Not to mention the fact that we'd be baking in later evenings for a population already chronically sleep-deprived. We're a nation of naively optimistic masochists, convinced that our self-harm will be fun along the way.
While the energy savings might never have been realized, there is no doubt that changing times twice a year shifts some useful daylight into a more consistent, useful period for people.
This is primarily a US problem, as among the countries that spread across time zones, we're the only one with significant population spread, too. Or a government that gives a sh!t. Russia has 11 time zones and tried permanent daylight saving before settling on permanent standard time. China should have 5 zones, but it just ignores the time zones and puts everybody on Beijing time. But if we put Detroit and Boston on the same time, somebody has kids at the bus stop in pitch darkness, for no good reason. Canada and Mexico track their US counterpart states; it makes little sense to change in the rest of Mexico, as daylight is not in short supply any time of year. Australia shifts between three and five time zones due to changes between those doing daylight saving and those not doing it. But again, the big population centers are mostly on one or the other end of each time zone.
As to findings of health issues, I have serious doubts. If changing one hour twice a year was as detrimental as some suggest, why aren't we finding similar issues with the millions of people flying across many zones every day? They should be dropping like flies.
Bottom line: leave the switching in place. Quit griping.
I’m on Zulu time.
but I never scheduled my day according to it except when I was in the UK
I second what most are saying below. I think when people hear Daylight Savings Time year round, they assume they'll have more sunlight in the evenings after work to spend outside with their families without realizing the sun will still be down by 6pm and that winter will still be here.
as it is.
My schedule is flexible enough such that I mostly just hate changing clocks. Other than that, I probably don't have much of a care.
I am fine with permanent DST living in Chicago area.
I think UP might be fine with it as well.
P.S. I worked the steel mill swing shift in college. Now that was tough. I worked nights in past as well. Hated it. We have it easy compared to 50, 100 or 150 years ago.
Aren't scientists also thumping that kids need more sleep and pushing back school would be beneficial?
Kids walking to school 20-30 mins later than we do today seems like a win-win
Definitely not for 26-27 school year. Maybe in a year or two some districts would adjust. In the meantime, if this goes through, a whole lot more kids will be walking or biking or scootering or whatevering to school in the dark from Nov-Feb.
My local school system runs buses at an interval that allows them to use the big buses for 4 different schools.
My neighbor's 3rd grader is out there at 7:00, while my kids are out at 8:30.
Limitations on transportation capacity are big drivers here.
I'm also fine with elimination of DST, just suck it up and set an alarm clock.
I've been to Svalbard and Tierra del Fuego, they seemed to be fine.
And they're old enough to drive to school or wait at the bus stop alone without needing parents to change their work schedules. I could see where a number of parents would be made at school starting later and having to wait longer to get elementary school kids to school before heading to work. Though I'm not sure how the aggregate data plays out. But presumably a later-ending afternoon would not pose any more problem than currently posed.
Going back to my days, we started at 7:30 ended at 3:15. If we moved the school clock back to a 9:00 start that means school ends at 4:45. 2 hour practices (allowing 30 min to get changed) would end at 7:15. Track meets would probably end around 8-9:00. Then the kids have to do homework, and eat.
There’s a reason high school starts so early.
Our school goes 830-330. That amount of time mirrors what I did as a kid. 830-330, or 8-3, or 740-240 depending on the school. A 9-4 schedule wouldn't be notable to me. Practices would end a little later. But plenty of time to eat and do homework. I don't think that shift is notable.
Fall varsity games already end at 8-9 and are played under the lights. Winter varsity games already end at 8-9 and are played indoors. Baseball games were the only ones that started earlier for daylight purposes. Those would probably need to start around 530 to permit transportation. But I wouldn't think that would pose an issue in my latitude anyway.
Can’t serve the whole school at once. Because of that you split the school group into 3 lunch sessions but said lunch sessions are now the same time period as a class we had 8 periods, but one of those periods was your lunch.
set their own timezone (stay on DST or stay on Standard time) before the law goes into effect. The bill sets a start date of Nov 1 the year that it is passed. So if the Senate approves and president signs before the end of 2026, states that don't want to be effected by the law need to act quickly. If it moves to 2027, they would have until Nov 1, 2027 to change their laws.
was miserable. The temp was still 110 at 9:30 p.m. so, thankfully, they have done away with it ever since. Congress should abide the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
..., which is great, I agree with you. The status quo is fine. Changing clocks takes less than 10 minutes a year, and most electronic devices change automatically. This is an idea that sounds good on the surface but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I will say, though, that if I were forced to choose between year round EDT or moving to the Central Time Zone, I would choose the former. I could take or leave the late sunsets at this time of the year, but May, September, and October and the nicest months of the year in central Indiana and I love having late sunsets then, even at the cost of very late sunrises in the winter.
I'm in West Michigan, I'm (shocker) totally fine with it. Also completely fine leaving it as is. I don't see why it's a priority for anyone's legislative agenda.
Is seen as such a burden.
All the important ones change on their own.
I take the kids around the house and we change each one. It takes about 75 seconds.
All because some people can't handle a 23 hour day once a year.
Yes, you are reading it correctly.
Two days of a little grogginess is a good tradeoff.
I don't want 9 a.m. sunrises in the winter nor 4:30 a.m. sunrises in the summer if we stay on standard time all year.
But here they go again anyway. 9am Sunrises in Central Ohio in December. Closer to 10 in places in MI, WI, and MN.
Haven't lived through the not-change yet, but at our latitude, we will be seeing sunrise at 9am in the dead of winter. Not sure if that's better or worse than sunset at 430. Scientists apparently say that permanent standard time is better for the human body, because getting sunlight in the morning helps to keep circadian rhythms in line. But that would mean sunrise before 4am up here in the summer time, so we opted for permanent DST.
I know we have this debate back here from time to time, but I'll never understand (outside of maybe school bus stop safety) the appeal of earlier sunlight. Those who get up early, whether it be to exercise or slop the hogs are probably already doing it in the dark. In western Ohio I'm usually out the door before the sun comes up year round. Give me as much daylight in the evenings as possible.
There are still a lot of activities you can do outside through the winter. Even without doing stuff outdoors it would still be nice to have daylight after work. I'm going to work in the morning in the dark or right at sunrise regardless.
The extra hour won't really help much in the winter because sunset is still coming around 6pm for you. You're home, but it's not like you are going to do much outside during that time after work. Maybe a brief walk before dinner?
My point is that for the time period where we go back to standard time (November through March), most people nationwide are not doing a lot in the evenings outside.
Given the safety concerns raised, I don't think the trade off is worth the change for it to "be nice to have daylight after work." Of course, I'm also up at 5am most mornings.
Evening daylight when it's warm outside and there are outside activities is great. But I would guess that for the vast majority of the country we capture that in the current setup while also getting important morning daylight for most of the year.
For most of the country, evening daylight in January is useless. All evening activities are indoors anyway. And the dark doesn't seem to deter indoor economic activity that the cold isn't already deterring (by not wanting you to leave the house).
The sun rising after 8:30 in the winter is a safety hazard for school kids. Either keep status quo or make standard time all year.
People hated it.