9 ms·
I've long contended that DST is dangerous and a money hole, although not in the way that this article addresses. Anyone who lives to the west of a major metro a
by CWuestefeld 18y ago
I've long contended that DST is dangerous and a money hole, although not in the way that this article addresses. Anyone who lives to the west of a major metro area will understand my point.
Twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall, commuters experience a period during which the sun is right in their eyes. For those of us driving east in the morning, and west in the evening, the sun is right in front of us all the time, and when it's at the right (wrong) elevation, vision is painfully obscured.
Earlier in the year the sun is too low to bother; later, the sun has risen high enough that your visor can block it. But for that time period, traffic is terrible because drivers can't see where they're going.
The thing about DST is that it resets this period. After having made it through once, DST drags the clock around so that we must endure the same sun glare again.
Once you start to think about this effect, it's clear that it must be costing fuel and lost productivity from the traffic, and likely even injuries and lives from accidents.
- kirse 18y agoThere's a DOE study that shows extending DST saves energy and also has no statistically significant effect on fuel consumption... So this $480m "lost" productivity is potentially offset by energy savings across the US. I'm also less inclined to believe the RescueTime productivity number when they take their own solid figures on user involvement and then mix them in with a few SWAGs to come up with what people now believe is a solid figure. Once you throw BS into the recipe you've spoiled the final product. From the DOE report--- Changes in national traffic volume and motor gasoline consumption for passenger vehicles in 2007 were determined to be statistically insignificant and therefore, could not be attributed to Extended Daylight Saving Time. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/epact_sec_110_edst_report_to_congress_2008.pdf http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/epact_sec_110_edst_r...
- jacoblyles 18y agowell, do you get to skip the bad period on the other side?
- CWuestefeld 18y ago[I retract my answer, this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=514142 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=514142 is much better]
- chairface 18y agoUnfortunately, no. In the spring the sunrise is getting earlier as time goes by. Then the clock jumps forward an hour, which makes sunrise an hour later, causing the repeat the op talked about. In the fall, sunrise is getting later. The clock jumps backward an hour, which makes sunrise an hour earlier. This causes the same repeat, in reverse (aka, trending darker rather than lighter). edit: Also, I have the experience to back this up. I've been one of the living west of my workplace people for too long.
- mace 18y agoIs the problem here commuting, in general?
- ewiethoff 18y ago(~_~) I know what you mean about the sun in your eyes. As a kid, I spent year after year with the sun in my eyes as I rode the school bus 15 miles each way. I told myself, "This is stupid. When I grow up, I'm not going to live west of town." The odd thing is, the vast majority of development takes place west of that city, for no major geographical reason. I shake my head in wonder at the thought of so many people trying to drive with the sun smack in their eyes a couple hours every day. And yes, you're right, the time changes reposition the sun in front of your eyes.
- mynameishere 18y agoI vowed the same thing years ago when I lived west of my job location. Squinting while driving 55 in stop-and-go traffic? Eh, no thanks.