; they are an unnecessary burden on society and cause heart attacks and suicides.
I propose a Nighttime Saving Time for the parts of the country south of the 35th parallel. Make it get dark (and cool off) an hour earlier in the summer so the A/C runs less when people are at home.
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 12, 2015, 01:42:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 12, 2015, 01:18:00 AM
I like DST. I'd much rather have a useful hour of daylight in the evening instead of between 3 and 4 AM in the summer, and I don't want to trade it for a dark morning commute in the winter.
Then why not have that useful hour year-round, like Nevada's time zone switch would effectively do, and has already been done in Saskatchewan? There is absolutely nothing else worthwhile about daylight saving time in the present day, so why do you switch back in the winter? It's going to get dark no matter what in the winter. It's winter after all, and completely illogical to go back the hour in the spring at the cost of our health. Screw the time changes; they are an unnecessary burden on society and cause heart attacks and suicides.
You're referring to this article too, right? Yes, we all have the internet...
QuoteBut while researchers have looked at a number of health trends surrounding the first day of daylight saving time -- including apparent upticks in accidents, heart attacks and suicides --ÂÂ it's unclear whether the adjusted clock setting is itself responsible for these health issues.
"It's not really understood why some of these health problems that are published coincide with the time change," said Russell Rosenberg, vice chairman of the National Sleep Foundation. "We don't have studies that show the time change actually causes these problems."
http://www.livescience.com/13183-daylight-savings-time-affect-health.html
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 12, 2015, 01:42:51 AMThen why not have that useful hour year-round
Because you can't move light from between 3am and 4am, or even 5am to 6am, to the evening in winter - there isn't the light to move!
In winter all DST does is put the morning commute in the dark so that the evening commute can remain in the dark. :pan: The light from 7-8am is not used more usefully when applied between 4-5pm, whereas in May, the light from 4-5am is better used when applied between 7-8pm.
QuoteScrew the time changes; they are an unnecessary burden on society and cause heart attacks and suicides.
It's not the change that causes issues, but the darker mornings (they decline briefly, rather than increase briefly, with the Fall back, for instance). Less DST is the answer, not more.
Our (European) late March spring-forward is about a week too late, and our late October fall-back is about three weeks too late (October is a horrible month, then the clocks go back and everyone is happier). DST all year round would make those four weeks of increased issues (health issues, psychological issues, more road deaths, etc) last for 5 months. Moving the UK to CET would extend it another couple, as the change to/from DST would have the same 'too early and not early enough' that we currently have.
Sure, lower latitudes of the US aren't going to be quite so affected as the UK, mostly in the 50s degrees north, but much more of the US is at the western end of the time zone.
This video talks of the Jet Lag caused by time zones (and social clocks) being earlier than the solar clock (ie the sun is getting up after you are), and some of the issues it brings.
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 12, 2015, 02:36:01 AM
I propose a Nighttime Saving Time for the parts of the country south of the 35th parallel. Make it get dark (and cool off) an hour earlier in the summer so the A/C runs less when people are at home.
Though the overall effect on energy consumption will be similarly minuscule to that of shifting daylight later has at northern latitudes, I like your thinking!
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 12, 2015, 02:36:01 AM
I propose a Nighttime Saving Time for the parts of the country south of the 35th parallel. Make it get dark (and cool off) an hour earlier in the summer so the A/C runs less when people are at home.
We run our AC at a lower temperature at night for sleeping than we do during the day, though I suppose it has to work less to get to that temperature since it's not as hot outside.
(During the winter the heat is set considerably lower overnight for sleeping than it is during the day.)
DST has been made to be for longer and longer periods of time over the years. It is questionable whether any energy savings were accomplished with the most recent extensions up to early March and back to early November. They were touted as being energy saving measures.
If we have to have DST, the politicians should only impose it upon us from late April to late September.
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 12, 2015, 01:42:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 12, 2015, 01:18:00 AM
I like DST. I'd much rather have a useful hour of daylight in the evening instead of between 3 and 4 AM in the summer, and I don't want to trade it for a dark morning commute in the winter.
Then why not have that useful hour year-round, like Nevada's time zone switch would effectively do, and has already been done in Saskatchewan? There is absolutely nothing else worthwhile about daylight saving time in the present day, so why do you switch back in the winter? It's going to get dark no matter what in the winter. It's winter after all, and completely illogical to go back the hour in the spring at the cost of our health. Screw the time changes; they are an unnecessary burden on society and cause heart attacks and suicides.
If DST were continued in the winter, it would be dark for the morning commute. It's a lot harder to get moving in the morning when it's pitch dark. Darkness during the commute makes it just a bit more dangerous, both from lack of visibility and sleepy drivers. People have been getting up in the morning when it starts getting light for millions of years. That shouldn't change just because we have clocks now.
It also doesn't help that culturally we have decided that there is a correlation between how early someone wakes up and how good their work ethic is. People who wake up early and get to work early are hard workers, people who wake up late and get to work late are lazy. Obviously a lot of jobs require someone be at work by a certain time for very practical reasons (store needs to open, bus needs to leave the depot, etc.) but many really don't require this and only do so because of social convention. Who was it that decided that everyone who works in an office ought to be at work at or before 9 AM? What difference does it actually make what hours someone works so long as they keep all their appointments and get all their work done? If we have a problem with people having to drag themselves out of bed too early perhaps the solution is to just let them sleep later.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 13, 2015, 12:19:49 AM
It also doesn't help that culturally we have decided that there is a correlation between how early someone wakes up and how good their work ethic is. People who wake up early and get to work early are hard workers, people who wake up late and get to work late are lazy. Obviously a lot of jobs require someone be at work by a certain time for very practical reasons (store needs to open, bus needs to leave the depot, etc.) but many really don't require this and only do so because of social convention. Who was it that decided that everyone who works in an office ought to be at work at or before 9 AM? What difference does it actually make what hours someone works so long as they keep all their appointments and get all their work done? If we have a problem with people having to drag themselves out of bed too early perhaps the solution is to just let them sleep later.
Amen.. I hate the morning Nazis. I am a night person. I loved worjlking 2nd shift .. 1-9 or 2-10 in college... Still could go out after work.. Sleep in most days and if needed I could get up early and take are of business
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 12, 2015, 08:16:53 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 12, 2015, 02:36:01 AM
I propose a Nighttime Saving Time for the parts of the country south of the 35th parallel. Make it get dark (and cool off) an hour earlier in the summer so the A/C runs less when people are at home.
We run our AC at a lower temperature at night for sleeping than we do during the day, though I suppose it has to work less to get to that temperature since it's not as hot outside.
(During the winter the heat is set considerably lower overnight for sleeping than it is during the day.)
Basically, if you get home at 6 and go to bed at 11, the A/C runs more if it gets dark at 9 than if it gets dark at 7. Shifting more of the hottest part of the day to the hours when people are at work and have their programmable thermostats set to warmer temperatures. Makes the evening hours more bearable to spend outside.
DST doesn't make sunrise & sunset later, it just shifts everybody's schedule earlier. It's not necessary. If a community decides it would like to have more daylight after work, it can simply schedule its daytime activities earlier.
The only benefit of DST is that it's a mechanism by which everybody's schedule is seasonally adjusted in a coordinated manner, minimizing conflicts that would otherwise arise from seasonally-varying schedules. But this is only a meaningful benefit if the seasonal adjustment makes sense in the first place, which is clearly a point on which there is no consensus.
Quote from: vtk on January 13, 2015, 02:47:58 AM
The only benefit of DST is that it's a mechanism by which everybody's schedule is seasonally adjusted in a coordinated manner, minimizing conflicts that would otherwise arise from seasonally-varying schedules.
Right. Very few people are so independent of the culture that they can decide to adjust their schedule without cooperation from their workplace, their own or their children's school schedule, bus or carpool schedule, etc. One could ask why the minority who dislike changing their sleep-wake schedule don't adjust their schedules to be one hour later during DST.
Quote
But this is only a meaningful benefit if the seasonal adjustment makes sense in the first place, which is clearly a point on which there is no consensus.
Actually there's a strong consensus and a vocal few who don't like it.
DST should be dropped in the entire US, it's pointless, costs everyone money, and gives us no extra daylight.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 13, 2015, 12:19:49 AMIt also doesn't help that culturally we have decided that there is a correlation between how early someone wakes up and how good their work ethic is.
And the year-round DST / being a time zone ahead always strikes me as the argument of those people. Indiana having DST, Spain on CET, etc were blatently decided at 8am by the people who think that 8-5 is harder working than 9-7!
My brother, on the first day of his last job (programming), aimed to get to the office at half 8. It was unlocked at 9. The next person on his team showed up at half 9, as 'core hours' started then and then most of the team turned up at 10 without any issue that they were meant to be there 9.30-4.30, because the managers knew they put the hours in.
A high school with high truancy rates (in Newcastle upon Tyne) trialled shifting the hours back an hour, so 9-3 became 10-4. Truancy plummeted.
There's a few issues with pushing high school times back. Depending on the district, the buses that transport high schoolers also transport elementary school kids, so they have to stagger their times. And HS sports are a big deal, so all the schools would have to change their times. And then you'll hear from those that have jobs after school and won't be able to make them and have time to do homework with less time.
Whether are not one agrees with these reasons, they are the traditional reasons why high schools typically don't start later here in the US.
If staggered times is an issue, simply flip them. Currently elementary schools start late and high schools early (often earlier than workplaces, even). This is ass-backwards. Teenagers have a circadian rhythm that's offset a couple hours relative to the rest of the population. Give the high school students the extra hour, move the elementary kids back, and leave the platitudes saying "you'll just be getting up early anyways when you're in the workforce so this is good practice" unsaid.
IMO HS sports are WAY over-emphasized. Perhaps this would be a good reason to de-emphasize them.
The jobs can shift their hours, and homework will probably take less time if the students aren't chronically sleep deprived. Teenagers stay up late/sleep in late because their body is wired that way, not because they're "lazy", no matter how much the morning nazis will try to say otherwise.
I hate the cultural emphasis on morning. I'm a night owl by heart. It takes great effort to get up for work every day and the only thing that wakes me up is the drive to work (good thing I'm a roadgeek, isn't it?). Meanwhile, at night when I should be getting ready for bed, I'm wide awake and have a desire to be productive. It takes me an hour to fall asleep each night (which is actually a vast improvement over the 2-3 hour delay I was cursed with in high school/college).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 11:53:05 AM
There's a few issues with pushing high school times back. Depending on the district, the buses that transport high schoolers also transport elementary school kids, so they have to stagger their times. And HS sports are a big deal, so all the schools would have to change their times. And then you'll hear from those that have jobs after school and won't be able to make them and have time to do homework with less time.
Staggering times sometimes is also a temporary fix for school overcrowding. The high school I went to (well over 2000 students) was so crowded that there were ten one-hour (MOL) periods, with staggered schedules where the unlucky students (mainly freshmen) had to straggle in super-early for period 1 but left early in the afternoon, while others both arrived and stayed late. Lunch breaks were staggered, too, to avoid mid-day classroom overcrowding. The high school's buses were out and about most of the day, and couldn't be coordinated with elementary and junior high school (grades 7-8, unlike middle schools in other states) bus schedules.
Before I graduated, the overcrowding problem was fixed by opening a second campus, which later became a separate high school.
This was in the San Diego area, where fortunately hours of daylight don't vary as much as in the northern latitudes.
Quote from: vdeane on January 13, 2015, 01:14:10 PM
If staggered times is an issue, simply flip them. Currently elementary schools start late and high schools early (often earlier than workplaces, even). This is ass-backwards. Teenagers have a circadian rhythm that's offset a couple hours relative to the rest of the population. Give the high school students the extra hour, move the elementary kids back, and leave the platitudes saying "you'll just be getting up early anyways when you're in the workforce so this is good practice" unsaid.
Good luck with getting elementary school kids to school by 7:15am or so! While some kids are good at waking up early, I bet the majority aren't. Plus, unlike high schoolers that can make their own breakfast (or whatever they want to call breakfast), elementary schoolers generally need someone to make it for them, or need supervision. And that means an earlier wakeup call for mom/dad. Then they need to drive them to school, God forbid they walk out the front door to their bus stop at the end of the driveway, so that's an early start there too.
Again, not that I disagree with some of the reasons, but there's a whole lot of reasons why parents won't put up with their 1st grader starting school before the sun barely rises in the winter.
Quote
The jobs can shift their hours
That's not really possible. Jobs schedule their hours based on when people are in the stores, at restaurants, etc. You can't ask the entire population to shift their shopping & eating habits.
QuoteI hate the cultural emphasis on morning. I'm a night owl by heart. It takes great effort to get up for work every day and the only thing that wakes me up is the drive to work (good thing I'm a roadgeek, isn't it?). Meanwhile, at night when I should be getting ready for bed, I'm wide awake and have a desire to be productive. It takes me an hour to fall asleep each night (which is actually a vast improvement over the 2-3 hour delay I was cursed with in high school/college).
This is typical of me too. I'm now 40 years old, and I still would rather wake up later and go to bed later, rather than be an earlier riser.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 11:53:05 AMThere's a few issues with pushing high school times back. Depending on the district, the buses that transport high schoolers also transport elementary school kids, so they have to stagger their times. And HS sports are a big deal, so all the schools would have to change their times. And then you'll hear from those that have jobs after school and won't be able to make them and have time to do homework with less time.
None of these issues apply to the UK though, which is where the trial was.
Including after school jobs - they might have them (more normally a before school paper round), but they are very limited as to hours (I think 1h per day during the week until 16). And there's no reason why students have to do homework (which there is excessive amounts of anyway) before going to sleep - they still get the same amount of time to do it and could do it in the morning if needbe.
While our extracurricular, inter-school, sports aren't as big a thing here, and despite our darker evenings (more north, less DST), we managed to play winter-season (soccer, rugby, (field) hockey, etc) sports after school despite our school day ending at 3.45pm without much hassle*. If they are a big thing in the US, it just makes it easier to afford flood lights and so on.
*Cricket and Tennis, early or late in the summer season, might be a bit harder due to the longer game time and the need for light. I believe Cricket is to blame for the awfully depressing October mornings when we're on DST, but shouldn't be - the only bad thing about the sport!
It's really quite simple. I get up at different times on different days. Each night I know what time I have to get up in the next morning, so I go to bed 8 hours earlier than that.
Everyone can do that.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 13, 2015, 02:39:57 PM
It's really quite simple. I get up at different times on different days. Each night I know what time I have to get up in the next morning, so I go to bed 8 hours earlier than that.
Everyone can do that.
Unless you have a good sheep, you might end up not falling asleep until 2 hours before you get up.
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 13, 2015, 02:34:28 AM
Basically, if you get home at 6 and go to bed at 11, the A/C runs more if it gets dark at 9 than if it gets dark at 7. Shifting more of the hottest part of the day to the hours when people are at work and have their programmable thermostats set to warmer temperatures.
This doesn't really save energy, though, since even if it means less A/C usage at home you have to consider that the A/C is running where people work as well. Much more energy is used overall in the afternoon than in the evening.
There's been studies saying it actually costs us more money. If I find them, I'll post the link.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 13, 2015, 02:39:57 PM
It's really quite simple. I get up at different times on different days. Each night I know what time I have to get up in the next morning, so I go to bed 8 hours earlier than that.
Everyone can do that.
I used to be able to do that, back in college in the 1970s when I was chasing after early-morning low load factors on the campus computer system. Those days are long gone for me. I can get up early (before my usual 7:30am, now that I'm retired) when necessary, such as to take maximum advantage of available daylight on road trips, but it's a strain and I try to not do that very often.
Quote from: oscar on January 14, 2015, 09:04:17 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 13, 2015, 02:39:57 PM
It's really quite simple. I get up at different times on different days. Each night I know what time I have to get up in the next morning, so I go to bed 8 hours earlier than that.
Everyone can do that.
I used to be able to do that, back in college in the 1970s when I was chasing after early-morning low load factors on the campus computer system. Those days are long gone for me. I can get up early (before my usual 7:30am, now that I'm retired) when necessary, such as to take maximum advantage of available daylight on road trips, but it's a strain and I try to not do that very often.
Funny, for me it's usually harder to go to bed earlier. I don't
like getting up extra-early, but when I know I need to do it, I manage it without too much trouble. I think part of it is that my subconscious awareness knows I need to get up and so my body is often somehow ready when the alarm clock sounds. I have no idea why that is. Perhaps it's because often when I get up extra-early it's to hit the road early in the morning to maximize the travel distance that day, or to get to the airport for an early flight somewhere, and so I'm a little keyed-up for the trip or nervous about the flight. But going to bed earlier than usual is difficult for me. I can doze off on the couch or in the recliner very easily (did so last night during the Duke—Miami game), but then when I go upstairs to go to bed it's almost like I get a second wind between going up the stairs, brushing my teeth, and washing my face.
To me it seems awfully glib to say "everyone can just go to bed eight hours before the time you know you need to get up." Heck, I remember the time we had a 6:00 AM flight out of Vancouver and they told us to be at the airport two hours early to preclear US Customs, so we left the hotel at 3:30 AM. Eight hours before that is 7:30 PM. How many grown adults are likely to have an easy time going to bed (and falling asleep) at 7:30 PM?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 01:51:51 PM
Good luck with getting elementary school kids to school by 7:15am or so!
7:15?!? The earliest my school district had was 7:45!
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2015, 09:12:04 AM
Quote from: oscar on January 14, 2015, 09:04:17 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 13, 2015, 02:39:57 PM
It's really quite simple. I get up at different times on different days. Each night I know what time I have to get up in the next morning, so I go to bed 8 hours earlier than that.
Everyone can do that.
I used to be able to do that, back in college in the 1970s when I was chasing after early-morning low load factors on the campus computer system. Those days are long gone for me. I can get up early (before my usual 7:30am, now that I'm retired) when necessary, such as to take maximum advantage of available daylight on road trips, but it's a strain and I try to not do that very often.
Funny, for me it's usually harder to go to bed earlier. I don't like getting up extra-early, but when I know I need to do it, I manage it without too much trouble. I think part of it is that my subconscious awareness knows I need to get up and so my body is often somehow ready when the alarm clock sounds. I have no idea why that is. Perhaps it's because often when I get up extra-early it's to hit the road early in the morning to maximize the travel distance that day, or to get to the airport for an early flight somewhere, and so I'm a little keyed-up for the trip or nervous about the flight. But going to bed earlier than usual is difficult for me. I can doze off on the couch or in the recliner very easily (did so last night during the Duke—Miami game), but then when I go upstairs to go to bed it's almost like I get a second wind between going up the stairs, brushing my teeth, and washing my face.
To me it seems awfully glib to say "everyone can just go to bed eight hours before the time you know you need to get up." Heck, I remember the time we had a 6:00 AM flight out of Vancouver and they told us to be at the airport two hours early to preclear US Customs, so we left the hotel at 3:30 AM. Eight hours before that is 7:30 PM. How many grown adults are likely to have an easy time going to bed (and falling asleep) at 7:30 PM?
Ditto. I can't fall asleep earlier to save my life, but for all the drowsiness I have waking up for work, I have no issues waking up two hours earlier to go to a roadmeet.
Quote from: vdeane on January 14, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 01:51:51 PM
Good luck with getting elementary school kids to school by 7:15am or so!
7:15?!? The earliest my school district had was 7:45!
The high schools in my district start at 6:55 AM, leading to some particularly unlucky students (as is the case with the ones that live in my neighborhood) having to be out at the bus stop at 6:05 AM.
6:55 am high school start times are absurd. Las Vegas has your district beat with a 6:50(!) AM (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/13/some-alarmed-early-bell-times-high-schools/) start time (there's the topical connection to Las Vegas I need :P )
For two reasons, the first being the lack of A/C in many elementary schools, and the second being the numerous quantifiable benefits of implementing the American Academy of Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/08/19/peds.2014-1697) recommendation that general-education secondary schools start no earlier than 8:30 am, I'm looking into a flipping the order of school start times. For my local district, I've been sketching out an idea to shift elementary schools to either 7:50-2:28 or 8:20-2:58 (from their current 8:20 to 9:10 starts), which allows high schools to move to 8:50-3:10 (from 7:30), and middle schools to 9:05-3:55 (from 7:25-:50). It should be possible to push the middle and high schools onto the same wave through a combination of double busing MS and HS together and city bus replacement service where practical.
Our school district used to have two tiers of buses, so both early start schools and late start schools had fairly reasonable start times, 8:00 and 9:00. Then, to reduce the number of runs, they switched to three start times: one reasonable start time (8:30), and two unreasonable start times (7:30 and 9:30). High school students here almost all use Metro buses, so you wouldn't think it would matter for saving bus runs, but they're mostly in the "too early" group.
Oh, Las Vegas time zone content! Las Vegas is at 115 degrees west. The Pacific Time Zone meridian is 120 degrees west, the Mountain Time Zone meridian is 105 degrees west. So even from a purely geographic point of view and ignoring the travel connections to SoCal, Las Vegas belongs in the Pacific Time Zone.
Frequent flier laughs at notion that masses of people can't deal with a one-hour time difference a piddling two times a year.
I think Las Vegas should stay on Pacific Time. That being said, if Las Vegas chose to adopt similar time rules to Arizona, both areas would still be on the same time as California and the rest of the Pacific Time Zone for 8 months out of the year (March to November).
Quote from: swbrotha100 on January 14, 2015, 05:41:33 PM
I think Las Vegas should stay on Pacific Time. That being said, if Las Vegas chose to adopt similar time rules to Arizona, both areas would still be on the same time as California and the rest of the Pacific Time Zone for 8 months out of the year (March to November).
Unless Congress comes to their senses and makes DST April-October again. But then, Congress.
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2015, 04:58:55 PM
Oh, Las Vegas time zone content! Las Vegas is at 115 degrees west. The Pacific Time Zone meridian is 120 degrees west, the Mountain Time Zone meridian is 105 degrees west. So even from a purely geographic point of view and ignoring the travel connections to SoCal, Las Vegas belongs in the Pacific Time Zone.
I guess the same is probably true for Yuma, since Yuma is fairly close to Vegas in longitude. Note that Yuma did in the past observe Pacific Time many years ago.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 13, 2015, 07:32:00 AM
DST should be dropped in the entire US, it's pointless, costs everyone money, and gives us no extra daylight.
Um............okay? Good...luck...in trying to remove DST? Ah scratch that! You have no way of making it happen on your own. You obviously don't grasp how important DST is to some people. If you are one of these
ANTI-DAYLIGHT-SAVINGS-TIME people, let's face it. You've just joined their club 'cause waaaah waaaah it's too expensive! Waaaah waaaah it's pointless to me. Waaaah waaaah it gives no extra daylight...
SHUT YOUR YAP and get used to it. I've been used to DST since I was born in Wyoming and have lived in Montana since.
There are plenty of people against daylight savings time and there are plenty of good reasons to be against it. "Just get used to it" is a stupid reason to be for it. There's no real benefit to it. Hell the real reason for it wasn't even a valid one to begin with.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 15, 2015, 10:55:38 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 13, 2015, 07:32:00 AM
DST should be dropped in the entire US, it's pointless, costs everyone money, and gives us no extra daylight.
Um............okay? Good...luck...in trying to remove DST? Ah scratch that! You have no way of making it happen on your own. You obviously don't grasp how important DST is to some people. If you are one of these ANTI-DAYLIGHT-SAVINGS-TIME people, let's face it. You've just joined their club 'cause waaaah waaaah it's too expensive! Waaaah waaaah it's pointless to me. Waaaah waaaah it gives no extra daylight...SHUT YOUR YAP and get used to it. I've been used to DST since I was born in Wyoming and have lived in Montana since.
There are plenty of people against daylight savings time and there are plenty of good reasons to be against it. "Just get used to it" isn't a valid reason for anything if we used that attitude nothing would change. There's no real benefit to it. Hell the real reason for it wasn't even a valid one to begin with. Just because its widespread doesn't mean its the right thing or everyone loves it like you
Daylight savings helps schoolchildren and folks with typical 8-hour work schedules. It doesn't matter at all to those with atypical night/third-shift days or rather long working hours (ten or more). Given that the folks that lose the most by keeping the time shift are those who are stubbornly unprepared and thus, probably ill-equipped to programming their VCRs, I'd rather lean towards DST to help the added daylight at times for whom it's needed most.
Again, I deal with 1-2 hours of time zone variation a minimum of two times a month (sometimes up to 8 times a month), and it makes no difference to my well-being and health, and the ten seconds it takes to adjust my laptop is the only productivity loss. The rest is bullshit - we've dealt with much harder changes - helping a couple of kids out isn't too much of a responsibility for an adult to handle.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 15, 2015, 11:01:54 AM
Hell the real reason for it wasn't even a valid one to begin with.
So city folks who had day jobs would have an extra hour to tend their home gardens in the evening in the spring and summer, and thus reduce Britain's food imports that had to get past the U-boats during the Great War?
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2015, 12:30:00 PM
Daylight savings helps schoolchildren and folks with typical 8-hour work schedules. It doesn't matter at all to those with atypical night/third-shift days or rather long working hours (ten or more). Given that the folks that lose the most by keeping the time shift are those who are stubbornly unprepared and thus, probably ill-equipped to programming their VCRs, I'd rather lean towards DST to help the added daylight at times for whom it's needed most.
Again, I deal with 1-2 hours of time zone variation a minimum of two times a month (sometimes up to 8 times a month), and it makes no difference to my well-being and health, and the ten seconds it takes to adjust my laptop is the only productivity loss. The rest is bullshit - we've dealt with much harder changes - helping a couple of kids out isn't too much of a responsibility for an adult to handle.
The 1990s called. They want their VCR and Windows 95 laptop back. :)
My laptop doesn't know if I'm in LA or L.A., and VCR Plus was mathmagical for its time. ;)
With the exception of DSLRs and an iPhone, I'm quite stuck in the nineties.
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2015, 12:30:00 PM
Daylight savings helps schoolchildren and folks with typical 8-hour work schedules. It doesn't matter at all to those with atypical night/third-shift days or rather long working hours (ten or more). Given that the folks that lose the most by keeping the time shift are those who are stubbornly unprepared and thus, probably ill-equipped to programming their VCRs, I'd rather lean towards DST to help the added daylight at times for whom it's needed most.
Again, I deal with 1-2 hours of time zone variation a minimum of two times a month (sometimes up to 8 times a month), and it makes no difference to my well-being and health, and the ten seconds it takes to adjust my laptop is the only productivity loss. The rest is bullshit - we've dealt with much harder changes - helping a couple of kids out isn't too much of a responsibility for an adult to handle.
How exactly does an arbitrary time shift help kids or people with typical work schedules? I mean the whole "kids won't be standing in the dark" idea doesn't really seem like a reason to change time for everyone. Why not just start school later in the morning? Let the kids sleep
DST isn't the end of the world to me I can live with it I just see no real point in it all.
Edited for content...
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 15, 2015, 10:55:38 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 13, 2015, 07:32:00 AM
DST should be dropped in the entire US, it's pointless, costs everyone money, and gives us no extra daylight.
You obviously don't grasp how important DST is to some people. If you are one of these ANTI-DAYLIGHT-SAVINGS-TIME people...Waaaah waaaah it gives no extra daylight...
Vampires hate DST too.
Prove to me just how important DST is and not just another antiquated thing that we all still do. Then I'll change my stance
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 15, 2015, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2015, 12:30:00 PM
Daylight savings helps schoolchildren and folks with typical 8-hour work schedules. It doesn't matter at all to those with atypical night/third-shift days or rather long working hours (ten or more). Given that the folks that lose the most by keeping the time shift are those who are stubbornly unprepared and thus, probably ill-equipped to programming their VCRs, I'd rather lean towards DST to help the added daylight at times for whom it's needed most.
Again, I deal with 1-2 hours of time zone variation a minimum of two times a month (sometimes up to 8 times a month), and it makes no difference to my well-being and health, and the ten seconds it takes to adjust my laptop is the only productivity loss. The rest is bullshit - we've dealt with much harder changes - helping a couple of kids out isn't too much of a responsibility for an adult to handle.
How exactly does an arbitrary time shift help kids or people with typical work schedules? I mean the whole "kids won't be standing in the dark" idea doesn't really seem like a reason to change time for everyone. Why not just start school later in the morning? Let the kids sleep
Well, think about this. Kids don't get up by themselves and get their breakfast and to school. A parent has to be home to do that. Kinda hard to explain to lots of workplaces that you want to come to work an hour late for the next four months.
And many people with 8-5 jobs, and significant numbers of middle and high school kids, take city buses to work or school. The city buses run most of their service during commute hours. Taking them later means greatly reduced or eliminated service.
And most people really would prefer to get up and out of the house when it's dawn or daylight, not still pitch dark; and when it's summer they'd rather have daylight in the evening instead of 4-5 AM. Changing the time you get up to match when it gets light is perfectly natural. Only about 50 years went by between widespread adoption of clocks in the 1860s and the adoption of DST to make clocks more closely match what people want to do naturally.
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2015, 06:44:36 PM
Unless Congress comes to their senses and makes DST April-October again. But then, Congress.
I don't know why the April->March shift occurred, but the October->November one was specifically so that kids wouldn't be trick or treating in the dark, so I don't see any possibility of it changing.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 15, 2015, 12:52:54 PM
How exactly does an arbitrary time shift help kids or people with typical work schedules?
So that the morning commute is in the light all year while still giving an extra useful (well, to everyone who isn't a super early bird) hour of daylight in the summer.
I really think these reasons solely depend on where you are geographically and how long the sun is out in your area.
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2015, 12:30:00 PMAgain, I deal with 1-2 hours of time zone variation a minimum of two times a month (sometimes up to 8 times a month), and it makes no difference to my well-being and health, and the ten seconds it takes to adjust my laptop is the only productivity loss.
The issue isn't the changing of what numbers are on the clock per se, but
- the time you change onto, compared with solar time (if you are changing time zones flying then the time changes keep solar time and clock time pretty much in sync), creating health issues with late dawns, esp in October, November, February and March.
- the lack of evidence for meaningfully positive energy/economic benefits to justify the change.
Quote from: kkt on January 15, 2015, 01:12:45 PMAnd most people really would prefer to get up and out of the house when it's dawn or daylight, not still pitch dark; and when it's summer they'd rather have daylight in the evening instead of 4-5 AM.
But why does 'summer' run from late March to late October in Europe, and for two weeks more in spring and a week more in fall in the US? Ignoring analemma, late March and late September have sunrises at around 6am local time - there's only just about the time to steal then, let alone closer to winter.
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2015, 01:21:41 PMSo that the morning commute is in the light all year while still giving an extra useful (well, to everyone who isn't a super early bird) hour of daylight in the summer.
Does the morning commute stay light though? While we can move the hour of light from morning to evening in the summer, is it there to take in spring or fall without making the morning commute dark?
I love DST, but I feel it needs to be cut back to only running for ~26, if not fewer, weeks. I really hate the 'year round DST' proposals (or ones to that effect, like the one in the thread title).
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2015, 01:21:41 PM
I don't know why the April->March shift occurred, but the October->November one was specifically so that kids wouldn't be trick or treating in the dark, so I don't see any possibility of it changing.
Yes, that was the reason given and I agree that it's unlikely to change, but anyone who thinks trick or treating should be a daytime activity is unclear on the concept of Halloween.
Quote from: english si on January 15, 2015, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2015, 12:30:00 PMAgain, I deal with 1-2 hours of time zone variation a minimum of two times a month (sometimes up to 8 times a month), and it makes no difference to my well-being and health, and the ten seconds it takes to adjust my laptop is the only productivity loss.
The issue isn't the changing of what numbers are on the clock per se, but
- the time you change onto, compared with solar time (if you are changing time zones flying then the time changes keep solar time and social time pretty much in sync), creating health issues with late dawns, esp in October, November, February and March.
- the lack of evidence for meaningfully positive energy/economic benefits to justify the change.
I mentioned the variation in time zone changes to destroy the worn-out excuses of health reasons against DST. Socially, you kind of have to go with the flow of wherever you may be, which helps. Economically, I've kind of thought it's a bit of a zero-sum game; one time of year washes out the other, but the psychological benefits help out. Still, there's times of year where I don't need a 10:00pm sunset and/or a 4:45am sunrise, so it really depends on your latitude.
If it means going to bed one hour early one night a year, that's called responsibility. If it means fighting it by watching the regularly-scheduled Sunday night programming of
The Nose Picking Hour while having that unnecessary fourth beer, and then wasting an hour of one's work day railing about each March/April it on Twitter because one felt they weren't getting enough sleep, then what difference does my opinion make?
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2015, 06:44:36 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on January 14, 2015, 05:41:33 PM
I think Las Vegas should stay on Pacific Time. That being said, if Las Vegas chose to adopt similar time rules to Arizona, both areas would still be on the same time as California and the rest of the Pacific Time Zone for 8 months out of the year (March to November).
Unless Congress comes to their senses and makes DST April-October again. But then, Congress.
I think it'd make more sense to make it the same as Europe (last Sunday in March to last Sunday in October), although I recognize the political and commercial interests in the current November date so I don't see that changing. The second Sunday in March is absurdly early and I never minded the first Sunday in April, but it seems to me the last Sunday in March would be a reasonable compromise date that would eliminate the nuisance in the business world of having to deal with the time difference being an hour less for part of March (e.g., from the second Sunday in March to the last Sunday in March, London is four hours ahead of Eastern Time rather than five). While at first blush it sounds fine to have a lesser time difference, the practical problem is that most people forget the difference is less during that period and you wind up with a lot of missed phone calls and botched conference calls and the like.
Quote from: kkt on January 15, 2015, 01:12:45 PM
Well, think about this. Kids don't get up by themselves and get their breakfast and to school. A parent has to be home to do that. Kinda hard to explain to lots of workplaces that you want to come to work an hour late for the next four months.
Wanna bet? I take you've never been in or had a parent in a dysfunctional home where they have to do exactly that.
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2015, 01:46:58 PMI mentioned the variation in time zone changes to destroy the worn-out excuses of health reasons against DST.
The health reasons are linked with darker mornings, not the time shift in and of itself (other than 3 days of increased heart attacks after springing forward, and 1 day of reduced heart attacks after falling back - note that the disproportionately late return to normal time doesn't as give much relief).
You may have mentioned the time changes to defeat a straw man, I was pointing out that you are trying to destroy an argument that isn't real (and you don't even do that - see below).
QuoteSocially, you kind of have to go with the flow of wherever you may be, which helps.
I meant clock time, and changed it, but still, my point stands that solar time and other times aren't changing relative to each other when you move geographically, even though you are changing your clock. They are changing when you change times without moving geographically - it is that disparity between clocks that is the issue.
Changing to/from DST is different to changing a time zone geographically, as it moves the social and clock times relative to solar time. The 1 hour difference between London and Berlin isn't an issue, as sunrises are in roughly the same place clock time. The 1 hour difference between the Saturday before and the third Sunday in March (in London) is an identical change of your watch, but sunrise is now an hour later on clock time, a much harder lag to deal with than a 23h day.
So you try and take out a non-argument with an apples-to-orange comparison. Not only were you fighting a scarecrow, but you missed!
QuoteIf it means going to bed one hour early one night a year, that's called responsibility.
Oh, wow, not only assuming that as I don't like DST, I can't get up on the last Sunday of March, but that I don't plan ahead and go to bed early? Double
ad hominem all the way!
This year I'm not going to bed an hour early as, time and time again I can't get it to do anything other than give me less sleep. My body clock isn't ready for sleep if I'm going to bed early, and rather than tiring myself out, I'm just laying there trying to sleep, not using energy.
It's no harder to wake up the day the clocks spring forward at 7am than 4 weeks earlier when the sunrise is the same time on the clock, but it's a hell of lot harder than 1 week earlier, when the sunrise is an extra (over spring forward day) 44m earlier (7am is 16m after sunrise on the 1st of March, 31m on the 8th, 47m on the 15th, 1h3m on the 22nd and 19m on the 29th*).
Actually engaging with what someone is saying, rather than creating straw men and then insulting them instead of actual argument, that's called responsibility.
*Sundays in October, in London, are as follows - 4th 7:06, 11th 7:18, 18th 07:30, 25th 06:42. It's clear there isn't a useless hour of daylight to move from the morning at this time of year! Last Sunday in March to last Sunday in September, anyone?
Actually, I was agreeing with your stance, but if using your words to buttress my opinion isn't your style, then my apologies.
...I think.
Daylight Savings Time all the time means there is effectively no more daylight savings time. It would just mean that solar noon is 1:00 PM. UTC-5 would become UTC-4 (east coast of US), while UTC-8 would become UTC-7 (west coast of US).
The trend has always been to lean toward later sunsets. Look at the time zones around the world. They tend to stretch well west of the center meridian. The Central Time Zone in North America is based on the 90° meridian (roughly Memphis and New Orleans), but Nashville is barely in the zone and Saskatchewan is in it too.
I don't think DST is quaint. People dislike changing clocks and bitch about it, but in most of the country they like having more light in the evening in the summer.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 16, 2015, 09:47:31 AM
The trend has always been to lean toward later sunsets. Look at the time zones around the world. They tend to stretch well west of the center meridian. The Central Time Zone in North America is based on the 90° meridian (roughly Memphis and New Orleans), but Nashville is barely in the zone and Saskatchewan is in it too.
But Saskatchewan doesn't do DST, except for its parts of the Lloydminster (always follows Alberta time) and Flin Flon (always follows Manitoba) areas, so it's effectively on Mountain time half the year.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fpoisson.phc.unipi.it%2F%7Emaggiolo%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FSolarTimeVsStandardTime.png&hash=9ea05cd7085db276f1fe524125090afbf8f8d99d)
Click to make larger.
This map shows solar noon.
Dark green (almost nonexistent): 10:00
Primary green (moderately rare): 11:00
Light green: 11:30
White: 12:00
Light red: 12:30
Primary red: 1:00
Dark red: 2:00
Add 1 hour to the time if daylight savings time is active. This would make red places more red, and almost all green places turn from green to red.
Sorry to bump an old thread, but on a somewhat related note, I wonder if the time zone difference between Las Vegas and Arizona has anything to do with why the Kingman/Bullhead area are in the Phoenix Nielsen Designated Market Area (DMA) instead of the Las Vegas DMA. After all, Kingman/Bullhead are both geographically and economically closer to Las Vegas than they are to Phoenix. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget even groups the Kingman/Bullhead/Lake Havasu City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with the Las Vegas MSA via a Combined Statistical Area (CSA).
Quote from: Road Hog on January 16, 2015, 09:47:31 AM
The trend has always been to lean toward later sunsets. Look at the time zones around the world. They tend to stretch well west of the center meridian. The Central Time Zone in North America is based on the 90° meridian (roughly Memphis and New Orleans), but Nashville is barely in the zone and Saskatchewan is in it too.
I don't think DST is quaint. People dislike changing clocks and bitch about it, but in most of the country they like having more light in the evening in the summer.
There's more light in the evenings in the summer
with or without DST.
Quote from: kphoger on February 10, 2015, 04:34:35 PM
There's more light in the evenings in the summer with or without DST.
There's more light in the evenings with DST than there would be if we kept standard time in the summer.
Standard time in the summer would give us more light from 4 to 5 AM, which most people don't find as useful as 9 to 10 PM.
I don't find extra daylight after 9:00 particularly useful. Very little am I doing outside that requires natural daylight. I do, however, find it difficult to put a child to bed at 8:00 when it's still fully light outside, especially if that child is a baby or toddler that needs a room to be as dark as possible for a bedtime cue.
On the other end, though, as someone who has a hard time getting up while it's still dark outside, DST really does me in in the spring: just as it's finally starting to be light outside when my alarm goes off, DST pulls the rug out from under me. I actually only get up with or after the sun for a few months out of the year, and most people I know get up when I do or before I do.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 10, 2015, 01:09:54 PM
Sorry to bump an old thread, but on a somewhat related note, I wonder if the time zone difference between Las Vegas and Arizona has anything to do with why the Kingman/Bullhead area are in the Phoenix Nielsen Designated Market Area (DMA) instead of the Las Vegas DMA. After all, Kingman/Bullhead are both geographically and economically closer to Las Vegas than they are to Phoenix. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget even groups the Kingman/Bullhead/Lake Havasu City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with the Las Vegas MSA via a Combined Statistical Area (CSA).
Nielsen DMAs are based on the most-watched stations in a market. In the analog TV days, the Phoenix stations all built out extensive translator networks to provide coverage of their stations in nearly every decent-sized town north of Phoenix, thus ensuring that those towns were part of the local market. When DirecTV and Dish Network started carrying local stations, they were obligated to provide the correct locals into any areas that could receive them over the air, and similar rules apply for the areas with cable. Basically, it's a self-perpetuating scheme where whoever got there first is nearly impossible to unseat.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 01:51:51 PM
Quote
The jobs can shift their hours
That's not really possible. Jobs schedule their hours based on when people are in the stores, at restaurants, etc. You can't ask the entire population to shift their shopping & eating habits.
Even for non-service businesses, there's also the issue that no business is an island, i.e. they have to interact with other businesses too. There's theoretically no reason a CPA can't do their work on 2nd (swing) shift, but they have to interact with banks, the post office, the tax commission, etc. and all of those are open on 1st shift. Plus, there is a general expectation from customers that you will be available for inquiries during normal business hours, so if a call placed at 10am consistently goes to voicemail they may be upset.
I work 2nd shift and run a small business on the side and have to try to tailor the business schedule around my 2nd shift job. Since I wake up around noon most days, this can sometimes cause issues when I miss a morning phone call from a vendor. I wake up and realize I have to call them back, but have to wait until 1pm to avoid lunch hour. This has led into some multi-day games of phone tag on a few occasions where we just keep missing each other.
If the politicians have imposed Daylight Savings Time on you, don't forget to turn your clocks ahead one hour tonight. To follow the official procedure, get up at 2 am to do it.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2015, 02:03:02 PM
If the politicians have imposed Daylight Savings Time on you, don't forget to turn your clocks ahead one hour tonight. To follow the official procedure, get up at 1:59 am to do it.
Fixed. There is no 2:00. 1:59:59 -> 3:00:00.
Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2015, 02:05:22 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2015, 02:03:02 PM
If the politicians have imposed Daylight Savings Time on you, don't forget to turn your clocks ahead one hour tonight. To follow the official procedure, get up at 2:00 AM Standard Time to do it.
There is no 2:00.
Yes there is. 2:00 Standard Time = 3:00 Daylight Time. It still exists; just, as soon as it is that time, Daylight Time becomes the normal expression of the current time.
Don't more clocks reset automatically these days?
Quote from: swbrotha100 on March 07, 2015, 05:06:56 PM
Don't more clocks reset automatically these days?
I know on computers and phones they do, but many people still use watches that don't reset automatically.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 07, 2015, 05:59:04 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on March 07, 2015, 05:06:56 PM
Don't more clocks reset automatically these days?
I know on computers and phones they do, but many people still use watches that don't reset automatically.
A lot of the "automatic" updates still have glitches. I have worked many time changes and seen the time change on, say, my cell phone network, not occur until an hour and and half after the time change officially occurred. [Meaning the phone continues to display (C)ST until 3:20 at which time the display jumps ahead one hour to (C)DT.] It's also pretty common to see a shift of two hours that doesn't get resolved until 4 or 5am. Sometimes I've seen display "fast-forward" like a stopwatch one hour - or twenty-three hours. Usually it's correct by 0530 or 0600...
We old fogeys tell the kids to wear a watch on the time-change nights.
Stupid electricity. We wouldn't need to worry about DST if it didn't exist because then we'd easily be up at 4 am in the summer. Whenever I go backpacking, my body eventually resets back to its natural rhythm: falling asleep a couple hours after sunset, waking up partway through the night, going back to sleep, then waking up with the sun feeling completely refreshed.
As for the comments a while back regarding kids getting up early...all of my female friends who work and have children get them up insanely early to get them dressed, fed, and to day care. Why bother making high school kids wake up early when the babies, toddlers, and elementary ones have to get up early anyway?
There are a number of older devices which were programmed when DST started on the last Sunday in March which will not adjust automatically tonight. I have an astronomical timer for my post light which is one of them. I'll just wait for it adjust in two weeks.
Quote from: US81 on March 07, 2015, 06:57:34 PM
A lot of the "automatic" updates still have glitches. I have worked many time changes and seen the time change on, say, my cell phone network, not occur until an hour and and half after the time change officially occurred. [Meaning the phone continues to display (C)ST until 3:20 at which time the display jumps ahead one hour to (C)DT.] It's also pretty common to see a shift of two hours that doesn't get resolved until 4 or 5am. Sometimes I've seen display "fast-forward" like a stopwatch one hour - or twenty-three hours. Usually it's correct by 0530 or 0600...
We old fogeys tell the kids to wear a watch on the time-change nights.
Good point. I live in Arizona and the clock my phone incorrectly sprung forward one hour.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2015, 10:46:22 PM
There are a number of older devices which were programmed when DST started on the last Sunday in March which will not adjust automatically tonight. I have an astronomical timer for my post light which is one of them. I'll just wait for it adjust in two weeks.
Last Sunday in March is the European standard. In the United States it was previously first Sunday in April.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 08, 2015, 11:41:32 AMGood point. I live in Arizona and the clock my phone incorrectly sprung forward one hour.
Surely there's a specific Arizona time zone to set it to that doesn't do DST? Or, better, some sort of GPS system that works out the local time where you are
Quote from: english si on March 08, 2015, 12:04:00 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 08, 2015, 11:41:32 AMGood point. I live in Arizona and the clock my phone incorrectly sprung forward one hour.
Surely there's a specific Arizona time zone to set it to that doesn't do DST? Or, better, some sort of GPS system that works out the local time where you are
My phone syncs with the network time. Apparently AT&T accidentally set their clock forward at the nearest tower. The issue has since been corrected.
Quote from: Laura on March 07, 2015, 08:25:01 PM
As for the comments a while back regarding kids getting up early...all of my female friends who work and have children get them up insanely early to get them dressed, fed, and to day care. Why bother making high school kids wake up early when the babies, toddlers, and elementary ones have to get up early anyway?
Because high schoolers are better capable of taking care of themselves than elementary schoolers and therefore in households where both parents work (or the only parent works) you want the high schoolers to get home first because otherwise it fits better with the parents' schedules.
Yeah, this doesn't help in the argument of "stupid modern life messing us up", but there you go.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 08, 2015, 11:59:23 PM
Quote from: Laura on March 07, 2015, 08:25:01 PM
As for the comments a while back regarding kids getting up early...all of my female friends who work and have children get them up insanely early to get them dressed, fed, and to day care. Why bother making high school kids wake up early when the babies, toddlers, and elementary ones have to get up early anyway?
Because high schoolers are better capable of taking care of themselves than elementary schoolers and therefore in households where both parents work (or the only parent works) you want the high schoolers to get home first because otherwise it fits better with the parents' schedules.
Yeah, this doesn't help in the argument of "stupid modern life messing us up", but there you go.
Also, high schoolers may have after school jobs, or be in sports teams or other activities with 2+ hours of practice after school. One could argue that neither of those is as important as being awake for the first couple of hours of class, but they are very important to some people.
I'd certainly not mind getting to see the sunrise without having to wake up in the late wee hours.
And with efficient LED lighting now a thing, there's no reason why golf courses couldn't be illuminated for 24-hour play, nor any reason street lighting couldn't be vastly expanded