Daylight Savings Time Should we end it?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Blowing shit up in your back yard is fun, too, and if you're responsible about it odds are nobody will get hurt. Not everyone is responsible and so it's illegal to blow shit up in your back yard.

If the irresponsibility were to harm only the individuals being irresponsible it would be one thing. The harm is not isolated. Does that make sense to you?

[cestlefun17]

If the irresponsibility were to harm only the individuals being irresponsible it would be one thing. The harm is not isolated. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, I understand this, and what I am saying is if people are willing to accept a slight increase in accidents one or two days of the year in exchange for extended daylight hours all summer long, there is nothing wrong with this choice. In the meanwhile, knowing this risk exists, is the preferred policy to tailor our lives to suit an irresponsible few, thus forgoing our enjoyment; or do we accept the risk and encourage responsible behavior?

Not enough people enjoy blowing things up in their backyard, so to us it is not worth accepting the risk that comes with that. It goes back to my trick-or-treat example: there is no graph that shows that trick-or-treating reduces cancer risk or can cure AIDS; it is something we simply enjoy doing and we are willing to take responsible precautions and accept the slight risk that comes with that activity.

[Dragon Zachski]

Nov 2, 2011 3:45:50 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

In other words, you're missing the point.

No, not really.

You keep making the claim "It's really because people are irresponsible" but you've yet to provide any evidence of that.

Where is it? Where's your data? You've made a claim, now back it up.

[cestlefun17]

I have said this before: I am using the studies that Vene cited on Page 3:

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.

[Dragon Zachski]

...So, basically, you latched onto the words "alcohol consumption" and applied it to all people affected by DST, despite the fact that not two words later, it mentions "driving while sleepy", which is one of the main problems caused by the shift in DST. Not to mention that "parties" aren't mentioned anywhere.

So, basically, you're making stuff up now.

[Oriet]

A problem with your argument, Cestle, is that most people are not aware of the increase in monetary loss, injuries, and death, and so cannot take it into account at all for a risk-benefit analysis. Compounded on that is that you also ignore those who aren't willing to accept that greater risk, but are forced to by the majority of the population that's oblivious to said risk. And again, it's not people causing harm to themselves that's the issue here, it's people causing harm to others.

And again, you keep saying that the amount of accidents "balance out," as though it justifies an unnecessary increase. You also ignore the studies that contradict that by finding an overall increase in losses, which is intellectually dishonest and demonstrates that you don't give a crap about anything other than your own personal enjoyment.

And no, constantly saying people need to be personally responsible isn't going to do anything other than weaker your argument, since they still can't control the responsibility or actions of others.

[Yaezakura]

Especially since personal responsibility plays very little role in it.

Sleep is typically a scheduled thing. Even if you are the type of person who stays up later on your off days than your work days, that is part of the rhythm your body is accustomed to. In fact, those same people would usually find it hard to fall asleep on their off days at the same time that they would on work days, because it's not when they typically go to sleep on those days.

So you can sit there and say "personal responsibility", Cestle, but I say "biology fucks your argument in the ass and didn't bother with lube".

If you're able to instantly shift your sleep schedule by an hour at whim, with no negative consequences, then you are in the minority, and by your own words our policies should not factor you in. Our policies should instead factor the fact that DST causes quantifiable harm (injuries, death, and resource loss) for no quantifiable gain ("fun" is hard to quantify, and there's no proof that people can't have just as much fun with shorter summer evenings).

[cestlefun17]

...So, basically, you latched onto the words "alcohol consumption" and applied it to all people affected by DST, despite the fact that not two words later, it mentions "driving while sleepy", which is one of the main problems caused by the shift in DST. Not to mention that "parties" aren't mentioned anywhere.

Again, the extra hour people normally would gain in sleep would offset the accidents caused by the loss of an hour in the spring. All the other factors you mention would be balanced out. As for "driving while sleepy" you are not reading the extract. It says: 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.. This "behavioral adaptation" in "anticipating the longer day on Sunday" is what causes people to stay out later, thus increasing the rate of alcohol consumption and having them be sleepier when they do go home.

A problem with your argument, Cestle, is that most people are not aware of the increase in monetary loss, injuries, and death, and so cannot take it into account at all for a risk-benefit analysis.

You're right. But to be truly able to make a fair comparison, you would need a control: a year without DST in the same location as a year with DST. DST could also provide some safety benefits: for example, it'll be lighter for another hour in the evening: more people are driving and there are more pedestrians at 7:00PM than 4:00AM.

And no, constantly saying people need to be personally responsible isn't going to do anything other than weaker your argument, since they still can't control the responsibility or actions of others.

I am saying I am willing to accept the risk. If you stay out later on the shift in the fall, and get drunk, you should be arrested. If you drive while sleepy, you should be arrested. If you act irresponsibly, you should be arrested. But I absolutely refuse to tailor my life to suit these people and I will gladly accept the risks that come with that. If not enough people agree with me, they can campaign to have the law changed. This is really the crux of my feeling on this: I am vehemently opposed to catering to people who can change their own situation, even if their inaction means I have to accept more risk.

If you're able to instantly shift your sleep schedule by an hour at whim, with no negative consequences, then you are in the minority, and by your own words our policies should not factor you in. Our policies should instead factor the fact that DST causes quantifiable harm (injuries, death, and resource loss) for no quantifiable gain ("fun" is hard to quantify, and there's no proof that people can't have just as much fun with shorter summer evenings).

The effect that shifting an hour has on you is entirely subjective. No, it does not affect me in the slightest. And again, if enough people are bothered by it to such an extreme extent, they are free to change it via law. Politicians should certainly take your personal experiences with the time change into consideration (I hope you have all written your representatives!), but if not enough people feel the same way you do, that's the way the democratic process operates. "Fun" can be given whatever subjective value you want to give it. If a state uses DST, then that means that state has collectively decided that the enjoyment gained all season is worth the modest effort in changes the clocks one hour two days out of the year.

[Vene]

Nov 3, 2011 3:34:30 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

...So, basically, you latched onto the words "alcohol consumption" and applied it to all people affected by DST, despite the fact that not two words later, it mentions "driving while sleepy", which is one of the main problems caused by the shift in DST. Not to mention that "parties" aren't mentioned anywhere.

Again, the extra hour people normally would gain in sleep would offset the accidents caused by the loss of an hour in the spring. All the other factors you mention would be balanced out. As for "driving while sleepy" you are not reading the extract. It says: 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.. This "behavioral adaptation" in "anticipating the longer day on Sunday" is what causes people to stay out later, thus increasing the rate of alcohol consumption and having them be sleepier when they do go home.

I'm kind of getting tired of you claiming that as an absolute fact. Learn to read science, words like "probably" and "suggest" mean they do not know, instead that it is a reasonable explanation. It could be true, but that doesn't mean it is and acting as if that is the absolute truth is what fools and the ignorant do.

[Dragon Zachski]

Actually, cestle, the more sleep you get past 8 hours, the less rested you will be.

It's why sleeping, say, 12 hours is bad for you.

So, no, the extra hour of sleep does not offset the accidents. In fact, if you had actually read what you quoted to me you would have seen that the extra hour in fall only offsets itself.

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

So, in the fall, sometimes that extra hour of sleep actually increases automobile accidents. It depends on the situation, of course, but still, it doesn't in any shape or form cancel out the increase in accidents from the spring shift.

Bearing in mind, This is what YOU quoted to ME and apparently you didn't even read it.

[Admiral Lithp]

He just sidestepped the whole thing about other peoples' actions affecting you AGAIN.

[cestlefun17]

I'm kind of getting tired of you claiming that as an absolute fact. Learn to read science, words like "probably" and "suggest" mean they do not know, instead that it is a reasonable explanation. It could be true, but that doesn't mean it is and acting as if that is the absolute truth is what fools and the ignorant do.

Perhaps it isn't known definitively to be true, but neither does the article say that DST itself is definitively to blame, and the other article you cited does show that the number of accidents even out from the spring and fall shift. You cited it, so I took that to mean that you thought it was worth bringing up.

It's why sleeping, say, 12 hours is bad for you.

No one is saying you have to spend that extra hour sleeping. If you're already getting enough sleep, you can spend that extra hour playing Chinese checkers for anybody cares. What I'm saying is that it isn't responsible to use that extra hour as an excuse to drink more and stay out later. And if you're sleep deprived, you'll actually be getting the 8 hours of sleep you need that night.

So, no, the extra hour of sleep does not offset the accidents. In fact, if you had actually read what you quoted to me you would have seen that the extra hour in fall only offsets itself.

This is not at all what the sentence says. Let's look at it again:

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

If the extra hour off-set itself, it would show neither an increase nor a decrease in the number of automobile accidents as opposed to any normal day of the year. The quotation says that there are some studies which show an increase in accidents despite the extra hour, and this is predicted to be a reflection of behavioral adaptations (extended late night) whereas the studies that show a decrease in accidents are predicted to reflect the benefit of extra sleep.

So, in the fall, sometimes that extra hour of sleep actually increases automobile accidents. It depends on the situation, of course, but still, it doesn't in any shape or form cancel out the increase in accidents from the spring shift.

Yes, this is what I've been saying all along. This increase in the fall is attributed to chosen behavioral changes, which I've said I would refuse to tailor my life around.

He just sidestepped the whole thing about other peoples' actions affecting you AGAIN.

I have said a million times over that I fully understand that other people's actions in regards to the 1-hour time change can affect other people, including me. What I am saying is that I will fully accept this risk as I refuse to change my life to cater to such people.

If you want to talk about safety, I think that you all are too focused on the two days of the year when we observe the time change. Despite the slight increase in accidents on the shift in the spring (and possibly the shift in the fall depending on the study), a look at the overall effect shows anywhere between a net decrease in casualties (as in the first link) to no net difference (as in the second link). Shifting an hour of light from the early morning, with fewer people on the road, to the evenings gives motorists and pedestrians an extra hour of sunlight. Shifting back in the winter shows a slight increase in accidents in the evenings, but a sharp decrease in the mornings, particularly among the middle and high-school demographic.

This study provides data for the entire week before and after each time shift, rather than just one or two days. From the data, the author suggests switching to DST year-round, although I think this ignores the problems that a late sunrise in winter would create, as also shown in the data. You can draw your own conclusions.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fehlt.flinders.edu.au%2Feducation%2Fiej%2Farticles%2Fv7n4%2FMiller%2Fpaper.pdf&ei=YK6zTqO0HMTP8QOcuJiABQ&usg=AFQjCNHhS2_rvlqwEN3cPOyYIrepmeEI7Q

This CRS Report is useful as it discusses the only time in recent United States history where the entire country, in the 1970s, switched from a Standard Time/DST Time observance to year-round DST. The report notes no changes in the number of traffic fatalities in comparing the two policies. They did note a sharp rise in fatalities among schoolchildren when DST was observed in the winter as opposed to other years, but could not definitively attribute this to DST, nor could they definitively rule it out. In any event, proposals to stay on DST year-round are met with criticisms that high schoolers and middle schoolers will have to wait for the bus in the dark and start their school day in the dark in the winter months.
www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/congressionalResearchService.html

I'll give you the last word on this, as we've beaten this fully to death now. So to summarize: I fully agree with the current policy: each state can decide, through the democratic process, whether or not to observe DST, whose effects, benefits, and drawbacks can be weighed in relation to its geographic location. I refuse to support a policy that forces people to forgo enjoyment in order to take into account people's irresponsible behavior, or ignores measures that people can take individually. Our extra summer sunlight is useless to most people at 4:00 in the morning, and I personally am willing to take the risk in the slight increase in accidents on one or two days of the year to enjoy extra summer sunlight. It is also vital to look at statistics year-round as opposed to only one or two days of the year, as shifting sunlight hours to when most people are out and active will naturally curb accidents over the course of the entire year. In any event, I want to enjoy my life, and the subjective hassle of changing the clocks one hour is infinitesimal to me in exchange for the enjoyment gained from it. These subjective benefits are weighed collectively through the democratic process.

[Vene]

I saw this at Scientific American today, it is far more interesting then Cestle's posts.

ETA: Here, I'll quote the last few paragraphs of it (but read the whole thing, it's quite good).

Even if initially DST saved the economy some energy (and that is questionable), it certainly does not do so any more. And the social cost of traffic accidents and heart attacks is now much greater than any energy savings that theoretically we may save.

Furthermore, it now seems that circadian clocks are harder to shift than we thought in the past. Even that one-hour change may take some weeks to adjust to, as it is not just a singular clock but a system – the main pacemaker in the SCN may shift in a couple of days, but the entire system will be un-synchronized for some time as it may take several weeks for the peripheral clocks in the liver and intestine to catch up – leading to greater potential for other disorders, e.g., stomach ulcers.

The social clues (including the alarm clocks) may not be as good entraining agents as we thought before either, especially in rural areas where the natural lighting still has a profound effect.

Finally, the two time-change days of the year hit especially hard people with Bipolar Disorder and with Seasonal Affective Disorder – not such a small minority put together, and certainly not worth whatever positives one may find in the concept of DST. We should pick one time and stick with it. It is the shifts that cost the society much more than any potential benefits of DST.

[Admiral Lithp]

That was more interesting, though I'm not completely sure how a baby waking you up would be different from any other "sudden shift" in the rhythm.

That article totally reminds me of my mom. She's always spouting "facts" about sleep deprivation that are obviously true because she's "seen the research" through her job. You know what she does? She's a furniture salesman. The sleep research she sees is what's relevant to, say, SERTA. But, anyway, one of her big "facts" is that "you can't get back that time by sleeping more the next day."

[SimSim]

Vene, I'd argue natural light still has effect in urban and suburban areas. Unless I set an alarm I tend to wake up with the sun. In the summer I wake up at 5 something when the sun comes up and don't need an alarm. In the winter I won't wake up until 7 something unless I have an alarm.

Maybe I'm weird, but even living in an urban setting the sun still has an effect on how I sleep.