People are worried about waking up in darkness to have to go to work (rightfully), and the actual solution is not to shift the clock around, it's to shift starting hours later in the day, and end working earlier, in the winter.
We're arranging our entire lives around the convenience of corporations, and doing studies to figure out which way of doing so is least detrimental to us, rather than just not doing so in the first place.
With standard time you eat at 12 and with daylight saving you eat at 1, either way you eat when the sun is highest or around that time.
The thing is that the biannual dance of the clock hands wrecks any notion of time and schedules as this month you eat/wake up/leave work too early and the next too late.
Even this article, while stating the opposite conclusion, directly scientifically supports permanent daylight time as beneficial for most people.
It points out sunrise being at 0751 versus 0851 for Toronto. That's the anticipated sunrise time on 1 January 2027. The anticipated sunset time is 1651.
That means that someone working in a cubicle for a standard 0800-1700 schedule will get 9 minutes of possible daylight under winter time, versus 51 minutes under daylight time (sunrise 0851, sunset 1751).
Lack of sunlight leads to terrible circadian rhythms. There is absolutely zero scientific support for the proposition that nine minutes of daylight is healthier for our circadian rhythms than fifty-one minutes of daylight. No person could possibly argue such a thing in good faith.
(Also, I have a terminology quibble with "Standard Time," since Daylight Time is the actual standard, and we observe it eight months of the year.)
What possible meaning could the phrase "noon happens at noon" have? That's tautological and meaningless.
And if your solution requires a wholly independent, newly built mass coordination mechanism rather than just a minor tweak to the existing one, then I think the burden you bear for arguing your position is extremely high.
If we’re going to ignore the position of the sun, let’s just set a single “American time” to follow DC like China does and be done with it.
I am not interested in whatever you've got going on right now. Being dishonest about others' positions is bizarre. Refusing to clarify your own is bizarre. Let me know when you're willing to engage in good faith.
My entire household wants it.
It’s interesting for me because early morning means for me: dealing with duties (prepare for school, commute to work, etc) so I don’t really mind doing that in the dark. But afternoon time means for me: free time (school/work is finished ) So if there’s daylight I can decide to go to the park, or play outside, or go to a terrace to eat something. Doing that in the dark is just not feasible
Staying on Summer time means additional sun after work for an extra month. Can go for a walk or do something outside in the sun.
And for those further South it doesn't matter anyway.
I'd like to see what the additional vitamin D from that extra sun does to sleep etc. I imagine that's not part of the study.
The age old morning people versus evening people. Sounds like the kids aren't morning people either.
It is so depressing to wake up, go to work in the dark and go home in the dark.
Can't blame em: Daylight Saving is a terrible name for something that happens during the time of year when there's more daylight
Anyway, China manages somehow. I obviously think keeping our time zones and moving them to standard time (noon ~= actual noon) would be best.
Discussions on daylight savings time are pointless without stating your lattitude.
[Here in London at 51 Deg North, DST is much more relevent and appreciated when the summer sun rises so early, and the winter sun so late; it helps keep ones body somewhat in line with nature].
Large areas in Europe are permanently away from solar time already (regardless of DST).
That is to say, in winter we would wake up in pitch black darkness, commute in the dark, and the sun would finally rise while we were at school. It sucked. When I moved to London I was shocked to see how bright it was in the mornings because of that, even in winter.
But you had that extra daylight time in the afternoon (which in London wouldn’t be the case). Wasnt that better? Just curious. For me it would be
Depending on where you live, depending on how long your commute is and by what time you have to be at your job, ... a lot of people don't get that anyway in the winter. There is no one solution, and you're going to piss of a bunch of people anyway.
> In this analysis, we focus not on whether seasonal clock adjustments should end, but on which policy should be adopted if time changes are eliminated. We explore the public health implications of pDST and pST — with attention to mental health and broader determinants of health — and propose measures to monitor and mitigate the impacts of policy change on population health.
* https://www.cmaj.ca/content/198/34/E1335 / https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.261089
* PDF: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/198/34/E1335.full.pdf
For me living in Norway, one of the hardest things every fall, and that makes me depressed for weeks, is when one weekend, when the days are already getting shorter fast. One hour of evening day light gets janked overnight. It is imo. horrible.
Same! Though you have it way worse.
I live in Belgium, I mostly get up around 08:00/08:30. I already feel quite guilty for not making the best of use of daylight in spring and summer. Around the summer solstice, the sun comes up around 05:30 over here. I can't imagine it coming up at 04:30 in the middle of summer. (Which is probably already what happens in Norway?)
This is often overlooked as an alternative to shifting everyone's timepiece at the same instant -- I've never understood why there's so much much emotion and/or inertia around clock changes.
But you know, why inconvenience social constructs for wealth generation when you can just literally inconvenience every human alive instead?
I fully support permanently moving to correct time. Meaning not summer time. And then just fixing schedules as needed.
In fact, I have considered whether it may not make sense to just have a single timezone. Would make planning internationally much easier.
We already have UTC, which is almost always used as the legal basis for all local timezone definitions. In many industries (such as in many aviation and maritime operations), UTC is used almost exclusively to synchronize things worldwide and to avoid any local timezone confusion that might cause problems.
So using UTC works great in situations where participants span multiple timezones. But I think the intuition of maintaining a local clock for local things, with solar noon kept somewhere approximately around clock noon, is still useful, since many day-to-day scheduling concerns remain entirely within one's local timezone. The key is that participants must be aware of their local timezone's offset from UTC. Not having to change their clocks twice a year would hopefully also make this easier.
You can't have a fixed schedule, because the time of daylight changes during the year.
In the fall, it means brighter mornings, making getting up so much easier for the entire family. It’s worth giving up the evening light so we’re not waiting for the morning schoolbus in the dark.
And likewise; I don’t want it to be sunny at 4am in June.
So changing the clock suits me perfectly.
For context: I’m at 45latitude (Toronto)
If it's dark in your location earlier in the evening, don't mess with the clock. Agree as a local society that instead of working 800 to 1700 at some point in the calendar most people transition to 700 to 1600, if that's a local issue.
Edit: Or negotiate that with your boss. Most of my team works 8 to 5, I work 7 to 4, as long as its consistent no one cares. Obviously retail employees can't do that, but customer-facing people are working past dark no matter what if it's an afternoon shift.
If it benefits you to have DST timing, you'll want permanent DST. If it benefits you to ditch it, you'll want to ditch it.
The effects of being on the "wrong side" affect mental health and safety.
Thus... whichever way you want to be true, is true.
No matter which way the government goes, someone's "mental health and safety" WILL be affected... just... somewhere else.
Implying only one side has those effects (like this topic's headline) is underhanded.