Daylight Savings Time Should we end it?

[cestlefun17]

The first article costs $31.50 so I do not have access to the whole thing. But I can see the abstract and conclusion. Let's take a look:

It has been reported that there is a significant increase in the number of automobile accidents in the spring shift to DST due to the loss of 1 h of sleep. But the extra hour gained at night with the shift from DST in the fall has been variably reported to be associated with increases and decreases in the number of automobile accidents which may reflect either behavioral anticipation with an extended late night prior to the change or the benefit of extra sleep after the change. [...] The sleep deprivation on the Monday following shift to DST in the spring results in a small increase in fatal accidents. The behavioral adaptation anticipating the longer day on Sunday of the shift from DST in the fall leads to an increased number of accidents suggesting an increase in late night (early Sunday morning) driving when traffic related fatalities are high possibly related to alcohol consumption and driving while sleepy. Public health educators should probably consider issuing warnings both about the effects of sleep loss in the spring shift and possible behaviors such as staying out later, particularly when consuming alcohol in the fall shift.

So sometimes in the fall when we gain an hour, traffic accidents will decrease, and sometimes they will increase. But this increase isn't due to sleep cycles being disturbed (as a direct result of DST), but some people taking advantage of the extra hour to do irresponsible things (e.g. drink more).

Sleep clinicians should be aware that health consequences from forced changes in the circadian patterns resulting from DST come not only from physiological adjustments but also from behavioral responses to forced circadian changes.

And again, as I said earlier, if people adjusted these behavioral responses which they have control over (as opposed to physiological adjustments), they would be able to adjust much easier to the change (e.g. if it's 4:30 and you're hungry because you think it's 5:30, hold off on eating until it's an appropriate time).

The second study you link to shows that statistically, things balance out: the hour we lose in the spring may cause accidents, but the extra hour we gain in the fall decreases accidents. ("Thus, the spring shift to daylight savings time, and the concomitant loss of one hour of sleep, resulted in an average increase in traffic accidents of approximately 8 percent, whereas the fall shift resulted in a decrease in accidents of approximately the same magnitude immediately after the time shift.")

And your third link concludes by saying "Taken together then, these data are consistent with the hypothesis that as a society were are sufficiently chronically sleep deprived so that a small decrease in sleep duration, such as that which occurs with the spring shift to DST, can significantly increase accident susceptibility." The article acknowledges that the shift to DST is a minor one, and that the increased accidents it triggers are the result of a larger problem: that we are a sleep-deprived society. It spends much time discussing yearly the accidents caused by sleep deprivation and the change in sleep patterns since the invention of the light bulb. It does not suggest abolishing DST because that would not fix the overlying issue.

Some of these studies do not see a rebound "cancelling out" effect in the fall because, as hypothesized, "The behavioral adaptation anticipating the longer day on Sunday of the shift from DST in the fall leads to an increased number of accidents suggesting an increase in late night (early Sunday morning) driving when traffic related fatalities are high possibly related to alcohol consumption and driving while sleepy." Again, irresponsible behavior. Traffic accidents are greater on New Year's as well, due to increased drinking, but we wouldn't suggest abolishing New Year's as a holiday because some people are irresponsible.

[cestlefun17]

I wasn't dodging the issue, because it's a stupid one, and is an irrelevant red herring. It doesn't matter whether it only takes one day or one week to fully adjust to an hour change in schedule. Modern culture is already sleep deprived, so depriving the population of an hour in their sleep-wake cycle (which for the vast majority of people means loosing an hour of sleep, as it's easier to wake up to an alarm then fall asleep whenever you want) only compounds the problem. The way to combat a problem is not to make it worse.

It is not, in my opinion, the responsibility of government to hold your hand to make sure you go to bed on time. Abolishing DST, which subtracts 1 hour from 1 day of the year, will not make people be more responsible for getting enough sleep the other 364 days of the year.

Right, so if you get hit by a sleep deprived driver on your way to work and die it's because you're stupid, not because you don't live in a complete vacuum from other people. If you don't die in the accident, but instead get a sleep deprived hospital staff I guess it's still because you're too stupid, and not because of a systematic problem. Seriously, what the bloody fuck‽ Other people being too tired, either on the road or workplace, endangers not just themselves but those around them and who rely on their work as well.

When I said idiots I was referring to people who hurt themselves due to not preparing adequately for DST. As for the possibility of being hurt by others, I'll take the risk. If enough people don't mind taking the risk, then they won't have their representatives change the laws.

Also, have you never heard people bitch and complain about DST the Monday after they loose that hour of sleep? Do you just not talk to anyone for the week prior and three weeks after it, or something?

Nobody I surround myself talks about it, certainly not with dread the week prior (an occasional "Remember to change the clocks Sunday!" maybe) and especially not three weeks after it.

Oh, and for all your complaining about personal responsibility and not havint that extra sunlight during the summer, here's an idea: wake up earlier! That way you get to enjoy all of that radiation goodness while basking in that personal responsibility you keep waargarbling on about.

My point is that society should not have to change itself to suit a small minority of people who could remedy (at least mostly, I recognize not completely) their situation through personal responsibility. People don't wake up at 4:00 in the morning. Stores aren't open. People don't drop by to visit. People don't have social gatherings at this time. So either you wake up at 4:00 in the morning with nothing to do, or society has to entirely change their routine in the summer. An hour of sunlight isn't equally productive no matter where you put it in the day. People will get more use out of an hour of sunlight between 7:00–8:00PM than 4:00–5:00AM.

Oh, and decimal time has been used in the past. Thing is, how we count time is irrelevant to how time passes, which is what is being concerned about. DST just fucks it all up cause it forces us to use a shifted arbitrary time instead of actual time for setting schedules. Oh yeah, and you should look up seasonal affective disorder, as not everyone benefits from massive amounts of sunlight (and that's ignoring the problem of ultraviolet radiation).

The thing is, there is no such thing as "actual time." Yes it is arbitrary, and our arbitrary system works on keeping the three main points of the day (sunup, noon, and sundown) within reasonable and culturally acceptable boundaries. The sun could rise at 3:00 in the afternoon if we wanted it to, but it's just bizarre to us for the sun to rise at this time.

Oh yeah, and you should look up seasonal affective disorder, as not everyone benefits from massive amounts of sunlight (and that's ignoring the problem of ultraviolet radiation).

You cannot make a public policy that has 0 burden on 100% of the populace. There is always going to be someone with a disorder or other such problem that will be bothered by it. And as to UV radiation, wear sunscreen and limit sun exposure (just because there is an extra hour of daylight doesn't mean you have to spend the entire day in the direct sun). (Again, personal responsibility.)

[Dragon Zachski]

cestlefun17, when accidents increase sharply because of Daylights Savings Time, then yes, it does cause harm. Harm and Good are indeed quantifiable measures. Stop arguing with nonsense.

And furthermore, no one normal can go to sleep like turning off a light-switch, so "going to bed earlier" is an invalid argument.

[cestlefun17]

cestlefun17, when accidents increase sharply because of Daylights Savings Time, then yes, it does cause harm. Harm and Good are indeed quantifiable measures. Stop arguing with nonsense.

They are qualifiable, not quantifiable. How many accidents happen is a quantity; how much "harm" this does to society is purely opinion. It can't be measured by a number. Going by the studies Vene helpfully cited, DST either 1. has no increase in accidents because the spike in accidents associated with losing an hour is balanced by a decrease in accidents in gaining an hour OR 2. There is an increase in accidents both on the day we gain and lose an hour: the increase on the day we lose an hour is due to people receiving less sleep, but the increase in accidents when we gain an hour is due to people staying out longer and drinking more (which is also the cause of increased accidents on weekend nights and especially big "party" holidays like New Year's).

So either Daylight Saving Time has no net effect on accidents, or the absence of a net effect is due purely to people's actions (while you might not be able to fully counteract the lost hour of sleep on the switch in the spring, you are fully in control of not drinking and partying heavily on the hour gain in the fall). What you want is, because there are some idiots who drink too much or don't go to bed on time, for the government to step in and hold all of our hands so we can be "safe."

And furthermore, no one normal can go to sleep like turning off a light-switch, so "going to bed earlier" is an invalid argument.

People do have some control over when they fall asleep. We do this all the time with weekends and weeknights. I go to bed later on Saturday and wake up later on Sunday, but despite waking up later on Sunday I can put myself to bed earlier in preparation for Monday morning. I was saying to treat the Saturday night before we lose an hour like a weeknight, instead of a weekend night, to help counteract the lost hour. Perhaps this doesn't help if you have to work Sunday morning, but these studies being cited include the following Monday as well. If you followed this advice, there would be no reason why you would have a lost hour on Monday morning (the night between that Sunday and Monday has the same number of hours as any regular night!)

The overlying point is, that if people feel burdened by DST, we are free to change it. The horror stories you are all swapping do not affect such a substantial portion of the populace that moves them to change it. If we feel that the enjoyment in longer summer days and more sensible sunup/sundown times outweighs a statistical anomaly (and to put things in perspective we're talking 3.6%–8% increases in these studies...the first study even notes that it is a "small increase") that occurs on only one or two days out of the year, then that is our decision to make collectively.

[Admiral Lithp]

Our society has decided that the burden in instituting and enforcing traffic rules is miniscule in comparison to the benefits they provide to us.

Oh Lord, not this again. What is with the constant war you wage on reality?

[Yla]

cestle, your argument leads me to the creation of an awareness program encouraging people to prepare for the clock change and sleeping accordingly. Does that mirror your conclusions?

[Oriet]

Cestle: So, you're saying that an increase in the number of deaths (which are not just from traffic accidents), injuries, and financial loss would only be unacceptable if it passes your arbitrary cut off? So you're fine if a lot of people (even they are only a small percentage of the 7 billion people inhabiting the planet) needlessly die just so it doesn't inconvenience your enjoyment of a summer barbecue? There's a reason I think you're a heartless prick.

In my opinion, no loss of life that is easily preventable is acceptable, and if it means having to change a policy because people aren't having enough "personal responsibility" then so be it. I also don't really care exactly how the clocks are set in relation to DST, so long as there is no having to change the clocks that leads to so much misery. Oh, and I'm not talking about the misery of changing clocks and adjusting a schedule, I'm talking about the misery caused by financial loss, injury, and the deaths of loved ones.

[cestlefun17]

cestle, your argument leads me to the creation of an awareness program encouraging people to prepare for the clock change and sleeping accordingly. Does that mirror your conclusions?

If many people really have a problem with the time change, then this would certainly be a viable and unobtrusive solution to the problem.

Cestle: So, you're saying that an increase in the number of deaths (which are not just from traffic accidents), injuries, and financial loss would only be unacceptable if it passes your arbitrary cut off? So you're fine if a lot of people (even they are only a small percentage of the 7 billion people inhabiting the planet) needlessly die just so it doesn't inconvenience your enjoyment of a summer barbecue? There's a reason I think you're a heartless prick.

Statistically, either the number of deaths is already evened out (due to people getting an hour more sleep on that one day in the fall, decreasing accidents by roughly the same amount) in which case DST saves just as many lives as it takes, OR this balance is not achieved but would be if people did not stay out and drink longer during that extra hour. If they treated that Saturday night like any other Saturday night, then everything would even out despite losing an hour's sleep in the spring.

I cannot support changing a public policy to cater to a small minority's irresponsible behavior. Accidents also increase due to increased drinking around holidays, particularly New Year's, 4th of July, and Christmas (www.snopes.com/holidays/newyears/traffic.asp), but I wouldn't suggest getting rid of holidays either. People should act responsibly: if they don't and they drink and drive, drive recklessly, or otherwise act recklessly they should be punished by the law. In the meantime, we must look out for ourselves, take what precautions we can, and accept the fact that there will always be some risk in our lives. We enjoy holidays; we enjoy longer daylight hours in the summer evenings; and we either accept the slight risk that comes with that or we wrap ourselves in bubble-wrap and eat canned goods for the rest of our lives out of our basement bunker.

[clockworkgirl21]

And furthermore, no one normal can go to sleep like turning off a light-switch, so "going to bed earlier" is an invalid argument.

Yes. I'm a night person, so I'm always tired during the day and more awake at night. It makes going to work/school hell. Add DST in there...*shudder*

[Haseen]

Oct 25, 2011 1:55:21 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Accidents also increase due to increased drinking around holidays, particularly New Year's, 4th of July, and Christmas (www.snopes.com/holidays/newyears/traffic.asp), but I wouldn't suggest getting rid of holidays either.

Riiight, because eliminating two clock changes a year is equally difficult and intrusive as getting rid of holidays.

[cestlefun17]

Riiight, because eliminating two clock changes a year is equally difficult and intrusive as getting rid of holidays.

Why not? It's just a matter of changing the law. Just pass a law saying New Year's is no longer a holiday. There's no reason why it must be a holiday. It could just be any other day where the year just happens to increase by 1.

Or you could institute other measures: close bars at 8:00PM (There are already laws in most jurisdictions that say bars must close by a certain time, usually around 2:00AM). People can't go out to drink anymore; they'll have to stay home. After all, it's safer that way.

[Mantorok]

cestlefun17, where exactly are the benefits of DST?
So far we've got a study showing increased workplace accidents and lost workdays, two studies (1 and 2) showing an overall increase in traffic accidents, and a single study where things balance out.
How can you justify spending money on an awareness program to make people sleep properly at the fall changeover (or closing bars which will hurt their profits), when you haven't even shown DST to have a benefit?

I'd like to point out that it's hard to make an argument for energy saving any more, as cooling through fans and air-conditioning consumes more power than lighting. DST works against this, which I can easily demonstrate:
Without DST
I arrive home at 6:00pm and the temperature is 28°C. I switch my air-conditioner on, set it to 24°C. It will only have to cool the air by 4°C.
With DST
I arrive home at 5:00pm (but my clock says it's 6:00pm), and the temperature is 30°C. I switch my air-conditioner on, set it to 24°C. It will now have to cool the air by 6°C.

[cestlefun17]

But it is integral to note that it does not balance out in the fall due to a small minority's irresponsible actions (taking advantage of the extra hour on that Saturday night to stay out later and drink more), not due to anything caused by DST directly. I cannot support making all of society go without the enjoyment of additional daylight hours in summer evenings because of the fully controllable actions of an irresponsible few.

The benefit of DST is that it shifts most of the extra sunlight we get in the summer from the useless early morning hours to the evening where it can be much more widely enjoyed. It allows for much more enjoyable and recreational summers. This is a benefit, and exactly how big a benefit this is is subject to opinion. To me, this is worth taking the slightly elevated risk of being hurt as a result of someone else's irresponsible actions on these two days of the year. Just like I enjoy celebrating holidays and going out on the weekends. Just like I enjoy living in the city, with a much higher crime rate than if I lived on a farm.

Despite what people like Oriet would have you believe, when crafting public policy, eliminating all risk is not the only goal one should strive for. Not only is it impossible to achieve, but it is also highly undesirable. If we are discussing a city ordinance, for example, on when to close bars, I may say that 2:00AM is when it ceases to be socially acceptable to be drinking. Closing bars at 2:00 allows patrons ample time to enjoy themselves, but will force them eventually to either go home for find other activities not involving alcohol. It'll stop them from drinking longer and putting themselves and others at risk. (Here I balance three factors: personal enjoyment, physical risk, and maintenance of public order through the enforcement of socially acceptable boundaries.) Another person on City Council may then suggest 1:00: that if we close bars at 1:00 it will further lower the number of people who become inebriated. Another council member may suggest 11:00PM. There are a few irresponsible people out there will get drunk by 12:00 midnight, thus kicking everyone out of bars by 11:00PM will get everyone back home before anyone can get drunk and hurt themselves or someone else on the road. Now no one can stay in a bar past 11:00 because of the actions of a few irresponsible people.

How do we decide what time to close bars? We must balance plenty of factors: one of which is minimizing risk to people, but others such as ensuring compliance of socially acceptable boundaries, and creating an enjoyable atmosphere for customers (and thus an enjoyable atmosphere for businesses). If we were to only consider minimizing risk as the only legitimate factor, then bars would never open.

The role of government is to create a safe, healthy, orderly, and enjoyable environment for the society that it is instituted by. Does the enjoyment gained all summer long by more waking daylight hours outweigh the small increase in accidents two days of the year? I say yes. And so long as the people of your state continue to elect representatives who will preserve this policy, then this is the consensus of society.

[Dragon Zachski]

Oct 25, 2011 5:55:56 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Does the enjoyment gained all summer long by more waking daylight hours outweigh the small increase in accidents two days of the year? I say yes.

This just in, folks.

"Enjoyment" is worth more than safety.

[ironbite]

Oct 25, 2011 14:21:10 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

Oct 25, 2011 5:55:56 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Does the enjoyment gained all summer long by more waking daylight hours outweigh the small increase in accidents two days of the year? I say yes.

This just in, folks.

"Enjoyment" is worth more than safety.

Oh...and that just breaks my brain.