7 ms·

From [1], which is much better and more on-point, if still short: "Opponents of the proposition argue [...] the sun wouldn’t rise until 8 a.m. during some winte

From [1], which is much better and more on-point, if still short: "Opponents of the proposition argue [...] the sun wouldn’t rise until 8 a.m. during some winter months, forcing children to walk to school or buses in darkness" Maybe school shouldn't start so early then? Starting at 8:30-9 would reduce a lot of that, though not all of it. Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Darkness is a fact of life, get over it. [1]: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/11/06/proposition-7-passes-daylight-saving-time/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/11/06/proposition-7-pas...

downrightmike 8y ago
Arizona has not been doing daylight savings for years, and they don't have this problem. Really any area with 350+ days of sun shine a year should abandon DLS.
- dnbgfher 8y ago
  The difference is some people are talking about DST year-round (again). Arizona is never on DST.
- sjburt 8y ago
  The day length changes less as you get closer to the equator. It's not nearly a big a deal in Tuscon as it is in San Francisco (or Eureka).
  - User23 8y ago
    This is a great example of why local rule is generally preferable.
npunt 8y ago
Agree, sending kids to school in the dark is a pretty weak 'think of the children' argument. If we REALLY cared about children, we'd start school later as numerous studies show a later start is better for learning and health. See the CDC's guidelines for optimal school start times, which is 8:30am or later: https://www.cdc.gov/features/school-start-times/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/features/school-start-times/index.html
- rtkwe 8y ago
  Then we start running into issues with the secondary/tertiary purpose of schools, daycare, which lets parents work normal 9-5 jobs more easily while having kids. If schools didn't start to 8:30-9 it'd be harder for parents to get to work.
  - mullingitover 8y ago
    And there's the real issue. Not about what's best for the kids, but what's convenient for the parents.
    - hirundo 8y ago
      If the parents can't get to work by 9, don't you think their more limited job options could have a real effect on their kids?
    - theOneTrueOld 8y ago
      As a person who works in education, I feel like many decisions are made this way. It's rarely about what is best for the kids.
    - ars 8y ago
      Doesn't doing something good for the parents also help their children? I mean, it's their parents, not some random strangers.
  - nrb 8y ago
    Maybe rethinking 9-5 is more productive to society than forcing everything else around it. Lots of schools start each day in the 7:00 hour.
    - ams6110 8y ago
      Maybe rethinking both parents working is more productive to society. If the expectation was that one parent cared for the children and the household, that would drastically shrink the supply of workers, and force wages up, recognizing the actual, formerly unpaid cost of maintaining a household and raising children.
intopieces 8y ago
This has always been an odd argument to me. Does abolishing DST also abolish flashlights, streetlamps, reflective clothing...? What did children do before DST came around to save them? Children have been attending school longer than DST has been around.
- butisaidsudo 8y ago
  The argument about students walking in the dark (however you feel about it) is in regards to the _winter_ months, when there has never been DST. Asking what they did before DST came around to save them is asking what happens right now. That is, it's not dark when they walk to school. It'll only be an issue (if you think it's an issue) if and only if DST is enacted _year round_.
SilasX 8y ago
Coordination problem; people depend on things happening at certain times relative to each other, and they won't synchronize unless "the" time itself changes. e.g. people might have a system where they can drop their kids off and then go to work, but if their work is suddenly offset by an hour but the school isn't... You can always unilaterally decide to do things on a different schedule; the problem is getting everyone else to do it too.
jandrese 8y ago
The local TV news used to run the same story every DST change. Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark? The only advantage of the former is that it gives the sun a chance to warm up the air a bit more so it's not quite as cold in the morning.
- fatnoah 8y ago
  Not sure where you are, but where I'm from (Northeast US) the walk to and from school were usually in daylight hours, unless one happened to be 1-2 hours early or late.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    It all depends. Usually schools stagger arrival times to maximize bus trips, especially in urban areas where desegregation or integration with public transit required suboptimal routing (from a distance POV). My neighbors kid has a middle schooler who starts at 7:30 and a 1st grader who starts at 9:30! Personally, I went to a rural district with an 8:05 start time. The bus picked me up at 6:40AM, and I typically didn't see daylight outside of school in December.
- tzs 8y ago
  > Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark? There is no place in California where the amount of daylight is so short that kids would walk home in the dark as long as school starts around 8-9, regardless of whether they use PST or PDT during the winter. The choices are, if school start times stay so that they are before parent work start times, between walking both to and from school in the light, and walking to school in the dark and from school in the light. If it were a choice between walking to school in the dark or walking home from school in the dark, walking to school in the dark would be worse, because the school day is shorter than the adult work day. The kids going to school overlap with the morning commute traffic. The kids coming home beat the evening commute traffice.
- bsder 8y ago
  > Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark? Actually, yes. Not just California, but starting an hour later also lets the temperature rise. That's not an undue consideration when you have snow and ice.
Impossible 8y ago
Overall it would be better for the students and it fixes safety concerns, which I agree is a weak argument but 'for the children' is always a great political card to play. The issue is I don't think making the school day start later will ever get support from teachers, so it won't be considered for most school districts even if its better for the students.
- vondur 8y ago
  Yes. Teachers unions would never agree to have to start later in the day.
  - bdamm 8y ago
    Why?
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      When teachers are directly exposed to the light of the sun, they burst into flames. ;)
    - vondur 8y ago
      Good question. My wife was a teacher and they like getting off early. Hard to change something that’s entrenched.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I don't think making the school day start later will ever get support from teachers, so it won't be considered for most school districts even if its better for the students. Package it with pay increases and/or shortening the day (also good for students) so that teachers still get off at the same time, and it'll go over fine. Even aside from that, teachers aren't the majority of the electoral base for either local school boards or state lawmakers, so if it's important enough to non-teachers, it will get mandated whatever teachers prefer.
contravariant 8y ago
Well sure, but maybe instead of changing the schedule of all schools in the state (which would in turn affect the schedules of parents etc.) it would be easier to just not change the clock? Using the statement 'well maybe school shouldn't start so early then' as an argument in favour of making schools start earlier seems rather contradictory.
- comex 8y ago
  It’s not an argument in favor, but a defense to an argument against. The reasoning goes that a lot of other things would be better served by being moved an hour earlier, even if school wouldn’t. That said, even for K12 students, I’d say it’s a give and take. Waking up and going out in the dark each morning does sound bad for mood and potentially for circadian rhythms. But school gets out at 3PM, and on the shortest days of the year, the sun sets around 5PM. That leaves only 2 hours to potentially spend outdoors in the sun, at best; after-school activities can easily consume much or all of that time, not to mention homework. Or even if you spend all day indoors, the earlier the sun sets, the sooner your body starts producing more melatonin and making you feel tired; robust artificial lighting can help, but then it’s harder when you are ready to start winding down for the day. And then there’s seasonal affective disorder (Google it). In all these cases, going from 2 to 3 hours of sunlight after school would be a big help.
bitwize 8y ago
The Japanese don't have DST, despite Japan having a similar latitude span to the lower 48. Somehow, even the kids in northerly Hokkaido manage just fine.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  But the Japanese allow 5 year old kids to walk to school by themselves! They clearly don't love their kids! </s>
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  > The Japanese don't have DST They are in the wrong timezone, in my opinion. The sun sets super early in the day. If I was the dictator of the planet, I'd set japan's clocks forward by two hours year round. Then the sun would set at 18:40 instead of 16:40 today. Getting off work and having some daylight is pretty important, IMHO. It is quite hard to do in Japan.
  - sjburt 8y ago
    It's also pretty annoying in the summer when the sun comes up at 4:30.
  - pacificmint 8y ago
    There is an interesting map[1] that shows how much the time is off in each location in the world vs solar time. Japan is indeed ahead of solar time, as opposed to many other places on their longitude. (Though perhaps not by two hours). Interestingly, many more places are behind their solar time then places that are ahead of it. [1] http://blog.poormansmath.net/how-much-is-time-wrong-around-the-world/ http://blog.poormansmath.net/how-much-is-time-wrong-around-t...
paulddraper 8y ago
> Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Even in the U.S....Washington, Montana, Michigan, Maine...this is fact of life stuff.
_ph_ 8y ago
What is the point of moving the time zone by 1 hour (keeping permanent DST instead of normal time) and then adjusting times, like school hours, to compensate for it? Couldn't one just go back to normal time instead?
- tempestn 8y ago
  Only if literally everything adjusts to compensate. People proposing a permanent move to daylight savings time with some things moving to compensate are expecting the majority of things to keep happening at the same clock time (resulting in advantages like more evening sunlight).
  - _ph_ 8y ago
    I don't doubt that is the expectation, but I think they are underestimating how much we arrange our daily life by the sunlight. While in the summer months the longer day length makes the concept DST working - in a sense the DST time change is a hack that somewhat works, the things get more tough in the winter, where morning brightness is very important. And also in the summer, at least for me, it is an illusion. Because the one hard constraint is, when it gets dark and cool enough to sleep. And here in Germany, that means around midnight, when DST is active. And that of course pushes the rest of my day cycle around in consequence.

downrightmike 8y ago

Arizona has not been doing daylight savings for years, and they don't have this problem. Really any area with 350+ days of sun shine a year should abandon DLS.

dnbgfher 8y ago
The difference is some people are talking about DST year-round (again). Arizona is never on DST.
sjburt 8y ago
The day length changes less as you get closer to the equator. It's not nearly a big a deal in Tuscon as it is in San Francisco (or Eureka).
- User23 8y ago
  This is a great example of why local rule is generally preferable.

npunt 8y ago

Agree, sending kids to school in the dark is a pretty weak 'think of the children' argument. If we REALLY cared about children, we'd start school later as numerous studies show a later start is better for learning and health. See the CDC's guidelines for optimal school start times, which is 8:30am or later: https://www.cdc.gov/features/school-start-times/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/features/school-start-times/index.html

rtkwe 8y ago
Then we start running into issues with the secondary/tertiary purpose of schools, daycare, which lets parents work normal 9-5 jobs more easily while having kids. If schools didn't start to 8:30-9 it'd be harder for parents to get to work.
- mullingitover 8y ago
  And there's the real issue. Not about what's best for the kids, but what's convenient for the parents.
  - hirundo 8y ago
    If the parents can't get to work by 9, don't you think their more limited job options could have a real effect on their kids?
  - theOneTrueOld 8y ago
    As a person who works in education, I feel like many decisions are made this way. It's rarely about what is best for the kids.
  - ars 8y ago
    Doesn't doing something good for the parents also help their children? I mean, it's their parents, not some random strangers.
- nrb 8y ago
  Maybe rethinking 9-5 is more productive to society than forcing everything else around it. Lots of schools start each day in the 7:00 hour.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Maybe rethinking both parents working is more productive to society. If the expectation was that one parent cared for the children and the household, that would drastically shrink the supply of workers, and force wages up, recognizing the actual, formerly unpaid cost of maintaining a household and raising children.

intopieces 8y ago

This has always been an odd argument to me. Does abolishing DST also abolish flashlights, streetlamps, reflective clothing...? What did children do before DST came around to save them? Children have been attending school longer than DST has been around.

butisaidsudo 8y ago
The argument about students walking in the dark (however you feel about it) is in regards to the _winter_ months, when there has never been DST. Asking what they did before DST came around to save them is asking what happens right now. That is, it's not dark when they walk to school. It'll only be an issue (if you think it's an issue) if and only if DST is enacted _year round_.

SilasX 8y ago

Coordination problem; people depend on things happening at certain times relative to each other, and they won't synchronize unless "the" time itself changes. e.g. people might have a system where they can drop their kids off and then go to work, but if their work is suddenly offset by an hour but the school isn't... You can always unilaterally decide to do things on a different schedule; the problem is getting everyone else to do it too.

jandrese 8y ago

The local TV news used to run the same story every DST change. Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark? The only advantage of the former is that it gives the sun a chance to warm up the air a bit more so it's not quite as cold in the morning.

fatnoah 8y ago
Not sure where you are, but where I'm from (Northeast US) the walk to and from school were usually in daylight hours, unless one happened to be 1-2 hours early or late.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  It all depends. Usually schools stagger arrival times to maximize bus trips, especially in urban areas where desegregation or integration with public transit required suboptimal routing (from a distance POV). My neighbors kid has a middle schooler who starts at 7:30 and a 1st grader who starts at 9:30! Personally, I went to a rural district with an 8:05 start time. The bus picked me up at 6:40AM, and I typically didn't see daylight outside of school in December.
tzs 8y ago
> Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark? There is no place in California where the amount of daylight is so short that kids would walk home in the dark as long as school starts around 8-9, regardless of whether they use PST or PDT during the winter. The choices are, if school start times stay so that they are before parent work start times, between walking both to and from school in the light, and walking to school in the dark and from school in the light. If it were a choice between walking to school in the dark or walking home from school in the dark, walking to school in the dark would be worse, because the school day is shorter than the adult work day. The kids going to school overlap with the morning commute traffic. The kids coming home beat the evening commute traffice.
bsder 8y ago
> Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark? Actually, yes. Not just California, but starting an hour later also lets the temperature rise. That's not an undue consideration when you have snow and ice.

Impossible 8y ago

Overall it would be better for the students and it fixes safety concerns, which I agree is a weak argument but 'for the children' is always a great political card to play. The issue is I don't think making the school day start later will ever get support from teachers, so it won't be considered for most school districts even if its better for the students.

vondur 8y ago
Yes. Teachers unions would never agree to have to start later in the day.
- bdamm 8y ago
  Why?
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    When teachers are directly exposed to the light of the sun, they burst into flames. ;)
  - vondur 8y ago
    Good question. My wife was a teacher and they like getting off early. Hard to change something that’s entrenched.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I don't think making the school day start later will ever get support from teachers, so it won't be considered for most school districts even if its better for the students. Package it with pay increases and/or shortening the day (also good for students) so that teachers still get off at the same time, and it'll go over fine. Even aside from that, teachers aren't the majority of the electoral base for either local school boards or state lawmakers, so if it's important enough to non-teachers, it will get mandated whatever teachers prefer.

contravariant 8y ago

Well sure, but maybe instead of changing the schedule of all schools in the state (which would in turn affect the schedules of parents etc.) it would be easier to just not change the clock? Using the statement 'well maybe school shouldn't start so early then' as an argument in favour of making schools start earlier seems rather contradictory.

comex 8y ago
It’s not an argument in favor, but a defense to an argument against. The reasoning goes that a lot of other things would be better served by being moved an hour earlier, even if school wouldn’t. That said, even for K12 students, I’d say it’s a give and take. Waking up and going out in the dark each morning does sound bad for mood and potentially for circadian rhythms. But school gets out at 3PM, and on the shortest days of the year, the sun sets around 5PM. That leaves only 2 hours to potentially spend outdoors in the sun, at best; after-school activities can easily consume much or all of that time, not to mention homework. Or even if you spend all day indoors, the earlier the sun sets, the sooner your body starts producing more melatonin and making you feel tired; robust artificial lighting can help, but then it’s harder when you are ready to start winding down for the day. And then there’s seasonal affective disorder (Google it). In all these cases, going from 2 to 3 hours of sunlight after school would be a big help.

bitwize 8y ago

The Japanese don't have DST, despite Japan having a similar latitude span to the lower 48. Somehow, even the kids in northerly Hokkaido manage just fine.

aidenn0 8y ago
But the Japanese allow 5 year old kids to walk to school by themselves! They clearly don't love their kids! </s>
spookthesunset 8y ago
> The Japanese don't have DST They are in the wrong timezone, in my opinion. The sun sets super early in the day. If I was the dictator of the planet, I'd set japan's clocks forward by two hours year round. Then the sun would set at 18:40 instead of 16:40 today. Getting off work and having some daylight is pretty important, IMHO. It is quite hard to do in Japan.
- sjburt 8y ago
  It's also pretty annoying in the summer when the sun comes up at 4:30.
- pacificmint 8y ago
  There is an interesting map[1] that shows how much the time is off in each location in the world vs solar time. Japan is indeed ahead of solar time, as opposed to many other places on their longitude. (Though perhaps not by two hours). Interestingly, many more places are behind their solar time then places that are ahead of it. [1] http://blog.poormansmath.net/how-much-is-time-wrong-around-the-world/ http://blog.poormansmath.net/how-much-is-time-wrong-around-t...

paulddraper 8y ago

> Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Even in the U.S....Washington, Montana, Michigan, Maine...this is fact of life stuff.

_ph_ 8y ago

What is the point of moving the time zone by 1 hour (keeping permanent DST instead of normal time) and then adjusting times, like school hours, to compensate for it? Couldn't one just go back to normal time instead?

tempestn 8y ago
Only if literally everything adjusts to compensate. People proposing a permanent move to daylight savings time with some things moving to compensate are expecting the majority of things to keep happening at the same clock time (resulting in advantages like more evening sunlight).
- _ph_ 8y ago
  I don't doubt that is the expectation, but I think they are underestimating how much we arrange our daily life by the sunlight. While in the summer months the longer day length makes the concept DST working - in a sense the DST time change is a hack that somewhat works, the things get more tough in the winter, where morning brightness is very important. And also in the summer, at least for me, it is an illusion. Because the one hard constraint is, when it gets dark and cool enough to sleep. And here in Germany, that means around midnight, when DST is active. And that of course pushes the rest of my day cycle around in consequence.