Why hasn't daylight savings time been done away with in the USA?
November 2, 2015 3:21 PM Subscribe
Why is it still happening? What is the benefit of having standard time and then changing it for a few months?
DST was implemented for the benefit of manufacturing and industry. Most likely it hasn't been done away with either because the sorts of people who crunch numbers on this on behalf of Corporate America think it's worth keeping, or because nobody gives a shit and it would be more work to put the brakes on it than to keep it.
It's mainly farmers and the ag industry who don't like it, and farmers are pretty irrelevant on the political scene nowadays. Otherwise you have generalized apolitical whining, which is not going to accomplish anything.
posted by Sara C. at 3:34 PM on November 2, 2015
It's mainly farmers and the ag industry who don't like it, and farmers are pretty irrelevant on the political scene nowadays. Otherwise you have generalized apolitical whining, which is not going to accomplish anything.
posted by Sara C. at 3:34 PM on November 2, 2015
Ostensibly the purpose of DST is to shift the time people go to bed one hour closer to darkness falling, reducing the need to use energy to power lights and potentially encouraging outdoor activities as opposed to energy demanding things like TV indoors. (Daylight savings time was originally introduced in the US during the world wars as an energy saving measure.) The extent to which it actually achieves this goal is debatable, but there does appear to be at least some reduction in energy use.
posted by Wretch729 at 3:34 PM on November 2, 2015
posted by Wretch729 at 3:34 PM on November 2, 2015
Speaking on behalf of the construction industry, which starts its day at 7 am, having an extra hour of daylight at the beginning of the day instead of at the end of the day is preferable in cold weather seasons.
posted by zagyzebra at 3:40 PM on November 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by zagyzebra at 3:40 PM on November 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
Response by poster: would be more work to put the brakes on it
I guess as a follow up question: what would the work actually be?
And considering how often I hear people complaining about time changes, it seems like it would be a popular move.
posted by josher71 at 3:41 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I guess as a follow up question: what would the work actually be?
And considering how often I hear people complaining about time changes, it seems like it would be a popular move.
posted by josher71 at 3:41 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
What would the work actually be?
Think of all the programming of systems that change to take DST into account. My car clock does it. My alarm clock does it. My DVR. Phone.
posted by cecic at 3:51 PM on November 2, 2015
Think of all the programming of systems that change to take DST into account. My car clock does it. My alarm clock does it. My DVR. Phone.
posted by cecic at 3:51 PM on November 2, 2015
Daylight saving is pretty popular here (Sydney, Australia) because otherwise it would be dark by 7.30pm, even in midsummer. We have warm summers and having the lighter evenings lets people get out to enjoy them.
As someone who doesn't like hot weather, I'd be happy not to change the clocks because darker earlier means the house can cool down more before bedtime and I like the light mornings, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority.
posted by kitten magic at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
As someone who doesn't like hot weather, I'd be happy not to change the clocks because darker earlier means the house can cool down more before bedtime and I like the light mornings, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority.
posted by kitten magic at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
In Chicago, the sun would be coming up at 4:15am in the summer instead of 5:15am without Daylight Saving.
If we just switched Daylight Saving on all year round, In Buffalo the sun wouldn't rise until 8:43am in the winter and kids would be going to school in pitch black. At least now it comes up at 7:43am.
Neither of those sound like something I'd want.
The bigger problem now is that the US and the Rest Of The World no longer move to summer time on the same date, so for two weeks each summer and fall, phone calls and appointments get missed for people, whether it's doing international business just people trying to connect on the Internet.
posted by troyer at 3:58 PM on November 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
If we just switched Daylight Saving on all year round, In Buffalo the sun wouldn't rise until 8:43am in the winter and kids would be going to school in pitch black. At least now it comes up at 7:43am.
Neither of those sound like something I'd want.
The bigger problem now is that the US and the Rest Of The World no longer move to summer time on the same date, so for two weeks each summer and fall, phone calls and appointments get missed for people, whether it's doing international business just people trying to connect on the Internet.
posted by troyer at 3:58 PM on November 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
zagyzebra: "Speaking on behalf of the construction industry, which starts its day at 7 am, having an extra hour of daylight at the beginning of the day instead of at the end of the day is preferable in cold weather seasons."
It's also preferable for elementary school buses/walkers, so that children are more visible to cars as they walk along sidewalks or wait next to roads for their buses. My district talked about starting high school students later and elementary students earlier -- as research indicates is better -- instead of vice versa like we have now (buses run high school routes early in the a.m., then elementary after they're done; high school starts like 45 minutes before elementary). But people feel way, way, WAY better about high school students standing in the dark on icy mornings on the roadside than about 6-year-olds doing it. I rarely find something I can't argue people out of even a little, but that was just totally immovable. When Daylight Savings is debated, elementary school timetables -- and having more light on winter mornings for school commutes -- inevitably comes up, and even people who otherwise hate the time change get concerned about the safety aspect.
kitten magic: "because otherwise it would be dark by 7.30pm, even in midsummer."
I ... you live at a very different latitude than me.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:00 PM on November 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's also preferable for elementary school buses/walkers, so that children are more visible to cars as they walk along sidewalks or wait next to roads for their buses. My district talked about starting high school students later and elementary students earlier -- as research indicates is better -- instead of vice versa like we have now (buses run high school routes early in the a.m., then elementary after they're done; high school starts like 45 minutes before elementary). But people feel way, way, WAY better about high school students standing in the dark on icy mornings on the roadside than about 6-year-olds doing it. I rarely find something I can't argue people out of even a little, but that was just totally immovable. When Daylight Savings is debated, elementary school timetables -- and having more light on winter mornings for school commutes -- inevitably comes up, and even people who otherwise hate the time change get concerned about the safety aspect.
kitten magic: "because otherwise it would be dark by 7.30pm, even in midsummer."
I ... you live at a very different latitude than me.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:00 PM on November 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
And considering how often I hear people complaining about time changes, it seems like it would be a popular move.
Yes, people complain about it idly. There are no organized lobbies. No protest movements. Nobody running on an end to DST as a campaign promise, and even if there were, since it's not something that makes a blip in polling, there'd be no point in actually following through.
There are more people trying to do something about "the rent is too damn high" than there are trying to end Daylight Saving Time.
posted by Sara C. at 4:00 PM on November 2, 2015
Yes, people complain about it idly. There are no organized lobbies. No protest movements. Nobody running on an end to DST as a campaign promise, and even if there were, since it's not something that makes a blip in polling, there'd be no point in actually following through.
There are more people trying to do something about "the rent is too damn high" than there are trying to end Daylight Saving Time.
posted by Sara C. at 4:00 PM on November 2, 2015
This is a very Google-able question as many articles have been written about it. The short answer is, despite the myth that it was done for farmers, it actually was a war-time thing that was done during the first World War, and then added again in WWII to conserve energy and then it just stuck around.
Studies generally show that it is harmful for humans. Heart attacks increase in a statistically significant way the Monday people lose an hour. Robberies, rapes and murders happen more frequently as it gets darker earlier -- these crimes do not end up happening when it stays darker longer in the morning. (Crime is apparently a nighttime-favored activity.) And there is of course car crashes and just the general suckiness of leaving work at 5pm and it being pitch black already.
Daylight Savings Time and changing clocks has been dealt with on the state level since WWII. (I can only speak to the United States.) Arizona is an example that jumps to mind as a state that has opted out. I match Arizona's time for part of the year and for the other part of the year, it's an hour difference.
In my personal opinion, we should permanently stay on Daylight Savings Time and abolish "standard time," which is used less than 5 months of the year. If there was a cause I could donate to or work with, I totally would. But I am unaware of an organized group lobbying for change that has any real momentum. (This post happens to sum up my beliefs very well.)
posted by AppleTurnover at 4:07 PM on November 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
Studies generally show that it is harmful for humans. Heart attacks increase in a statistically significant way the Monday people lose an hour. Robberies, rapes and murders happen more frequently as it gets darker earlier -- these crimes do not end up happening when it stays darker longer in the morning. (Crime is apparently a nighttime-favored activity.) And there is of course car crashes and just the general suckiness of leaving work at 5pm and it being pitch black already.
Daylight Savings Time and changing clocks has been dealt with on the state level since WWII. (I can only speak to the United States.) Arizona is an example that jumps to mind as a state that has opted out. I match Arizona's time for part of the year and for the other part of the year, it's an hour difference.
In my personal opinion, we should permanently stay on Daylight Savings Time and abolish "standard time," which is used less than 5 months of the year. If there was a cause I could donate to or work with, I totally would. But I am unaware of an organized group lobbying for change that has any real momentum. (This post happens to sum up my beliefs very well.)
posted by AppleTurnover at 4:07 PM on November 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
Response by poster: This is a very Google-able question as many articles have been written about it.
Why we still have it was not easily google-able.
posted by josher71 at 4:11 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why we still have it was not easily google-able.
posted by josher71 at 4:11 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
My theory is that, based on their analysis, "those in charge" think that people will shop less without it. I have no reason to think that or evidence to support it, but if someone told that was the reason, I'd nod my head without an inkling of surprise.
posted by humboldt32 at 4:56 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by humboldt32 at 4:56 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm in favor of leaving it at DST all year. As for the argument about kids standing in the dark to wait for the bus, here in the northern latitudes that is common from mid November to mid February even on Standard time. I'm a teacher and drive by the kids waiting for the bus or walking as I drive into work. In the dead of winter it is practically dark when they head home too. I don't know about everyone else, but I would much rather have the extra hour of daylight at the end of the day when I can really use it.
posted by OkTwigs at 6:01 PM on November 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by OkTwigs at 6:01 PM on November 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
what would the work actually be?
I work as a software developer for a complex Conferences and Events system, in which I am extremely concerned with knowing exact moments in time. I often joke that time zones will be the death of me, and daylight saving is almost as bad. For any given time-related thing, I need to be potentially aware of a specific moment in the context of the time zone where the conference is occurring, the time zone where the user's device currently resides, and in UTC (the base "truthful" moment from which all offsets are applied). Regarding DST, I need to be aware of the specific DST offset rules for any given time zone on any specific date both well into the past and as far into the future as is presently known.
So for me, if the entire U.S. were to stop observing DST (which already Arizona does not), it would be an update to my rule set for all of the impacted time zones starting from that specific year and going forward. And then it would be a plethora of test cases to verify that the rule set update works correctly in all contexts. It is the same amount of work that would be required if the dates of observance were to be changed. It is a non-trivial amount of work, but do-able with enough advance notice.
Now take my effort, and expand it across every single piece of software in the world that deals with time. For systems like mine, failure would be an annoying bug. For some systems related to healthcare, public infrastructure, etc. failure could quite literally be catastrophic.
Personally, I would love to see the entire world abolish DST simultaneously. I don't see that happening in my lifetime, though.
posted by Lokheed at 6:39 PM on November 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I work as a software developer for a complex Conferences and Events system, in which I am extremely concerned with knowing exact moments in time. I often joke that time zones will be the death of me, and daylight saving is almost as bad. For any given time-related thing, I need to be potentially aware of a specific moment in the context of the time zone where the conference is occurring, the time zone where the user's device currently resides, and in UTC (the base "truthful" moment from which all offsets are applied). Regarding DST, I need to be aware of the specific DST offset rules for any given time zone on any specific date both well into the past and as far into the future as is presently known.
So for me, if the entire U.S. were to stop observing DST (which already Arizona does not), it would be an update to my rule set for all of the impacted time zones starting from that specific year and going forward. And then it would be a plethora of test cases to verify that the rule set update works correctly in all contexts. It is the same amount of work that would be required if the dates of observance were to be changed. It is a non-trivial amount of work, but do-able with enough advance notice.
Now take my effort, and expand it across every single piece of software in the world that deals with time. For systems like mine, failure would be an annoying bug. For some systems related to healthcare, public infrastructure, etc. failure could quite literally be catastrophic.
Personally, I would love to see the entire world abolish DST simultaneously. I don't see that happening in my lifetime, though.
posted by Lokheed at 6:39 PM on November 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I grew up in Arizona in the US. We never had DS. It was WONDERFUL. Time was time. Nobody messed with it. It was quite a shock when I moved out of state and had to put up with the constant resetting of clocks.
posted by WalkerWestridge at 6:50 PM on November 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by WalkerWestridge at 6:50 PM on November 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
The benefit is the obvious, it is light an hour later. One minor but regarding participation in the US. Individual jurisdictions (not just states, there is/was a county in Indiana that did/does not observe DST, despite the rest of the state observing DST, which is one reason why any rational programmer relies on the tzdata library to handle time zone offset calculations and does not collect the rules themselves) can opt-in or opt-out of Daylight Saving Time. The specific dates are set by Congress and must be followed if the jurisdiction in question opts in.
If it wasn't a federal standard, there would have been chaos for several years when DST observance was extended by a few weeks a few years ago. Some state legislatures only meet every other year, and some for only a few weeks out of the year, so even if they had all agreed to the expansion, there would have been a ridiculous mish-mash of differing DST observance periods for at least a year, and possibly two or more. Or even longer if there was substantial debate in some states, as there likely would have been, given that it was a fairly controversial change even though it made the rule much easier to remember.
posted by wierdo at 7:40 PM on November 2, 2015
If it wasn't a federal standard, there would have been chaos for several years when DST observance was extended by a few weeks a few years ago. Some state legislatures only meet every other year, and some for only a few weeks out of the year, so even if they had all agreed to the expansion, there would have been a ridiculous mish-mash of differing DST observance periods for at least a year, and possibly two or more. Or even longer if there was substantial debate in some states, as there likely would have been, given that it was a fairly controversial change even though it made the rule much easier to remember.
posted by wierdo at 7:40 PM on November 2, 2015
not just states, there is/was a county in Indiana that did/does not observe DST
Ha, the history of time zones and DST in Indiana is considerably more complicated than that.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:46 PM on November 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ha, the history of time zones and DST in Indiana is considerably more complicated than that.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:46 PM on November 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I would love to join a campaign against non-DST time, except nobody's ever going to get anywhere when the first argument out of people's mouths is that poor wittle chillren can't walk to school in the dark, period.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:34 PM on November 2, 2015
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:34 PM on November 2, 2015
AppleTurnover:Robberies, rapes and murders happen more frequently as it gets darker earlier -- these crimes do not end up happening when it stays darker longer in the morning. (Crime is apparently a nighttime-favored activity.) And there is of course car crashes and just the general suckiness of leaving work at 5pm and it being pitch black already.
- DST means it gets dark an hour later, not earlier. These are arguments in favour of DST, if anything.
In New Zealand they increased DST by a week either end recently, for economic reasons, as mentioned above: people use less electricity because it's light for longer in the evenings. And it's very popular there, as in Sydney, because it means you can get some outdoor recreation after work in the summer. I'm sure anti DST people are in the minority everywhere, they just make a lot of noise twice a year, at the changeovers.
posted by nomis at 3:04 AM on November 3, 2015
- DST means it gets dark an hour later, not earlier. These are arguments in favour of DST, if anything.
In New Zealand they increased DST by a week either end recently, for economic reasons, as mentioned above: people use less electricity because it's light for longer in the evenings. And it's very popular there, as in Sydney, because it means you can get some outdoor recreation after work in the summer. I'm sure anti DST people are in the minority everywhere, they just make a lot of noise twice a year, at the changeovers.
posted by nomis at 3:04 AM on November 3, 2015
I think those of us who live in the eastern parts of our time zones like DST more than those who live in the western parts. And those of us who work 9-5 like it better than those of us who start work at 7AM. I used to hate DST when I had to be at work at 7, but now that I have a more flexible schedule I like it a lot. I would be fine with Boston (where I live) staying in DST all year.
posted by mskyle at 4:47 AM on November 3, 2015
posted by mskyle at 4:47 AM on November 3, 2015
I also think DST it great! I live in the city (not rural) and its nice having those extra hours after work in the summer in which I can go out and do stuff. Go to the beach, go cycling, have a picnic in the park for dinner. Have folks over for a barbeque friday night. Sit around and watch the sun go down over a few beers.
If you didn't have DST then that all those sunlight hours would literally "go to waste" for doing stuff. I suppose people might start having pre-work sunshine breakfasts but it seems unlikely when most prefer to sleep in until the last minute before work starts.
posted by mary8nne at 6:27 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you didn't have DST then that all those sunlight hours would literally "go to waste" for doing stuff. I suppose people might start having pre-work sunshine breakfasts but it seems unlikely when most prefer to sleep in until the last minute before work starts.
posted by mary8nne at 6:27 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Standard time is the part from November - March, so ending DST would mean more sun in the morning. I live in Maine, where day length is quite variable from summer to winter and love DST.
posted by theora55 at 6:43 AM on November 3, 2015
posted by theora55 at 6:43 AM on November 3, 2015
I think it's important to distinguish between DST (clocks an hour earlier than Standard Time) and actually changing back and forth twice a year. Those are two different things - we could go permanently on DST, for example.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:14 AM on November 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 7:14 AM on November 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
What would the work actually be?
Removing DST would end up in less work than maintaining it. The problem with DST now is that the question "what time should my clock say?" keeps changing every few years as politicians keep mucking with the definition. For instance Australia has moved the DST start twice in the past 15 years, for the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. The US moved its start time a few years ago, now we're just slightly out of sync with Europe. Every time DST gets adjusted a whole bunch of software has to be updated. If you're technically minded, you might find the Timezone database an interesting thing to learn about. It's quite erudite.
Even implementing basic DST correctly is still a hard problems. iPhones, for example, have had DST-related bugs almost every year since they were launched. Another example I'm personally familiar with, Google used to lose a non-trivial amount of money twice a year in the ad systems because various software had the wrong assumption that there are 24 hours a day. There aren't; some days have 23 or 25, and that makes things complicated.
As for the theory behind DST, the primary effect of the DST change is to smooth out the variance of the time of sunrise. You can see that in the second chart here, for example, the blue curve. In natural time, 12:00pm is defined as when the sun is exactly overhead and there are the same number of minutes of sunlight in the morning as the evening. And sunrise would be any time between 4:30am and 7:00am depending on time of year. Switching to DST shifts the early sunrises an hour forward. The theory is that down at 4:30 AM is too early and the sunlight is wasted on sleeping people, so instead we change the clocks so the sun rises at 5:30 AM and we get to enjoy an artificially late sunset at nearly 9:00 PM in the summers. I think it's a stupid idea myself, but that's the theory. There's been a lot written about the impact of DST with no clear consensus.
posted by Nelson at 7:43 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Removing DST would end up in less work than maintaining it. The problem with DST now is that the question "what time should my clock say?" keeps changing every few years as politicians keep mucking with the definition. For instance Australia has moved the DST start twice in the past 15 years, for the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. The US moved its start time a few years ago, now we're just slightly out of sync with Europe. Every time DST gets adjusted a whole bunch of software has to be updated. If you're technically minded, you might find the Timezone database an interesting thing to learn about. It's quite erudite.
Even implementing basic DST correctly is still a hard problems. iPhones, for example, have had DST-related bugs almost every year since they were launched. Another example I'm personally familiar with, Google used to lose a non-trivial amount of money twice a year in the ad systems because various software had the wrong assumption that there are 24 hours a day. There aren't; some days have 23 or 25, and that makes things complicated.
As for the theory behind DST, the primary effect of the DST change is to smooth out the variance of the time of sunrise. You can see that in the second chart here, for example, the blue curve. In natural time, 12:00pm is defined as when the sun is exactly overhead and there are the same number of minutes of sunlight in the morning as the evening. And sunrise would be any time between 4:30am and 7:00am depending on time of year. Switching to DST shifts the early sunrises an hour forward. The theory is that down at 4:30 AM is too early and the sunlight is wasted on sleeping people, so instead we change the clocks so the sun rises at 5:30 AM and we get to enjoy an artificially late sunset at nearly 9:00 PM in the summers. I think it's a stupid idea myself, but that's the theory. There's been a lot written about the impact of DST with no clear consensus.
posted by Nelson at 7:43 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
The theory is that down at 4:30 AM is too early
I meant "The theory is that sunrise at 4:30 AM is too early"
posted by Nelson at 8:03 AM on November 3, 2015
I meant "The theory is that sunrise at 4:30 AM is too early"
posted by Nelson at 8:03 AM on November 3, 2015
Metafilter thread happening over on the Blue about DST, in case anyone wants to pop on over
posted by andrewesque at 8:34 AM on November 3, 2015
posted by andrewesque at 8:34 AM on November 3, 2015
sunrise at 4:30 AM is too early
That's a theory? I declare it fact. It is definitely too early.
If I had my druthers, there would be a weird sun & computer defined shifting clock, that basically maximises sunlight hours between 7am and 7pm, with sunrise not starting later than 8am. 8am because people have stuff to do in the mornings - kids need to get to school, etc.
Daylight being set for a time when people are actually awake*, and have the vaguest chance of getting outside and getting some of that sunlight/Vitamin D which so many of us are so horribly deficient in is great, and we should have lots lots more of it.
We are trapped in the social machinery of society which says we have to do things at particular, ordained times, so actually having daylight at those times is double-plus good.
If you live in a latitude where sunrise is not much later than 8am in winter, AND you would not also be facing sunrise at 3.30am in Summer, then sure, you don't need DST.
The majority of the world needs sundials, or DST.
In short, it hasn't changed because I will be at the counter protest. I will be on the beaches (if I can visit them after work), I will fight on the fields, the streets. I'd have found a cause and purpose to my life.
(Don't get me started on the ill health from Vitamin D deficiency)
* Especially any daylight before 6am, that's just being wasted - add another daylight savings and rescue it in summer!
posted by Elysum at 8:59 AM on November 3, 2015
That's a theory? I declare it fact. It is definitely too early.
If I had my druthers, there would be a weird sun & computer defined shifting clock, that basically maximises sunlight hours between 7am and 7pm, with sunrise not starting later than 8am. 8am because people have stuff to do in the mornings - kids need to get to school, etc.
Daylight being set for a time when people are actually awake*, and have the vaguest chance of getting outside and getting some of that sunlight/Vitamin D which so many of us are so horribly deficient in is great, and we should have lots lots more of it.
We are trapped in the social machinery of society which says we have to do things at particular, ordained times, so actually having daylight at those times is double-plus good.
If you live in a latitude where sunrise is not much later than 8am in winter, AND you would not also be facing sunrise at 3.30am in Summer, then sure, you don't need DST.
The majority of the world needs sundials, or DST.
In short, it hasn't changed because I will be at the counter protest. I will be on the beaches (if I can visit them after work), I will fight on the fields, the streets. I'd have found a cause and purpose to my life.
(Don't get me started on the ill health from Vitamin D deficiency)
* Especially any daylight before 6am, that's just being wasted - add another daylight savings and rescue it in summer!
posted by Elysum at 8:59 AM on November 3, 2015
> And considering how often I hear people complaining about time changes, it seems like it would be a popular move.
Of course you hear more from people complaining; people who like things the way they are don't normally go around saying so loudly and repeatedly. To help balance your unbalanced experience, I love DST and so does pretty much everyone I know.
posted by languagehat at 9:22 AM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Of course you hear more from people complaining; people who like things the way they are don't normally go around saying so loudly and repeatedly. To help balance your unbalanced experience, I love DST and so does pretty much everyone I know.
posted by languagehat at 9:22 AM on November 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
nomis: DST means it gets dark an hour later, not earlier. These are arguments in favour of DST, if anything.
I suggest you read my full post, where I clearly state I am in favor of permanent DST. I think you are confusing being pro-changing of the clocks as being pro-DST. I am pro-DST and anti-changing clocks. I think we should use DST all the time because it gets dark an hour later. What I was citing is that studies show robberies, rapes, etc. happen more commonly when it's darker outside, which is during standard time. Please re-read my post.
As for OP's question of why it hasn't changed, you can look at how the efforts across the country to change it have stalled. Basically it comes down to, it's always been done and it would be a pain in the ass to change anything that is firmly ingrained in our way of life. As dumb as changing the clocks is, no government body can just vote to change it because it sucks. Some serious research would absolutely need to be done to measure any sort of impact it would have and they would need to allow the public to weigh in. Generally, elected officials lack the motivation to sink time into this when there are bigger fish to fry. People are scared of and resistant to change.
posted by AppleTurnover at 9:50 AM on November 3, 2015
I suggest you read my full post, where I clearly state I am in favor of permanent DST. I think you are confusing being pro-changing of the clocks as being pro-DST. I am pro-DST and anti-changing clocks. I think we should use DST all the time because it gets dark an hour later. What I was citing is that studies show robberies, rapes, etc. happen more commonly when it's darker outside, which is during standard time. Please re-read my post.
As for OP's question of why it hasn't changed, you can look at how the efforts across the country to change it have stalled. Basically it comes down to, it's always been done and it would be a pain in the ass to change anything that is firmly ingrained in our way of life. As dumb as changing the clocks is, no government body can just vote to change it because it sucks. Some serious research would absolutely need to be done to measure any sort of impact it would have and they would need to allow the public to weigh in. Generally, elected officials lack the motivation to sink time into this when there are bigger fish to fry. People are scared of and resistant to change.
posted by AppleTurnover at 9:50 AM on November 3, 2015
If I had my druthers, there would be a weird sun & computer defined shifting clock
Perhaps you should try Saudia Arabia in the late 80s? See Riyadh solar time. Here's the implementation for computers. It's basically like DST except the timebase shifts every single day. Note there's only tables for a couple of years; IIRC that's as long as it was actually the law of the land. Although no one was so mad as to actually follow it.
For that matter the whole idea of time zones and standardized global time is quite modern. 12:00 is naturally defined, locally, as when the sun is at its zenith. Anything else is artifice. See Selling the True Time: Nineteenth-Century Timekeeping in America for some history of the transition.
posted by Nelson at 9:58 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Perhaps you should try Saudia Arabia in the late 80s? See Riyadh solar time. Here's the implementation for computers. It's basically like DST except the timebase shifts every single day. Note there's only tables for a couple of years; IIRC that's as long as it was actually the law of the land. Although no one was so mad as to actually follow it.
For that matter the whole idea of time zones and standardized global time is quite modern. 12:00 is naturally defined, locally, as when the sun is at its zenith. Anything else is artifice. See Selling the True Time: Nineteenth-Century Timekeeping in America for some history of the transition.
posted by Nelson at 9:58 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Let me clarify: I am pro-DST and anti-changing clocks.
The people I hear complaining are the same.
posted by josher71 at 10:30 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
The people I hear complaining are the same.
posted by josher71 at 10:30 AM on November 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Isn't the point that on standard time, 12 noon is when the sun is at its highest point (or, roughly so, setting aside time zones)? And under DST, the sun's highest point is at 1pm. If we went to DST year-round, then the sun's year-round highest point would always be 1pm, and that would be weird -- it would be shifted off what should be basically the definition of 12 noon.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:32 PM on November 3, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:32 PM on November 3, 2015
In Chicago, the sun would be coming up at 4:15am in the summer instead of 5:15am without Daylight Saving.
If we just switched Daylight Saving on all year round, In Buffalo the sun wouldn't rise until 8:43am in the winter and kids would be going to school in pitch black. At least now it comes up at 7:43am.
This gets at the crux of the matter. The effect of DST is to reduce the variance in the time of sunrise throughout the year (as measured by the clock), at the cost of increasing the variance in the time of sunset. Whether that's a good thing is debatable — I'm among those who thinks it isn't — but it's not inconceivable to me that some people would want the time of sunrise to be more consistent, even at the cost of a less consistent sunset time. (What that more consistent sunrise time should be, more or less, is a separate question.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:24 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
If we just switched Daylight Saving on all year round, In Buffalo the sun wouldn't rise until 8:43am in the winter and kids would be going to school in pitch black. At least now it comes up at 7:43am.
This gets at the crux of the matter. The effect of DST is to reduce the variance in the time of sunrise throughout the year (as measured by the clock), at the cost of increasing the variance in the time of sunset. Whether that's a good thing is debatable — I'm among those who thinks it isn't — but it's not inconceivable to me that some people would want the time of sunrise to be more consistent, even at the cost of a less consistent sunset time. (What that more consistent sunrise time should be, more or less, is a separate question.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:24 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
If we went to DST year-round, then the sun's year-round highest point would always be 1pm, and that would be weird
I'll buy that DST, or lack thereof, makes things weird around sunrise or sunset, but I don't think anyone's terribly concerned that the sun doesn't reach its zenith until 1 p.m In fact, this is already the case for westerly parts of some US time zones during standard time, especially the broad Eastern and Central time zones, where the western edges are right around the middle of where the next time zone over theoretically should be based on longitude alone.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:37 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'll buy that DST, or lack thereof, makes things weird around sunrise or sunset, but I don't think anyone's terribly concerned that the sun doesn't reach its zenith until 1 p.m In fact, this is already the case for westerly parts of some US time zones during standard time, especially the broad Eastern and Central time zones, where the western edges are right around the middle of where the next time zone over theoretically should be based on longitude alone.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:37 PM on November 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by SemiSalt at 3:33 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]