Daylight Savings Time (2022): Once And For All!!!

[Rothman]

Strongly opposed.  DST in the winter means it doesn't get light until after people are at work or at school.  Seeing some light outside it part of what wakes people up.  They can force themselves awake when it's still pitch dark if necessary, but they're still half asleep, slow reaction times, poor judgement.  Less happy, too.  The thing is, we tried this one year.  In 1974 we changed to DST at the beginning of January.  People hated it.  Congress was deluged with mail asking for it to be changed back and did, as soon as they were back from winter recess.

Sounds like the problem is the squeaky wheel getting the grease.

Wonder what would happen if there was a nationwide referendum on it to see how many people are for getting rid of changing the clocks.

Like I said, I will definitely take the darker mornings for a later sunset in the winter.  Here in the Northeast, standard time is just dumb.

[NWI_Irish96]

Changing clocks sucks
Permanent standard time sucks for the eastern parts of time zones
Permanent DST sucks for the western parts of time zones

The best solution is to implement DST but shift time zones to the east.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

In the meantime, couldn't we agree for when DST should start and end? Right now the time this forum displays to me is one hour ahead my actual hour, because Summer Time (as DST is known in Europe) hasn't started yet, and won't do so until March 27. In the meantime the clocks are misaligned, and thus at Big Rig Travels I quote Steve's time, my time, and the times resulting from applying the nominal time difference, which are one hour off the actual observed times.

However I'm already in a place with de facto DST year-round, and even double DST during the time it is in force. We have adapted to this weird time, so while at first it seems we do things too late in reality we do them at the same time as the rest of the World when the difference between solar and clock times are accounted for. So, the solution is simple: scrap time zones and use solar time . Use UTC to keep things in different places on sync.

[jeffandnicole]

Wonder what would happen if there was a nationwide referendum on it to see how many people are for getting rid of changing the clocks.

Like I said, I will definitely take the darker mornings for a later sunset in the winter.  Here in the Northeast, standard time is just dumb.

Most people would be in favor of not having to change clocks. The question is what time we should settle on, which isn't as clear cut.

[ran4sh]

In the meantime, couldn't we agree for when DST should start and end? Right now the time this forum displays to me is one hour ahead my actual hour, because Summer Time (as DST is known in Europe) hasn't started yet, and won't do so until March 27. In the meantime the clocks are misaligned, and thus at Big Rig Travels I quote Steve's time, my time, and the times resulting from applying the nominal time difference, which are one hour off the actual observed times.

However I'm already in a place with de facto DST year-round, and even double DST during the time it is in force. We have adapted to this weird time, so while at first it seems we do things too late in reality we do them at the same time as the rest of the World when the difference between solar and clock times are accounted for. So, the solution is simple: scrap time zones and use solar time . Use UTC to keep things in different places on sync.

This is one of those things where Europe does something and then expects America to follow suit. But regarding the DST issue specifically, I don't think Europe really has a convincing argument for getting America to change to European rules. America had DST first, and has been consistent with it for longer, and when Europe implemented DST they had the opportunity to use the same rules as America but they chose not to.

[kalvado]

Really, I find all the whining to be a generally silly fad that crops up twice a year and then disappears for a few months. Changing the clocks is not a big problem at all and I haven't heard anyone come up with a better solution on the whole for the issue of the solar day not corresponding to what our society wants it to be.

There are documented increases in strokes and heart attacks the first week after time changes. Personally, it takes me a week to get used to waking up at what is essentially an hour earlier. Fortunately for us, our dog is not like others in that it doesn't mind getting fed an hour later. Many dogs have a real hard time adjusting.

General argument is that those are the people on the brink of a problem anyways, so they would have the same thing within a few weeks, if not days, even if the clock didn't change.
Which is a less than great situation as well, but not as tragic as "many people are dying because of it"

[kalvado]

I'm confused. Why is daylight savings such a sensitive topic on this forum? I've been here for 5 years and still don't know.

It's one of those things where every possible argument for or against it was written by 1979 and people just get stuck in a loop saying the same stuff over and over again.

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=46831&p=1198722

Here's a DST thread on a totally different forum. It is identical to any of our DST threads, just with different usernames.

Problem of any issue which affects everyone, population is divided and not inclined to compromise, but there has to be a single solution for everyone (well, maybe not across the country - but definitely locally, e.g. within large metro area like NYC)
So whatever happens there will be those unhappy.

[kalvado]

Changing clocks sucks
Permanent standard time sucks for the eastern parts of time zones
Permanent DST sucks for the western parts of time zones

The best solution is to implement DST but shift time zones to the east.

There will still be east edge and west edge of the zone. Half an hour zones may be a solution, but the can of worms is sizeable.  Lake Ontario size or so

[nexus73]

China has their whole nation on Beijing time.  Imagine the mess that makes since China is larger than the USA. 

Rick

[kkt]

I don't believe Europe had any expectation that the United States would move our change dates to match theirs.  Not everything is about us.  Europe just picked days that seemed to work best to them.

[hotdogPi]

I don't believe Europe had any expectation that the United States would move our change dates to match theirs.  Not everything is about us.  Europe just picked days that seemed to work best to them.

I believe we did match theirs until we changed in 2007. We're the ones at fault.

[kalvado]

China has their whole nation on Beijing time.  Imagine the mess that makes since China is larger than the USA. 

Rick

It doesn't matter if locality can more or less choose what "9 to 5" means for them.
Having that shifted to "7 to 3" or "10 to 6" doesn't make much difference beyond changing signs if that aligns with sun better. Requires some level of coordination, but nothing impossible. Set school starting time to match.
One of DST transition issues is that public-facing offices are expected to maintain hours throughout the time shift with little flexibility - and my feeling some policies are set from headquarters without too much local input. 

[1995hoo]

I don't believe Europe had any expectation that the United States would move our change dates to match theirs.  Not everything is about us.  Europe just picked days that seemed to work best to them.

I believe we did match theirs until we changed in 2007. We're the ones at fault.

We did not match theirs. Most or all of Western Europe has changed on the last Sunday in March since 1981 (prior to then, it was a hodgepodge). Prior to 1987, the USA switched on the last Sunday in April, which meant we had almost exactly six months on DST and six months off. In 1987, we switched to the first Sunday in April, so still a week later than Europe. Then in 2007 we switched to the current system.

[hbelkins]

There's a very good chance there could be just ONE MORE set of time changes:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/03/time-for-a-change-us-senate-agrees-to-make-daylight-savings-permanent.html

I started to say, "actually, there will be two more time changes," then I saw your use of the word "set" and that's correct.

We'd go back to standard time in November, then change to permanent DST next March.

I'm definitely all for this.

Changing clocks sucks
Permanent standard time sucks for the eastern parts of time zones
Permanent DST sucks for the western parts of time zones

The best solution is to implement DST but shift time zones to the east.

No, no, a thousand times no. I like being on the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone, and have never liked going into the Central Time Zone. If my county gets pushed to CT, that effectively negates the extra evening hour of daylight achieved through permanent DST.

I don't care about late sunrises. My waking time on work days is determined by an alarm clock, not by sunlight. All I do in the mornings is get up, get ready, and drive straight to work. I don't care if it's still dark when I get there. I do like having daylight after work, and it not being dark by the time I finish running errands (such as going to the store) before going home.

Everyone has their own preferences, but that's mine.

FWIW, I had no issues adjusting to the time change this year. I felt better-rested on Monday than I have in a long time.

[webny99]

Is there anyone who actually thinks DST got better after it got extended in 2007?

And I don't mean "it's better because it's closer to year-round DST"! I mean actually preferring the new dates over the old dates from a practical standpoint, preferring the latest sunrise being in October, preferring to lose an hour of morning daylight just after it starts to get light out again, preferring 7-8PM sunsets in March when it's still too cold (in many areas) to do anything outside.

If there is anyone, I'd like to hear their perspective.

[webny99]

I don't care about late sunrises. My waking time on work days is determined by an alarm clock, not by sunlight. All I do in the mornings is get up, get ready, and drive straight to work. I don't care if it's still dark when I get there. I do like having daylight after work, and it not being dark by the time I finish running errands (such as going to the store) before going home.

You've brought this up before and I can't get my head around the idea that daylight has no impact at all on one's ability to wake up. Have you not been affected at all by the time change this past weekend? Felt the least bit more tired in the morning, or the least bit more awake in the evening?

[kphoger]

What we had before standard times were created in the 1800s was a mess.  You could ride to the next town and be a few minutes later or earlier or anything up to an hour.  I wouldn't want to go back to a patchwork quilt like it was then, not even at the state level - although I'm fine with individual states being able to exempt themselves from DST if they want.

There's little difference between those two things, or between them and what's being proposed.

As I understand it, states will still be allowed to opt in or out of DST.  Therefore, a trip down I-95 could have one driving through a patchwork quilt of opt-in and opt-out states.  That's true now, and it would be true if this were to pass.  I'm not saying it's all that likely, because states generally want to be somewhat in sync with their neighbors (for example, Kansas has already expressed that they would work with Missouri before making any decisions if this bill passes), but I do think it would be more likely in the hypothetical future than it is presently.  The reason I think it's more likely if this passes is that different states will have different reactions to the legislation.

[tradephoric]

Here are some extreme dawn/dusk times depending on if permanent standard time or permanent DST was observed.  What example seems more egregious? 

If Boston observed permanent 'standard time' during the longest day of the year...
Dawn/Dusk: 03:32/19:59

If Detroit observed permanent DST during the shortest day of the year...
Dawn/Dusk: 08:24/19:02

Remember that phase in your life when you would sleep in till noon (ie. teenage years)?  Even if the country observed permanent DST and you lived in a northern city on the western edge of a timezone during the dead of winter, that teenager would still be wasting about 3.5 hours of daylight.  Now remember that phase in your life where you would always get up at 3:30AM?  Yeah, me neither. 

[1995hoo]

I don't care about late sunrises. My waking time on work days is determined by an alarm clock, not by sunlight. All I do in the mornings is get up, get ready, and drive straight to work. I don't care if it's still dark when I get there. I do like having daylight after work, and it not being dark by the time I finish running errands (such as going to the store) before going home.

You've brought this up before and I can't get my head around the idea that daylight has no impact at all on one's ability to wake up. Have you not been affected at all by the time change this past weekend? Felt the least bit more tired in the morning, or the least bit more awake in the evening?

I haven't felt anything like that this week. But what I do feel in the morning when the alarm clock goes off is the "ohhh shit, is it time to get up already?" groaning feeling due to the dark mornings. I have a substantially easier time getting up in the morning when it's already lighter outside. No doubt the fact that the dark mornings also coincide with the colder weather is part of that, of course–who likes getting up from a nice warm bed on a cold morning? (This morning our cat was scratching at our bedroom door and meowing loudly at least half an hour before the clock went off. I thought about just getting up but decided I didn't want to reward her because that would just encourage her to do it again tomorrow.)

We turned in at 11:00 Saturday night and got up at 8:00 Sunday morning, so we got a full eight hours' sleep that night. I think the people who complain must be people who stay out late.

Is there anyone who actually thinks DST got better after it got extended in 2007?

And I don't mean "it's better because it's closer to year-round DST"! I mean actually preferring the new dates over the old dates from a practical standpoint, preferring the latest sunrise being in October, preferring to lose an hour of morning daylight just after it starts to get light out again, preferring 7-8PM sunsets in March when it's still too cold (in many areas) to do anything outside.

If there is anyone, I'd like to hear their perspective.

I can't say I prefer the current schedule, but I also can't say I think the old schedule was significantly better. It doesn't make a huge difference in the scheme of things. I did note one practical benefit to the current schedule in the societal sense: Easter and Passover can never coincide with the time change under current law because the latest date on which the clocks can go ahead is March 14, but the earliest possible dates for Passover and Easter are March 21 and 22, respectively. I certainly remember various Easter Sundays over the year when we were at mid-morning Mass and half the congregation showed up an hour late. In the scheme of things, I don't consider that sort of thing a major reason to fix the time change when it is now, but I do think from a societal standpoint there's some benefit to avoiding having it coincide with major observances of that sort.

[1995hoo]

What we had before standard times were created in the 1800s was a mess.  You could ride to the next town and be a few minutes later or earlier or anything up to an hour.  I wouldn't want to go back to a patchwork quilt like it was then, not even at the state level - although I'm fine with individual states being able to exempt themselves from DST if they want.

There's little difference between those two things, or between them and what's being proposed.

As I understand it, states will still be allowed to opt in or out of DST.  Therefore, a trip down I-95 could have one driving through a patchwork quilt of opt-in and opt-out states.  That's true now, and it would be true if this were to pass.  I'm not saying it's all that likely, because states generally want to be somewhat in sync with their neighbors (for example, Kansas has already expressed that they would work with Missouri before making any decisions if this bill passes), but I do think it would be more likely in the hypothetical future than it is presently.  The reason I think it's more likely if this passes is that different states will have different reactions to the legislation.

I looked at the Senate bill last night and it appears to me to say that only the states and territories that currently opt out of DST will be able to opt out of the new system. Here is the link to the text. The key text is down at the bottom under "State Exemption":

"(b) Standard time for certain states and areas.–The standard time for a State that has exempted itself from the provisions of section 3(a) of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a(a)), as in effect on the day before November 5, 2023, pursuant to such section or an area of a State that has exempted such area from such provisions pursuant to such section shall be, as such State considers appropriate–

"(1) the standard time for such State or area, as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; or

"(2) the standard time for such State or area, as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (a) of this section as it was in effect on the day before November 5, 2023." .

[tradephoric]

Teenagers would love permanent DST as they constantly sleep in till noon.  The sun has already been up for 3 hours by the time they wake up anyways.  At least permanent DST would limit the amount of daylight they waste.

[1995hoo]

Here are some extreme dawn/dusk times depending on if permanent standard time or permanent DST was observed.  What example seems more egregious? 

If Boston observed permanent 'standard time' during the longest day of the year...
Dawn/Dusk: 03:32/19:59

If Detroit observed permanent DST during the shortest day of the year...
Dawn/Dusk: 08:24/19:02

Remember that phase in your life when you would sleep in till noon (ie. teenage years)?  Even if the country observed permanent DST and you lived in a northern city on the western edge of a timezone during the dead of winter, that teenager would still be wasting about 3.5 hours of daylight.  Now remember that phase in your life where you would always get up at 3:30AM?  Yeah, me neither. 

I believe the times you list are incorrect. Sunrise in Detroit on the shortest day of the year is currently at 7:58 and sunset is at 17:02, so they would be at 8:58 and 18:02, respectively, on DST. Sunrise in Boston on the longest day of the year under the current system is at 5:07 and sunset is at 20:24, so they would be at 4:07 and 19:24, respectively, on standard time.

That doesn't necessarily change the validity of your conclusion.

[hotdogPi]

Here are some extreme dawn/dusk times depending on if permanent standard time or permanent DST was observed.  What example seems more egregious? 

If Boston observed permanent 'standard time' during the longest day of the year...
Dawn/Dusk: 03:32/19:59

If Detroit observed permanent DST during the shortest day of the year...
Dawn/Dusk: 08:24/19:02

Remember that phase in your life when you would sleep in till noon (ie. teenage years)?  Even if the country observed permanent DST and you lived in a northern city on the western edge of a timezone during the dead of winter, that teenager would still be wasting about 3.5 hours of daylight.  Now remember that phase in your life where you would always get up at 3:30AM?  Yeah, me neither. 

I believe the times you list are incorrect. Sunrise in Detroit on the shortest day of the year is currently at 7:58 and sunset is at 17:02, so they would be at 8:58 and 18:02, respectively, on DST. Sunrise in Boston on the longest day of the year under the current system is at 5:07 and sunset is at 20:24, so they would be at 4:07 and 19:24, respectively, on standard time.

That doesn't necessarily change the validity of your conclusion.

I checked it myself. tradephoric seems to be including some time when the sun is below the horizon but it's still partially light.

[MikeTheActuary]

Changing clocks sucks
Permanent standard time sucks for the eastern parts of time zones
Permanent DST sucks for the western parts of time zones

The best solution is to implement DST but shift time zones to the east.

The best solution is to go to the average of DST and Standard time (e.g. Eastern = UTC-4½) and shift the lines a bit to the east.

In a prior DST thread,  I shared this map:


It's my attempt to draw time zones that minimize the perceived error in daylight vs. hour on the clock (e.g., minimize the frequency of "going to school" in the dark, minimize "wasted daylight" in the early morning hours, etc.), without splitting Nielsen TV markets, but allowing some wiggle room for the tendency of certain problem areas to be more problematic due to a local desire to be on the same time as someplace else (e.g. Detroit being in the same time zone as most of the rest of the LP of Michigan; or where to draw the boundary between Central and Mountain time through Texas.)

If you try to keep to whole-hour offsets from UTC, you end up with San Francisco and Los Angeles being in different time zones, and Washington DC and NYC being in different time zones, if minimizing daylight vs clock error is the objective.

[tradephoric]

Here are some extreme dawn/dusk times depending on if permanent standard time or permanent DST was observed.  What example seems more egregious? 

If Boston observed permanent 'standard time' during the longest day of the year...
Dawn/Dusk: 03:32/19:59

If Detroit observed permanent DST during the shortest day of the year...
Dawn/Dusk: 08:24/19:02

Remember that phase in your life when you would sleep in till noon (ie. teenage years)?  Even if the country observed permanent DST and you lived in a northern city on the western edge of a timezone during the dead of winter, that teenager would still be wasting about 3.5 hours of daylight.  Now remember that phase in your life where you would always get up at 3:30AM?  Yeah, me neither. 

I believe the times you list are incorrect. Sunrise in Detroit on the shortest day of the year is currently at 7:58 and sunset is at 17:02, so they would be at 8:58 and 18:02, respectively, on DST. Sunrise in Boston on the longest day of the year under the current system is at 5:07 and sunset is at 20:24, so they would be at 4:07 and 19:24, respectively, on standard time.

That doesn't necessarily change the validity of your conclusion.

I was specifically looking at dawn/dusk times as opposed to sunrise/sunset times.  The argument is often how dangerous it would be for kids to walk to school when the sun doesn't rise till after 9AM in the winter.  But with dawn starting 30 minutes earlier, kids walking to school at 8:30AM still wouldn't be walking in pitch darkness.