radioman
Super Member
My point is, if the clock stayed spring forward year around- it would be brighter earlier anyways in the spring due to earth tilt. They would appreciate the spring more, not based on DST.
Daylite savings time
- Thread starter arrow
- Start date
- Views: 7601
My point is, if the clock stayed spring forward year around- it would be brighter earlier anyways in the spring due to earth tilt. They would appreciate the spring more, not based on DST.
Thank you. Truth be told, his death just put a dot on the "i" for me. I've hated DST for a very long time before that happened. Its just that I hate it more now. It doesn't help that my sister remarried an utter you know what.
Yes , it could have been a coincidence but the flip side of that which is knawing, would it have happened if this person moved out at 7am instead of 6 am body time? She was speeding because she was late for work as she fell asleep and thankfully lived. She cannot remember the accident at all and thinks she may have "dozed off" for just a second.
jeffinsgf
Veteran Member
Year round DST (which is what you're proposing) would mean that in late December through about half of February, the sun wouldn't come up until after 8am most places in the country. While it might give a bit more light in the late afternoon or early evening, the mornings would be dismal and morning rush hour traffic would be almost completely in the dark.
Going to year round DST isn't going to change the number of hours of daylight and dark. It would just shift our social patterns. By shifting our societal definition of what time it is twice a year, we minimize the worst of mid-winter and maximize the best of mid-summer. The transition period can be disturbing for some, but most adjust within a couple of days.
Your definition of "best" has to do with being able to see at late or early hours and what the gains in natural light do for us.This in reality is minimalized by the period in which we are in. To wit, It gets dark here on the east at 7 pm. I guy coming home for 5:30 now has an hour and a half to "tinker at home". So right now, many people are paying a big penaty for not much gain. As the months progress, he has until 9 or 10 in some places. Here, if there were no DST, it would get dark around 8. Out west, around 9. Isn't that long enough? And why should anyone have to adjust if it is?
Even if most do adjust, why does anyone have to suffer at all? I'd like to go one year without DST and see how much of a bother not having it really is as I and others certainly know of what a bother it can be when we do have it. I'd like to see to compare the two "bothers" and then eliminate the most adverse "bother" based on detriment to society.
dooleysm
Platinum Member
I think what we learned in Indiana is that no matter what you do with regards to time, you're going to anger a bunch of people. There's no incentive for any politician to take the lead on this. It's easier to leave things as they are and not risk being seen as the idiot that messed up the clocks by a significant number of voters.
You can see from our small sample here in this thread, that while many appear to be in favor of not changing clocks, there's by no means a consensus on what time it should be (DST or standard). Answers that seem obvious to some of us seem completely ridiculous to others.
You can see from our small sample here in this thread, that while many appear to be in favor of not changing clocks, there's by no means a consensus on what time it should be (DST or standard). Answers that seem obvious to some of us seem completely ridiculous to others.
Bird
Rest in Peace
You're right, of course. But then there are some, such as myself, who don't care which time; just wish they'd pick one and stay with it instead of changing twice a year.
BobRip
Elite Member
Amen. When it doubt leave it alone. No time change.
If you want a time change move to a different time zone every six months.MikeD74T
Veteran Member
I can't imaging anyone's mental state arriving at a level of "hate" for something this trivial. Actually I can't think of anything I "hate", that being an extreme emotion defiant of logic. Having served military duty on a submarine where extended submerged patrols operate on a 18 hour day (12 hrs off, 6 hours on) without reference sunlight for multiple months, and working the last 22 years on a rotating shift that rotates weekly I'm pretty familiar with the issues of circadian rhythm, some of which are very unpleasant. However I think a full year of "hate" is far more detrimental to health than a 1 hour shift twice a year. And who doesn't benefit from the extra hour of sleep in the fall? Oh, sometimes I don't if I'm working!
By my calculations, admittedly rough, the sunrise crosses RI in under 2 minutes. In Montana it takes nearly 45 minutes. How would life be better if everyone just used sunrise as a basis for life? It worked for several thousand years without anyone actually knowing that it did and nobody had to even think about time zones much less DST. How'd you like to get a message like: "I'll meet you at 20 minutes after sunrise?" No problem in RI but what about from within Montana? Or should we abandon hours & minutes completely and just go by the calendar? Every Olympic athlete would tie for gold & everyone wins- no losers! No more winner by .003 seconds.
In the world of today documented/measured time is relative to communications. DST doesn't support that very much, even in states that don't follow DST when communicating with states that do. My daughter previously worked for a company that has suppliers in Spain & Taiwan among others. She'd get up at AM to talk to the Spaniards when they got to work & in our evening she'd be talking to Taiwan. Neither company cared what time it was here.
DST is just a bump in the road. Any road with just 2 bumps ain't that bad. I admit that whatever logic was originally behind DST may be no longer valid but neither is the validity of hourly time zones that don't strictly follow lines of longitude. Nor are time zone lines that run down the middle of your street. Takes a whole hour to cross the street?
I actually benefit from the DST time change. If I'm scheduled for 8 hour on the night shift in the spring I get paid for the hour even though I didn't work it & if I work the extra hour in the fall I get an hour of OT.
I'm in southern NH. About 4 years ago our parent company, in Florida, wanted to go to a 8-9's & an 8 hour over 2 weeks work period with every other Friday off. Some wanted it, some didn't. Florida was pushing it because it works good for them. From the Naval Observatory website I pointed out to our union E board ( I was secretary at the time) that the difference in daylight period between NH longest/shortest day VS Florida's longest/shortest was 3 hours. Our longest day is 1 1/2 hours longer & our shortest day is 1 1/2 hours shorter than theirs. The union allowed the schedule on a work group by work group basis, all that tried it came back to the old schedule. Management still uses that schedule because everyone works 10-12 hour days anyway. Point being, no schedule is good for everybody & everyone's biological clock is different. MikeD74T
By my calculations, admittedly rough, the sunrise crosses RI in under 2 minutes. In Montana it takes nearly 45 minutes. How would life be better if everyone just used sunrise as a basis for life? It worked for several thousand years without anyone actually knowing that it did and nobody had to even think about time zones much less DST. How'd you like to get a message like: "I'll meet you at 20 minutes after sunrise?" No problem in RI but what about from within Montana? Or should we abandon hours & minutes completely and just go by the calendar? Every Olympic athlete would tie for gold & everyone wins- no losers! No more winner by .003 seconds.
In the world of today documented/measured time is relative to communications. DST doesn't support that very much, even in states that don't follow DST when communicating with states that do. My daughter previously worked for a company that has suppliers in Spain & Taiwan among others. She'd get up at AM to talk to the Spaniards when they got to work & in our evening she'd be talking to Taiwan. Neither company cared what time it was here.
DST is just a bump in the road. Any road with just 2 bumps ain't that bad. I admit that whatever logic was originally behind DST may be no longer valid but neither is the validity of hourly time zones that don't strictly follow lines of longitude. Nor are time zone lines that run down the middle of your street. Takes a whole hour to cross the street?
I actually benefit from the DST time change. If I'm scheduled for 8 hour on the night shift in the spring I get paid for the hour even though I didn't work it & if I work the extra hour in the fall I get an hour of OT.
I'm in southern NH. About 4 years ago our parent company, in Florida, wanted to go to a 8-9's & an 8 hour over 2 weeks work period with every other Friday off. Some wanted it, some didn't. Florida was pushing it because it works good for them. From the Naval Observatory website I pointed out to our union E board ( I was secretary at the time) that the difference in daylight period between NH longest/shortest day VS Florida's longest/shortest was 3 hours. Our longest day is 1 1/2 hours longer & our shortest day is 1 1/2 hours shorter than theirs. The union allowed the schedule on a work group by work group basis, all that tried it came back to the old schedule. Management still uses that schedule because everyone works 10-12 hour days anyway. Point being, no schedule is good for everybody & everyone's biological clock is different. MikeD74T
Last edited:
Bird
Rest in Peace
I certainly couldn't say I "hate" DST, but I do think it's silly to have to change twice a year. And I never rotated shifts weekly, but I did work for over two years of 2 months on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., then one month on 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and after that rotated monthly on all 3 shifts for many years. So when you have moonlighting jobs and college classes in addition to that, yep, the circadian rhythm problems can be annoying.
