Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
United States Politics

Is Daylight Saving Time Worth Saving? 646

Posted by Soulskill
from the either-that-or-it's-not dept.
Daniel_Stuckey writes "In politics, health, and academia, there are plenty of detractors that say daylight saving might not be worth saving. One vocal opponent is Missouri State Representative Delus Johnson, who wants to end the watch and clock switchery altogether. In short, he says we should spring forward this one last time, without ever falling back. He wants Missouri – and other states willing to join a pact – to permanently adopt daylight saving time and call it Standard Time. He's sure that it'll increase economic development in the later part of the year; giving people a little more daylight to do their Black Friday shopping. Matthew J. Kotchen and Laura E. Grant at the National Bureau of Economic Research have argued that DST has had adverse effects on energy spending. They calculate some extra $10-16 million spent by Indiana due to time changes. Their research concluded it's probably a much bigger loss in other states. A year ago, Motherboard's Kelly Bourdet reported on a health study that concluded DST might actually kill you. Chances of heart-attack were stated to increase by 10 percent on the days following the spring change, and to decrease by 10% after gaining the hour in the fall." There's even a We The People petition about it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Daylight Saving Time Worth Saving?

Comments Filter:
  • Just in time (Score:5, Informative)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Friday March 08, 2013 @04:58PM (#43120257) Homepage

    This article just in time for the yearly "Should we keep DST? No, but we'll keep it anyway" cycle.

  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:00PM (#43120271) Homepage

    There was a time when it was very, very dark at night, and it made sense to adjust the schedule so you could actually see.

    But with electric lighting, it's pretty much never dark in areas where people live and work. The benefit to daylight savings is much less than it was 100 years ago.

  • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:16PM (#43120483) Journal

    If we do away with daylight savings, we should shift all the time zones about 7 or 8 degrees farther west longitude. The sun sets too early in the eastern half (near the 'leading edge') of each time zone.

  • by Vanderhoth (1582661) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:16PM (#43120487)
    How about because companies decide what core hours are, which tend to be relative to whether DST is in affect or not. I Know very few people that decide What hours they'll work when working forsomeone else.
  • by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:20PM (#43120535)
    Since 'most' people work 9-5, significant daylight time after 5pm is a pretty attractive concept. The farmer works outside, so as you say it doesn't matter when it's light to him.

    To the working stiffs, it does because if it's dark in the morning and on the way to work it doesn't affect them, but multiple hours of light after work is very beneficial.
  • by arobatino (46791) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:23PM (#43120587)

    I remember walking to the school bus stop in the dark when Nixon implemented year-round daylight savings time as a result of the oil embargo. It was just starting to get light by the time the bus arrived. From 1973 oil crisis [wikipedia.org] :

    Year-round daylight saving time was implemented from January 6, 1974, to February 23, 1975. The move spawned significant criticism because it forced many children to commute to school before sunrise. The pre-existing daylight saving rules, calling for the clocks to be advanced one hour on the last Sunday in April, were restored in 1976.

  • Re:NO. (Score:5, Informative)

    by fyngyrz (762201) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:49PM (#43120949) Homepage Journal

    Whats wrong with the date notation? It matches the exact way dates are spoken.

    You say "March 8th 2013"
    That exactly matches 3/8/2013

    Doesn't sort well.

    20130308 sorts perfectly. That's why, I suspect, that the standard way to express the date is "2013-03-08" (see the 1988 ISO 8601 standard [wikipedia.org]), as it also sorts perfectly.

    For that matter, date+time as 20130308120000 sorts perfectly. I use it in all my database work. Throw in some separators, viz. 2013-03-08 12:00:00 and it's perfectly human readable and makes sense right out of the gate, most significant to least.

  • Re:NO. (Score:5, Informative)

    by hawguy (1600213) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:51PM (#43120987)

    Every time I have to deal with timezones I wish everyone was UTC I know for a lot of people including my self the next day would change part way through the day but it's so annoying to deal with as many time zones as we have today. While we are at it can we fix it so no month has less than 30 days or more then 31?

    Things would be worse without timezones since it's not like everyone will go to have a 09:00UTC - 17:00UTC workday, they'll work based on the local solar time (which is why timezones were invented in the first place). So without timezones you'd have to remember "Let's see... it's 14:00 UTC here now and I just got to work, so is my west coast colleague awake yet? Hmm.. let me look up the sunrise. Oh yes, here it is, his local sunrise is at 14:30UTC so he's probably still in bed, I guess I better call him later. I wonder when he'll get off work...hmm...if sunrise is at 14:30, he probably starts work around 16:30, so maybe he'll be home around 01:30UTC.

    Fixing the calendar is hard since (like timezones), years are tied to natural phenomena and 365 is only evenly divisible by 5 and 73. So you could have five 73 day months (plus a leapday), or maybe could go with 13 months of 28 days to give 364 days. Just make the extra 1.25 days a holiday.

  • by hawguy (1600213) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:53PM (#43121009)

    When you're a farmer, this is easy. When you're an hourly worker in a corporation, or any modern office worker, this is impossible in most places. (unless you're lucky enough that yours allows flexible hours.)

    I'm with the crowd to keep DST all year.

    It doesn't really help the farmer either, since the cows want to be milked at the same time each day and they rarely pay attention to DST changes.

  • Re:NO. (Score:5, Informative)

    by fyngyrz (762201) on Friday March 08, 2013 @05:58PM (#43121081) Homepage Journal

    If you don't understand why putting things in date time order is valuable, I'm certainly not going to attempt to teach you. Hey, aren't you missing an episode of "Lost" or something?

  • by acroyear (5882) <jws-slashdot@aboutjws.info> on Friday March 08, 2013 @06:16PM (#43121311) Homepage Journal

    A few years back, the Russians went to DST-365(.25) - locked the clocks forward 1 hour and stayed that way.

  • Re:NO. (Score:5, Informative)

    by jklovanc (1603149) on Friday March 08, 2013 @07:42PM (#43122201)

    As for the farmers -- the people whom this was originally meant to benefit

    Farmers ignore daylight saving time as they have to deal with animals who are governed by the sun and not a clock. Daylight saving time was instituted so there would be more sunlight in the evening and therefore lower resource use. Read a bit of ,a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#History">history. Notice there is no mention of farmers as a reason for DST.

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe

Working...