The Great Debate of Our Time

[prinCZess]

At least for those of us in some places, tonight is that night where clocks are set back an hour because of...Uh...mumble, mumble, something, something, factory-workers, farmers, mumble, mumble. That's right, Daylight Savings Time is upon us, and while time-traveling backwards does make me feel like a protagonist in a bad movie and gets me an extra hour to ignore upcoming deadlines, it also buggers with preexisting schedules and there's a growing degree of opposition to it.

In the US, a new poll holds that 70% of people dislike the switching back-and-forth between DST and standard time...But can't agree on which one to permanently change to if such a thing were in the works.
For our European friends, the EU has actually voted to scrap the idea starting in 2021 pending members approving the idea...Of course, that might cause some fun screwery with the UK and Ireland thanks to the wonders of Brexit and what seems to be moderate UK support for the idea (44% in favor of the idea versus 39% who want to scrap it).

So, what are folks standpoint on this, the largest and most important issue of our time (unless you live somewhere that doesn't do it in which case feel free to express your amazement and respect for my and others magical, time-traveling capabilities)?
Dislike twice-a-year time changes? You're part of large majority of Americans, poll shows

 

[Cherico]

I like daylight savings time and think that should be the perminate standard.

 

[Bacle]

I am one of those who thinks we need it, but don't want to make it permanent. What we have now works, and most everyone is used to it at this point.

My only real gripe is that they wait till November to do it, when it really would make more sense to do it about a month earlier.

 

[Deleted member]

I support moving New England, excepting Connecticut, to Atlantic time, and staying there year-round. DST is an odd legacy of a certain kind of puritan busybody attitude unfortunately common in the US.

 

[S'task]

It should be scrapped. There are no benefits to it, and those that like it, everything you get out of it can literally be accomplished by shifting your schedule and hour earlier. The negatives though... the negatives.

Daylights savings time literally kills people. The week after switching sees a statistically significant increase in heart attacks and death due to the stress shifting sleep cycles forward and hour puts on the human body. And we do this every year, for some people, their sleep cycles are such that the switch makes them lethargic and unable to get a proper night's sleep for most of the time it's active (I myself fall into that category, and no "go to bed earlier" is NOT a solution, since that just causes me to toss and turn for an hour before falling asleep at the same time as usual).

It was a terrible idea, it has literally never provided the benefit is was supposedly sold on, and those folks who LIKE being an hour ahead and want to force everyone onto their early bird sleep cycles are asshole busybodies who should accept that not everyone likes to get up at the crack of dawn and go to sleep when the sun goes down.

 

[gral]

Heh. Earlier this year, Daylight Saving Time was abolished in Brazil, which resulted in complaints from those who believe the current administration can do no good. Thing is, Brazil always justified the inception of DST as a way to reduce peak energy consumption, an excuse that does not hold water since peak consumption isn't around 7-8 PM anymore(it's around 3 PM nowadays). There still were advantages to having DST, but these aren't nearly as big as they once were, so the government decided to end it.

 

[Scottty]

This quote seems appropriate:

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Standard time vs daylight savings time revolves around whether daylight is more useful in the morning or evening.

Read many battle reports pre railroads standardizing time, and you see lots of reports of dawn at 0430 or earlier. Antietam had dawn at 0530, and Borodino had dawn any time between 0400 and 0600 (accounts vary). Both were in September, notably. Dawn at Gettysburg is often quoted as 4AM.

Now, our modern society does not use daylight as a clock. Instead, it focuses around the 9-5 workday (which became roughly 8-5 with unpaid hour lunches and whatnot), with most activities in the evening. Frankly, daylight at 4-6AM is wasted on most people, while putting off sunset to 7, 8 or even 9PM in the summer has major benefits, because that is when people are up and out.

The cited article above addresses the time change issue, and disruption of circadian rhythms that come from pushing the clock one hour forward. But it does not address items such as crime reductions, fewer traffic accidents, greater sun exposure during the times people are up and about, and arguably even energy savings. Popular Mechanics gives a good summary of the benefits of DST:

Daylight Saving Time Is Actually a Good Thing, Experts Say

DST messes with your schedule a couple days out of the year, but in turn, it offers you a sunnier life. And who doesn't want that?

www.popularmechanics.com

If the major drawbacks are transitioning to and from DST, there is no substantial drawback to DST in the winter, and major benefits from later dawns and later sunsets, the solution is clear: make DST standard year round, and don't set the clocks back at all.

 

[Lightershoulders]

Firmly against daylight savings time. Glad Arizona doesn't do it.

 

[Deleted member]

@Darth Robbhi I support what you say more or less exactly. Nothing is more miserable than the sunlight waking you up before you need to be up for your work-day, and nothing is more miserable than getting home to find it already dark. I'd love to see the sun just peaking above the mountains as I start to drive to work, that would be the perfect timing for morning generally. The easiest thing to do is just have us all switch to DST next year... And stay there.

I am sure there will be some exceptions because of how odd our current timezone boundaries are, and that's fine, of course, states should be able to choose what final timezone they land in, or even implement a thirty minute offset like one Province in Canada has, though that would make people very upset with having to program a new time zone into computers.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

Be happy you're not in Indiana. Most of the state is in Eastern Time, but part is in Central Time. The line goes along county lines, so it is crooked. At least we all change on the same date. Not many years ago, not all towns switched to DST, and not all did so on the same date. Welcome to Indiana, where you have to call ahead to find out what time it is.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

@Darth Robbhi I support what you say more or less exactly. Nothing is more miserable than the sunlight waking you up before you need to be up for your work-day, and nothing is more miserable than getting home to find it already dark. I'd love to see the sun just peaking above the mountains as I start to drive to work, that would be the perfect timing for morning generally. The easiest thing to do is just have us all switch to DST next year... And stay there.

I am sure there will be some exceptions because of how odd our current timezone boundaries are, and that's fine, of course, states should be able to choose what final timezone they land in, or even implement a thirty minute offset like one Province in Canada has, though that would make people very upset with having to program a new time zone into computers.

Agreed. Given the majority of human schedules, staying on DST is probably the best, with perhaps some adjustment of time zone for areas where the existing time zone does not suit. Utilizing thirty minute offsets may help with dawn/dusk issues, though they will cause greater confusion than the current one hour increments.

 

[Bacle]

It should be scrapped. There are no benefits to it, and those that like it, everything you get out of it can literally be accomplished by shifting your schedule and hour earlier. The negatives though... the negatives.

Daylights savings time literally kills people. The week after switching sees a statistically significant increase in heart attacks and death due to the stress shifting sleep cycles forward and hour puts on the human body. And we do this every year, for some people, their sleep cycles are such that the switch makes them lethargic and unable to get a proper night's sleep for most of the time it's active (I myself fall into that category, and no "go to bed earlier" is NOT a solution, since that just causes me to toss and turn for an hour before falling asleep at the same time as usual).

It was a terrible idea, it has literally never provided the benefit is was supposedly sold on, and those folks who LIKE being an hour ahead and want to force everyone onto their early bird sleep cycles are asshole busybodies who should accept that not everyone likes to get up at the crack of dawn and go to sleep when the sun goes down.

Some of us have to be to work at 2 am, and have no choice but to be 'early birds'. DST means the sun comes up just a little earlier, and thus we are a little less cold in the morning when eating our lunches or going on break.

Not everyone has the luxury of a 9-5 type sleep/work schedule.

 

[S'task]

Some of us have to be to work at 2 am, and have no choice but to be 'early birds'. DST means the sun comes up just a little earlier, and thus we are a little less cold in the morning when eating our lunches or going on break.

Not everyone has the luxury of a 9-5 type sleep/work schedule.

That's nice.

I worked an 1800 - 0600 job before, for a good three years. I am much more familiar with that cycle than probably most people are. I still maintained then that DST should be abolished.

What you are saying is fundamentally selfish. You want society to accommodate your personal preferences and schedules to the point where, instead of just getting up earlier and shifting you schedule as such, you demand that EVERYONE do so, and thereby kill people. You want a warmer lunch and break time? Take personal responsibility and add another layer of clothes to wear, don't demand that all of society lose an hour of sleep and risk heart attacks, increased traffic accidents, and massive productivity loss due to lethargy.

This is a criticism I'd also level at @Captain-General. You don't want to be woken up by the dawn? Invest in some good blackout shades. You want to see the sunrise on your way to work? Negotiate with your boss to start earlier and shift your schedule and if that's not possible... well... to be frank, your aesthetic desire to see the sunrise over the mountain is a... very bad reason to reorder society for.

 

[Scottty]

The idea that business hours must start at some arbitrary time-o-clock is part of the problem here.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

@S'task Your cited article specifically references the months we change the clocks, not the months DST is in effect. Were DST killing people, we would see an uptick in deaths for all of DST, not just March.

What it is arguing is that we pick a time and stick to it, not that more daylight later in the day is lethal.

 

[Deleted member]

This is a criticism I'd also level at @Captain-General. You don't want to be woken up by the dawn? Invest in some good blackout shades. You want to see the sunrise on your way to work? Negotiate with your boss to start earlier and shift your schedule and if that's not possible... well... to be frank, your aesthetic desire to see the sunrise over the mountain is a... very bad reason to reorder society for.

Like @Darth Robbhi said, @S'task , we fully agree with you about eliminating DST. I'm arguing for just moving the area I live in into the next time-zone east (with no DST).

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Like @Darth Robbhi said, @S'task , we fully agree with you about eliminating DST. I'm arguing for just moving the area I live in into the next time-zone east (with no DST).

I don't agree on eliminating DST. I agree on eliminating jumping forward and falling back, which @S'task's linked article shows is the problem. For most people and places, a later dawn and a later dusk is highly beneficial, which means DST year round.

Or shifting one time zone to the left.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't agree on eliminating DST. I agree on eliminating jumping forward and falling back, which @S'task's linked article shows is the problem. For most people and places, a later dawn and a later dusk is highly beneficial, which means DST year round.

Or shifting one time zone to the left.

But that’s what I meant!

 

[Darth Robbhi]

But that’s what I meant!

It demonstrates the confusion. People refer to DST when they really mean changing times; similarly, when people object to DST they really object to the time change, not extra daylight in the evening.

However, most of the abolish DST legislation would stick people on standard time year round. So clarity is important.