4 ms·
Reading this, and considering the limited advantages of DST (especially for a country that is relatively far to the south), I wonder why they didn't decide to s
by rob74 2y ago
Reading this, and considering the limited advantages of DST (especially for a country that is relatively far to the south), I wonder why they didn't decide to scrap DST completely? Maybe they will if the EU eventually manages to do it?
- lazide 2y agoIf they didn’t have that to argue about, what else would they do with their spare time?
- maratc 2y agoI would argue that DST actually makes most sense in 30-40 degrees of latitude. With about 13 hours of sunlight in the summer, split evenly around the mid-day, it comes down to 05h30 to 18h30 under light. There are many more people who would be out there to enjoy the sunlight between 18h30 and 19h30 than there are between 05h30 and 06h30.
- bena 2y agoI really dislike this argument of "I'd rather enjoy the sun in the evening than in the morning" ignoring all of the other problems it causes. Sunlight in the morning is useful. It's better for your sleep rhythms. It's safer for school children, etc. And to be completely fair, I don't see that many more people "enjoying the sunlight" during the weekend when they have the entire day to do so. Like, what is the sun going down at 6 really preventing you from doing that you couldn't do otherwise?
- maratc 2y ago> I really dislike this argument of "I'd rather enjoy the sun in the evening than in the morning" My argument is not "I'd rather enjoy the sun in the evening than in the morning", my argument is "From what I can observe, most people would prefer an hour of sunlight at the end of the day rather than in its beginning". This is not about what I think, it's about what most people think. > what is the sun going down at 6 really preventing you from doing Again, my observation is that most people, given a choice of A. having sunlight between 5am and 6am; or B. having sunlight between 6pm and 7pm, would prefer option B, simply for the reason that more are awake during that time.
- bena 2y agoDid you take a poll, or do you just have the feeling that that is the case? Not to mention, it's a bit weaselly. It offsets the burden of defending the position to "most people". And it doesn't even matter what "most people" think. "Most people" in this case, would be wrong. Even if it were "most people" and not "most people whose opinions you've happened to remember on the subject because they happen to align with yours". And it's going to get darker earlier in winter. That's just what it does. People are really just lamenting the lack of daylight hours in general. Because during the winter, few places have sunlight during 6pm and 7pm even if we kept DST year round. What they say they want is sunlight between 5pm and 6pm. And after the clocks roll back, it'll start getting dark soon after 5. And once again, I ask, for what? Having the sun rise just after 6am is better for everyone. School kids waiting for the bus are safer, kids walking to school way safer. Better driving when you're waking up. Everything is more in line with your circadian rhythms, etc.
- samatman 2y ago> It offsets the burden of defending the position to "most people". Decisions where the only effect is to align something arbitrary with people's preferences can only be made through appeal to the majority. > And it doesn't even matter what "most people" think. Yes. Yes it does.
- maratc 2y ago> And it's going to get darker earlier in winter. It's summer we're talking about when we talk about DST. There's no DST in the winter. > School kids waiting for the bus are safer, kids walking to school way safer. For several months in the summer, the schools are closed. Other months during DST, the schools start at 08h00 and the vast majority of the kids wake up about seven-ish, to leave their house at about 07h30. It is inconsequential for the kids whether the sun has risen at 06h30 or at 05h30 that day; when they wake up, there's light outside anyway. For the rest, let me give you an analogy. For several months this coming summer, I am going to give out an hour of free internet[0] each day. This won't interfere with the (paid) one that people are having otherwise. I'm not going to ask the question "would you prefer this hour to be between 05h30 and 06h30, or between 18h30 and 19h30?" but I am going to ask this question instead: What would the majority prefer, in your opinion? [0] - any useful utility can be substituted: free hour of water, free hour of electricity, etc.
- alwayslikethis 2y agoYeah. DST really boils down to tricking people to wake up earlier. But you can get all that sunshine by waking up earlier yourself at 5am. No need to force an awkward schedule change on everyone.
- layer8 2y agoThe EU likely won’t scrap it, because the CET countries want to stay in a common time zone (no new time zone borders) for economic reasons, but either the very Eastern or very Western ones in that range would object to permanent DST or permanent non-DST, because it would move them too far from the solar day either in winter or summer. It can’t be fixed without one country or another getting the short stick, which means it won’t be fixed.
- yyyfb 2y agoIf the continental US can do it (and it looks like it might soon, with California voting for it) I'm not sure I buy that argument. Heck if China can survive on one timezone...
- layer8 2y agoThey certainly could if they had started that way, but changing it now will disadvantage at least one of the countries (Spain for example), and those countries’ politicians don’t want to risk the ire of their voters for the greater good. And DST is regulated on the EU level, so can’t be changed by individual EU members without breaking EU law, like apparently individual US states can. It’s status quo bias and loss aversion. Similar to how it would be better for the US to change their voting system, but it will never happen because it would disfavor one of the political parties who’d have to approve the change.