California Voters Embrace Year-Round Daylight-Saving Time (sfchronicle.com)

Californians warmed to the idea of year-round daylight-saving time, approving an initiative that would urge state lawmakers to junk the annual springing forward and falling back. From a report: With 43 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday night, Proposition 7 was leading 61 percent to 39 percent. It's a long way from here to year-round daylight-saving time. First, the Legislature would have to approve it by a two-thirds vote. Then Congress would have to allow California to deviate from standard time when most of the rest of the nation shifts to it.

Comments

OR and WA to follow suit

[WillAffleckUW]

Let's get real, it's highly probable that both Oregon and Washington State will follow suit. Just easier.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

will they rename ca, or, wa to western arizona?

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Deep Esophagus]

How is it easier than just abandoning DST entirely?

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

It is to maximize sunlight hours when people aren't at work or school. Yes morning commutes will become more hazardous but you'll have more nature light for whatever outdoor activities after work.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

That will be problematic for Washington, where for a period of about 10 weeks in the winter, sunrise already doesn't happen until after 7:30AM, and up near the Canadian border it doesn't rise until after 8AM... having DST in effect year round pushes that sunrise to after 8:30 AM and as late as shortly after 9AM. Peak morning rush hour commute time is 8:00 AM which means that more people will be getting deprived of having sunlight exposure at all early in the day, which is a very critical aspect of maintaining proper melatonin levels and having a healthy sleep cycle. This, in turn, is going to cause a sharp uptick in the number of health disorders related to inadequate sunlight exposure and/or restful sleep... having that extra hour in the evening might be convenient, but does not convey the same health benefits as exposure to sunlight shortly after waking up.

But hey.... gotta love those unintended consequences, right?

#eyeroll

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Aighearach]

It is unlikely that Oregon would do so unless the US Congress acts first.

It would require a vote, and we don't like to vote for shit that doesn't pass Federal muster.

Like with legalizing marijuana; we voted no on the first few plans, because they didn't match up with well enough with the State/Federal divisions of power. Voters waited for a scheme that can stand up.

Just the fact, "we can't actually do this yet" will cause many Oregonians who would otherwise support it to get pissed off that it is even on the ballot yet! We have very active Direct Democracy here, and before we changed the rules to make it harder we used to have to vote on an excess of stupid ideas. So there is some sensitivity to that.

OTOH, Oregonians do want to solve the problem. So probably, we'll just end up on PST all year, and if we're in a different time zone than California, it won't actually matter very often. And it will likely be temporary.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Strider-]

As someone who lives in Vancouver, BC, I’m all for sticking with DST year ‘round. While it means that the morning commute will be dark, it’s dark already. Sticking to DST year ‘round means that i’ll At least have some dusk and natural light for the drive home, or even when I’m at home after work.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[TomR teh Pirate]

Just use Greenwich Mean Time and then use a dimension table to figure out what your offset is. Doesn't seem that complicated.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[olsmeister]

I went to school in Houghton, Michigan which is actually west of where I live now but I'm in the Central time zone and Houghton is in the Eastern time zone. I guess what I'm trying to say is suck it up, buttercup.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[fustakrakich]

GMT is great for navigation, lousy for everything else, unless it's your local time zone. Most of us use a watch to reflect solar time, but you can set yours to GMT if you want...

Really we should move GMT (prime meridian) to the international date line, without all the course deviations for various islands of course. That way the planet's day starts at 0000GMT.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

BC is even further north than Washington state, and the problem would be even worse where you live.

Sticking to DST year âround means that iâ(TM)ll At least have some dusk and natural light for the drive home, or even when Iâ(TM)m at home after work.

I'm not knocking the idea of having some sunlight when you go home or after work, but having sunlight exposure late in the day, after you have been awake and working throughout it, will not have the same beneficial effect on melatonin levels that exposure to sunlight earlier in the day has.

If you need to be at work even before the sun is up in the depths of winter, that's unfortunate for you, but pushing the clocks ahead in the winter will mean that this will also be the case for virtually everybody, as the peak morning rush hour commute time is currently *AFTER* sunrise, even in the middle of winter.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

One cannot simply change the function of human biology because doing something which runs contrary to it might somehow create the perception in a large number of people that one has more usable leisure time in the evening.

Our evolution is not guided by a democratic process.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[sexconker]

Greenfield = Never Land.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[EvilSS]

Peak morning rush hour commute time is 8:00 AM

Really? because most places I've lived it's 6:30-7:30 am since most people are getting to work at 8am. Of do you guys not have a lot of traffic up there?

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[olsmeister]

Our evolution is not guided by a democratic process.

No quarrel with you on evolution...that one's been pretty firmly established. But our time, however, is most assuredly guided by a democratic process. (well, at least in the USA, so I'm told)

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dgatwood]

It is to maximize sunlight hours when people aren't at work or school. Yes morning commutes will become more hazardous but you'll have more nature light for whatever outdoor activities after work.

And evening commutes will become much, much less hazardous. People can easily use artificial lighting to wake themselves up in the morning for their morning drives. But at the end of a long day, when they get in the car for their evening drives, they're tired, so darkness has a much bigger impact. Thus, I would expect a significantly larger reduction in traffic deaths from moving to year-round DST when compared with moving to year-round ST.

Of course either approach is better than the two days of carnage that we get under the current scheme.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Strider-]

I’m guessing you don’t live up here. I work a typical white collar, 9-5 job with a relatively short commute (~30 minutes or so).

Right now, for the months of December and January, working that schedule means that I basically never see the sun except through the windows at work (and when I take a walk at lunch). Sunrise at the winter solstice is roughly 8:39am, and sunset is at 16:26. It’s deep into the dark by the time I get home.

Sticking to DST means that the sun rises at 9:39, which means it’s no difference to me since I’m already waking up in the dark, but sunset is at 1726, meaning that I at least get to watch it go down as I drive home, and have some dusk as I’m out and about.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[WillAffleckUW]

I live in Seattle. I disagree. Even when I lived in BC, switching to year round DST would have been fine.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

My point is that it is counterproductive to try and govern our time in a manner that negatively impacts our own health, however democratic that might be. Sunrise currently happens after 7:30AM throughout the entirety of December anywhere north of about Portland Oregon, and the peak commute time in most urban areas is 8AM, while pushing sunrise to after 8:30AM at that time would mean that most people would suddenly get no exposure to sunlight at all in the morning. The mere convenience of having an extra hour of daylight in the afternoon should not outweigh the proven health benefits that accompany getting sunlight exposure shortly after waking up, particularrly since getting that exposure late in the day does not achieve the same health benefits with regards to melatonin levels and a persons' natural sleep cycle.

It's also worth mentioning that the further north you go, the later the sun stays out in the summer anyways, and in the middle of summer, an extra hour of sunlight is not really needed (who ordinarily needs the sun to still be up at nearly 11PM?)

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[greenwow]

I hope so! I work on scheduling and time clock software that is hardcoded to LA time but we're based out of Seattle, so this is going to suck. Some of our COBOL code is over 38 years old. I'm still manually fixing employee clock ins that happened Sunday morning during the clock fallback to give them an extra hour of pay. Again, this is going to suck.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[rogoshen1]

Would also potentially be trouble for the 11 or so people who live in the extreme eastern bit of Oregon near Ontario which are in mountain time. (for whatever reason.)

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Seattle so it sucks that it gets dark at 4:15pm at the end of the year. It's already dark when I go to work so at least I could drive home while it's still somewhat light.

I understand the parents that complain that their kids have to wait for a bus in the dark though.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the time for abandoning daylight saving adjustments is passing. Many clocks already change themselves automatically, so it isn't a burden on people. If the size of the adjustment was smaller, such as ten minutes, people would hardly notice. If you think ten minutes is a bit too noticeable, then try 2.3 minutes per week, done every Sunday morning. It could even be 2.3 minutes average, so that the adjustment can vary and better follow the change in the time of sunrise.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Etcetera]

I could see Nevada following suit to just to keep weekend gamblers from California.

Nevada does not give two whits about Californian time keeping, and casinos are proactively designed to mask what time it might be outside anyway.

If you're Californian and want to get to Vegas an hour earlier, speed.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Nutria]

Of course either approach is better than the two days of carnage that we get under the current scheme.

That's a myth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[kenh]

Not quite sure how adopting 'full-time' Daylight Savings Time is the first step in abandoning Daylight Savings Time...

That's like telling some that the first step towards adopting a vegetarian diet is to start eating bacon cheese burgers at every meal.

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[brunnegd]

Year round standard time is the better choice.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

Sunrise at the winter solstice is roughly 8:39am

Which means that at least part of your morning commute is after sunrise, and you are gaining benefits of exposure to sunlight which helps your melatonin levels.

And even if you went to work much earlier, why should the preference for having sunlight in the evening be more important than people's health?

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[brunnegd]

Do you really start work at 9 am? I have never met someone who did. 8 am or 7:30 but never 9.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[fibonacci8]

Except that it's not, including according to the video you linked.
https://www.businessinsider.co...

Granted, carnage is a bit of an exaggeration to describe it...

There is a measurable change in health related deaths near one solstice. There's is a roughly equivalent and opposite health benefit near the following solstice. A non-trivial number of people die as the result of the one, and aren't there to enjoy the benefit that follows.
Perhaps calling it government mandated human sacrifice would be more appropriate. It's certainly more accurate.


It's like Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, but a little more subtle.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

For what it's worth, Morning rush hours in most urban areas run from about 6:00AM to 9:00AM, with the peak time typically being at about 8AM, where people who needed to be at work by 8 are just arriving to work, and people who work later are often just getting on the road.

As sunrise in the winter in Washington is usually *before* 8AM (and only after it for a few days when you are practically living on the Canada US border), people who need to be at work by 8AM are still generally getting the benefits of some morning sunlight during their commute.

Regardless, pushing the clocks ahead an hour in the winter would suddenly force a lack of morning sunlight upon virtually *EVERYBODY*, and would certainly result in more widespread cases of health disorders that are related to inadequate sunlight.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

I understand the parents that complain that their kids have to wait for a bus in the dark though.

There's that as well... although because so many parents drive their kids to school these days, I don't know if that's as big of a problem as it may have once been. The far more serious aspect is that of inadequate morning sunlight exposure, and its impact on melatonin levels for *EVERYONE*... including children. While needing to be at work before sunrise in the middle of winter for some people is unfortunate, pushing the clocks ahead in the winter would force even *more* people to not have any morning sunlight in the middle of winter. The desire to have more afternoon sunlight for the sake of mere convenience should not be more important than the health of the general public.

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[fibonacci8]

Not quite sure how adopting 'full-time' Daylight Savings Time is the first step in abandoning Daylight Savings Time...

That's like telling some that the first step towards adopting a vegetarian diet is to start eating bacon cheese burgers at every meal.

I suspect that some law somewhere stipulates that daylight saving time has to be observed. The loophole is that you could potentially "always observe daylight saving time during the remainder of the year" more readily than you could change the law so that you don't have to observe it at all.

It's more like being required to by some religion to be vegetarian at night. Then finding out the increased amount of vegetable farming has led to an increase in the deer tick population. Next thing you know, you've got an allergy to red meat due to a tick bite. Lastly deciding to be vegetarian during the day as well rather than seeking treatment for the red meat allergy.

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[fibonacci8]

tl;dr being religious, being vegetarian, and the deer tick bites are all metaphors for already being dead on some level

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Nutria]

The deaths that occur on the Monday after Spring Forward would have happened in the next 4-5 days anyway, and the lives saved during Fall Back were spared for another 4-5 days.

Bottom line: there's change in the number of deaths for the week of DST. It's just shifted around some.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dgatwood]

You're just talking about the health-related deaths. I was talking about traffic deaths, where there is a statistically significant increase at BOTH time changes — specifically, on the Monday after the spring shift to DST and, curiously, on the Sunday of the fall shift away from DST.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

Oregon?

Near Ontario?

You're kidding, right? This is a joke, isn't it?

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Kyr Arvin]

He's probably talking about Ontario, Oregon, a city on the Oregon/Idaho border.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

And BC hopefully. Our Premier recently stated that we won't change because we want to stay in sync with our trading partners, namely Washington I presume as we're already out of sync with Alberta mostly (parts of BC stay on mountain time all year round and more municipalities are considering it)

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

Easier then changing time zones. It's like becoming a vegetarian by only eating plants instead of eliminating meat.

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[edwdig]

Most people hate how early it gets dark after the change from Daylight Saving Time to Standard Time. Most people don't understand the time zones that well and refer to the act of changing the clocks as "Daylight Savings Time".

Permanent Daylight Saving Time is what most people want, but most people don't understand time zones well enough to express the idea properly.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

Eastern or western Washington? There's an hour difference between the west and east ends of a time zone.
I lived in Creston BC for a while, right on the border of PST and MST. They just didn't change time so in the summer it was the same time as the rest of BC and in the winter, the same as Alberta. It was fine. Here in the Vancouver area, I think I'd prefer staying on standard time but really I'd just like to stop the change, which seems harder and harder with age. We'll probably follow Washington if they change.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

And if you have Inuit genes? Actually most northern Europeans should have evolved to handle short days as well.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Strider-]

Also means that for part of my commute (personally) I’m staring straight into the sun as it’s going eastbound in the morning. And I really don’t give a rat’s patooie about Melatonin or any of that stuff. That’s really not a factor to me.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

Can't Oregon decide without involving the feds? Pretty sure up here in Canada, it is a Provincial thing, at that there are municipalities in the east of BC that just don't change time and I'm pretty sure they didn't ask Ottawa though I could be wrong.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[epine]

Sticking to DST year-round means that I'll at least have some dusk and natural light for the drive home, or even when Iâ(TM)m at home after work.

Small fly in the ointment: your body's response to light exposure at dawn and dusk differs. For most people, half an hour of bright light first thing in the morning helps to entrain a consistent, early sleep rhythm.

For many people, without any early light, their sleep phase drifts towards the owl pole. This won't stop you from sleeping at your chosen time. But it will cause your sleep to be lite, easily interrupted, and less refreshing. In more severe cases, you can wind up waking up for an hour or two, a few hours after hitting the hay. If accumulated fatigue fails to deepen your sleep, this can further devolve into chronic insomnia. (Maintaining high levels of accumulated fatigue is a lousy way to live in the first place.)

People who do attempt to maintain high levels of accumulated fatigue usually fall into a pattern called "social jetlag" where they either sleep a whole lot more on the weekends, or stay up very late and sleep very late (or both), turning Monday morning into a total ordeal. And the ordeal is not just something unpleasant to endure. Your associated performance decline is painfully obvious in any competent sleep study. Sleep quality effects on cognitive performance are one of the easiest things to demonstrate in any good sleep lab. One sleep researcher has a standing bet for any sleep-deprivation warrior to show up and sleep six hours or less a night, and not show immediate cognitive decline on fairly simple tests. Last I heard, no-one has collected.

Chorus: Put your linear models away, children, and start looking at what is already known.

And, oh yes, breaking news: the pancreas is now known to have a melatonin receptor. So your sugary foods spike your blood sugar differently in the morning than later in the day.

Chorus: Put your linear models away, children, and start looking at what is already known.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[jroysdon]

If California does go forward and basically moves to Mountain Standard Time (aka Pacific Daylight Time), it would make a good amount of sense for Nevada to do the same as then they'd be in sync with two of their neighbors. I could see Utah dropping the time change to stay in sync with AZ & NV as well, and so on going north.

Then we'd just have 3 main timezones in the contiguous. Curious if the east coast or central time zones might copy, but I don't really care so long as the west drops the time change as that's where I live had have most business meetings.

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[jroysdon]

I'm not an expert on the law at all, but I think it basically says if you are going to have some sort of time change, you must follow the national time change days. But there are plenty of places that chose not to have any time change, such as Arizona, and there are other places which aren't uniform throughout the state, like Indiana: https://www.timeanddate.com/ti...

Oh, actually this link has good info:
https://www.timeanddate.com/ti...

"Arizona is exempt from DST according to the US Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Act gives every state or territory the right to decide if it wants to use DST. If DST is observed, the state has to schedule DST in sync with the rest of the US: From the second Sunday in March until the first Sunday in November."

Ah, but this link says a state may opt out of DST, and instead use their Standard time. California is trying to move to a permanent Daylight time, which isn't allowed by the Federal law:
https://www.timeanddate.com/la...
"260a. Advancement of time or changeover dates
(a)(1) any State that lies entirely within one time zone may by law exempt itself from the provisions of this subsection providing for the advancement of time, but only if that law provides that the entire State (including all political subdivisions thereof) shall observe the standard time otherwise applicable during that period, "

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[jroysdon]

Sometimes 9:30am... company policy says no later than 9am, but, no one cares so long as I am there for any scheduled meetings. Tomorrow I start at 4:30am as we're replacing some core switches and causing an outage for 2 hours, but that was determined to be the best time to have the outage - but that's a rarity. Often folks schedule meetings at 8am, and I "go in early" and then leave at 4pm.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[jroysdon]

They can't just do whatever they want. They can choose not to observe DST, as provided by Federal law.

https://www.timeanddate.com/la...

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[jroysdon]

What did you do in 2007 when the time changes shifted a few weeks? Buy new devices that can handle time zone changes.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[jroysdon]

Might spread to the rest of the western states as California will influence its neighbors (Nevada and Oregon), which in turn may further influence their neighbors further north and east. If California pulls this off, it will always have the same time as Arizona, and as other states follow suit, it would make for one large western time zone.

However, the US Senate and the POTUS may block this just to spite California, but this really is a party-neutral issue with huge support from 60% of Californians.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

Interesting, seems the feds have a lot of power. Thanks. The page also links to Canada, https://www.timeanddate.com/ti... which states that it is mostly decided at the municipal level though I'm pretty sure the feds put out guidelines, namely following the US lead.
I'll note that my Premier (BC) recently stated that the Province won't change due to keeping in sync with our trading partners, presumably Washington and south. Since municipalities are a Provincial thing, I guess the Province can override them.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

And I really donâ(TM)t give a ratâ(TM)s patooie about Melatonin or any of that stuff. Thatâ(TM)s really not a factor to me.

And, as I said elsewhere, human evolution is not determined by what you, or even a large group of persons might happen to prefer, and you are further suggesting that what is supposedly unimportant to you should not matter to anyone else either. The effects on daylight expsosure early in the day on melatonin production, and in turn the impact that this has on a person's circadian rhythm and sleep cycles are well documented. My objections to this having DST in the winter in northern areas amount first and last to what is ultimately an issue that is in the best interests of long term public health.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

Weird that the US Feds can block it, but I guess your States don't have much power. According to https://www.timeanddate.com/ti... it is mostly up to the municipalities up here though I guess the Province can override.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Aighearach]

Feds regulate inter-state commerce. Official timekeeping is related to that.

Actually, this is America; if timekeeping wasn't necessary for the economy, we wouldn't even have official time zones, it would all just be a matter of opinion.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[thegarbz]

#eyeroll

That's about the only part of your post that is relevant. The rest of your post comes across the same way as all the other pro / anti DST arguements such as the curtains fading, the cows getting upset and every other bit of bullshit.

An hour change in the morning won't affect humans in the slightest. You want a healthy sleep cycle? Sleep at healthy intervals. Your "body clock" is not your master and if you for some reason are its slave then get yourself some blackout curtains and sunrise alarm clock and let the rest of the human race enjoy the additional sunshine.

Sidenote: Only good things come from not having peak hour *during* sunrise. The accident rate is the highest at any point in the day right as the big bright ball crosses the horizon.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Aighearach]

Too bad none of the clinical results line up with that theory. It was mainstream while it lasted, though.

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[reanjr]

I think it largely depends on where you are in your time zone and your latitude. Some zones are unnaturally wide, and being on the east vs. west side of the zone can make an almost two hour difference. Also, higher latitudes have more severe changes in seasonal daylight. In MI - a northern and western state - I think most people prefer the extra daylight in the morning so that you don't spend five hours in darkness after waking up in the Winter.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's almost like businesses could have summer hours and winter hours that fit the needs of their customers and employees without government pretending like time is changing.

Like Home Depot does despite the government clock meddling.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[houghi]

Don't change your car clock while driving. Problem solved.

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[Joce640k]

Yep. Noon should be when the sun is in the south.

Anything else is stupid.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

No, I hadn't previously heard of Ontario in Oregon... the only Ontario I knew of before this was the existence of Ontario, in Canada... which is on Eastern Standard Time, and of course absolutely nowhere near Oregon.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[rogoshen1]

FWIW there's also one in southern California -- which is the one i thought you were alluding to :)

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

Don't you mean Feds can regulate inter-state commerce if needed? In Canada, the Feds could regulate time zones in the name of inter-Provincial commerce but don't.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Aighearach]

No, we're not so naive as to think that any Government sees a difference between "if needed" and "if we feel like it."

In any case, the Court will decide what was actually "needed," and impose a balance between the different rights. Until that happens, the Government will check whatever boxes have been provided as they do whatever they want.

The reason your government doesn't care is that your "BBQ equipment" manufacturing sector isn't large enough to lobby your government to have laws written for them. As a matter of historical fact, that is who generally asks the US government to pass laws regulating Daylight Saving Time. If it was your loggers or syrup producers asking for it, it would get done. Here, BBQ has more clout than logging.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

Never thought of the BBQ industry, but it makes sense.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

Except that it's not bullshit.

There is an established corellation between exposure to daylight before one starts their workday and the body's ability to produce melatonin. This in turn helps regulate a person's circadian rhythm, and will affect how much restful sleep one can get during the night.

Your "body clock" is not your master.

Unfortunately, evolution was probably not paying too much attention to what people might happen to want... we evolved to function in daylight hours, and we experience direct benefits when we adapt our behavior to reflect that evolution.

An hour change in the morning won't affect humans in the slightest.

Not in the summer, no... the sun rises early enough with respect to when people are working that it's not an issue... it's probably also not a problem in California, as the earliest the sun rises in even the northernmost tip of California is still not long after 7AM right now, and that's only for a period of about 3 weeks, not the bulk of winter, so pushing sunrise to just after 8am there wouldn't have the same detrimental effect it would have on the northernmost states, where throughout December and January, pushing sunrise an hour later would be a much bigger deal.

The body's ability to deviate from what we are evolved to do is limited. and in general, would not be sustainable for many people for 2 whole months. If Washington adopts this, it is a guarantee there will be a dramatic uptick in health issues related to inadequate sunlight exposure around Christmastime - far in excess of what is already typical in the winter right now. Currently, that's only 1% of the population, but it is likely that part of the reason that percentage is so low is because of the fact that the sun is still generally above the horizon by the time most people are currently going to or perhaps even just arriving to work, even in the very depths of winter. Change that, and you are in for a whole different kind of ball game.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dcw3]

I get that that's what our common sense may believe. But, I'd like to see some actual evidence that post work is more dangerous than pre work driving. My reasoning is that yes, at the end of my work day, I'm often tired, but I always get a boost when walking home, knowing that I'm free to go enjoy whatever remains of the day. Additionally, many folks driving in the morning haven't eaten, or been caffeinated yet, and just aren't fully awake.

Re: OR and WA to follow suit

[dcw3]

Yep. Noon should be when the sun is in the south.

Anything else is stupid.

Geez, I feel sorry for those living below the equator.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[strikethree]

I strongly suspect (likely incorrectly) that may people, including myself, do NOT like the time to change from time to time. I have lived the majority of my life in areas where they do not change the time at all, and it is ... awesome? How do I describe this? Not getting hit with a rock is ... awesome?

Switching times is very annoying to me. Not switching times is ... the "natural" state of things and is ... awesome?

I just switched times and altering my natural rhythm of sleeping/rising is extremely annoying. I have had some SEVERE bouts of insomnia in my life. I found that creating a rhythm makes it easier to avoid insomnia. Now that I am back where they switch times twice a year, I am annoyed as hell and having a hard time adjusting. It makes no sense to me to adjust the time. Why are people so focussed on daylight? The sun is up when it is up. Changing the time is an absurd solution.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[mark-t]

Handling short days is fine... not having exposure to sunlight early enough in the day that your body's ability to make melatonin is limited by the time one goes to sleep is not... not for an extended period like 2+ months, which is what we'd be looking at in the northernmost states in the winter if you pushed the clocks ahead by an hour in those areas.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[dryeo]

At one time, buildings had lots of windows. Shame that that seems to have gone away with artificial light.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[brunes69]

I don't think you realize that in Canada in the winter, when not on DST, it is actually dark BOTH when you go to work AND when you go home. In December and January the sun does not rise until after 8 and it sets by 5. You basically have no exposure to real daylight during the workweek.

As such, I would much prefer to be on DST year-round, as do most other people who I have discussed the issue with. You would at least have about an hour of daylight at the end of the workday.

Re:OR and WA to follow suit

[Agripa]

Feds regulate inter-state commerce. Official timekeeping is related to that.

Interstate commerce as used in the Constitution is *commerce*. Unless hours of time are being moved back and forth across state lines, it is not commerce.

The Federal government (and especially the courts) lost legitimacy with Wickard versus Filburnand the state governments lost legitimacy by not opposing it.

Who knew interstate means the same thing as intrastate? I guess when the word interstate was included, it had no meaning. What other words should be selectively removed from the Constitution? Eventually they will get down to one you care about.

What the hell?

[MachineShedFred]

What the hell is "year-round daylight-saving time" ? Isn't that just "time"?

Or are they suggesting that California rates it's own time zone now, where they are essentially Mountain Time until spring, when Oregon and Washington join them by moving forward an hour? Because that doesn't get confusing at all.

Maybe it's time DST just goes away altogether?

Re:What the hell?

[Dan East]

What they are saying is instead of going with the natural time (noon is midday, and midnight is... well, midnight), they want to keep the shifted time where we get up an hour earlier, so that we have more daylight later in the day after work.

It's interesting because two issues are being convoluted. One is having to change times twice a year, and the other is it getting dark earlier than people want. The former is a pain in the butt and disruptive, the latter is natural.

The "right" way to do it is do away with time changes and DST, and simply move schedules an hour earlier. School starts an hour earlier, work starts an hour earlier, etc. But apparently this is psychologically too difficult to embrace so instead we'll just pretend 8 PM is 9 PM, and call "6 AM" "7 AM", so we don't think we are waking up earlier and going to be earlier.

Re:What the hell?

[caseih]

There has to be a way to name the new time zone they are creating. Thus to separate it from PST, they'll just call it PDT.

It's only confusing for those living outside of this permanent PDT time zone.

Re:What the hell?

[FFOMelchior]

Keeping DST means you keep the "pushed" ahead time. Currently, they switch between GMT -8 and GMT -7. Permanent DST keeps them at GMT -7, instead of GMT -8. That means midday (on solstice) will be 1 PM instead of Noon. Sunrise and sunset will be 1 hour later.

Re:What the hell?

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

It means that local "noon" will be roughly equivalent to one hour before the sun reaches maximum elevation around that longitude.

The basic idea is that people are firmly entrenched in the idea of what happens at what particular number is indicated on a clock, moreso than simply adapting to whatever actual time happens to be advantageous.

i.e. getting to work at "9AM" is an immutable, unchangeable state of the universe, while the actual position of the sun in the sky relative to your location on earth at 9AM is something that has to be legislated.

In the old days, people in high latitudes just had "summer hours" and "winter hours" where they'd open/close stores and show up to work based on whatever was advantageous for that time of year, and weren't wedded to the idea of having an unchangeable schedule on the clock. Businesses and families made or did not make changes as independent units, and the decisions were based on the nature of the activity.

Now the clock is somehow more important than actual, physical reality.

DST is just tricking people into changing their schedules while they somehow think their schedule has stayed the same because they do things at the same indicated time their clock has always told them to.

i.e. humans are incredibly stupid creatures sometimes.

Re:What the hell?

[ceoyoyo]

There is. It's called Pacific Daylight Time, or Mountain Standard Time. Or UTC-07.

Re:What the hell?

[fustakrakich]

Actually solar noon in California is a bit before noon on the clock. Better to have a bit before 1 so it sets at a reasonable hour. The best setup is to never have solar noon before 12:00

Re:What the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you that the far, far better way to solve the problem would be simply to change working/school schedules between certain dates. e.g. something like, "From Nov 3rd until March 28th, schools will start and finish an hour earlier. The same rule applies to all state-mandated business opening hours, e.g. banks, liquor stores, civic offices, etc. Private businesses are encouraged to follow suit for the convenience of their customers & employees."

Heck, my local Lowe's store manages to have "winter opening hours" with minimal disruption and hassle, so it's possible. And would be infinitely less confusing than the rigmarole we currently go through every year, with computers in banking and healthcare getting confused and losing records!

Re:What the hell?

[Darinbob]

No, the headline is sort of wrong. The oficial summary includes "Permits the Legislature by two-thirds vote to make future changes to California’s daylight saving time period, including for its year-round application, if changes are consistent with federal law." So it could mean that the legislature could change DST to happen on different dates as well.

And I voted against it I think. Permanent DST is stupid, where as permanent abandonment of DST is smarter. I agree that the change in time twice a year is dumb, but permanently being off by an hour and effectively being in a different time zone altogether is dumber. I think it's confusing to people who just want to get rid of the twice a year time change but who don't realize that DST is not the "standard" time.

Overall this proposition will have zero effect because states can't change these rules unilaterally. However, currently states are allowed to choose to not have DST at all, which applies to most of Arizona, and California probably doesn't even need a proposition for that. Hopefully the legislators are smart enough not to push forward with this.

Re:What the hell?

[Aighearach]

They'll try to call it PDT but then the computers will "fix" their clocks all the time.

In the end they're going to have to learn to call it UTC-7, and they'll beg and beg for websites to call it UTC-7 (California) so that they can, like, find it, brah.

Re:What the hell?

[Darinbob]

So, it's Mountain Standard Time year round, same as Arizona which doesn't use DST.

It puts two issues together - the time change issue and the issue of DST or no DST. As well as allowing the legislature to change the time of DST start and end. That's the ultimate problem with California propositions - they're not written by a committee who has sat down and thought things through, they're often written by a disgruntled person with a gripe who's able to raise money to get it on the ballot. Many of these propositions when passed are quickly struck down by the courts because they violate the California constitution, or they conflict with other laws, etc. This one seriously feels like a bunch of drunks in a bar hashed things out on the back of a napkin.

Re:What the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't "now" that the clock is more important than physical reality, it has been that way at least since the invention of the mechanical clock. There is an entire branch of philosophy built around the impact it has had on our view of life.

Re:What the hell?

[Kjella]

The "right" way to do it is do away with time changes and DST, and simply move schedules an hour earlier. School starts an hour earlier, work starts an hour earlier, etc. But apparently this is psychologically too difficult to embrace

It's more about coordination than psychology. Maybe software developers are used to flexible hours but retail, healthcare, transportation and a lot of other sectors are tied to the clock. What happens if the school changes but work doesn't? What about contracts that specify working hours? Are stores willing to switch if customers split between early and late? What about rules for overtime pay that kick in at night? There's a million little things that make it easier for a majority to change the time zone rather than change everything else and then those who don't like it can try scheduling things an hour later if they can.

Re:What the hell?

[Nutria]

where as permanent abandonment of DST is smarter

You say that until you wonder why the sun is rising at 4:40AM in the summer (in June in Los Angeles, it rises on June 23 at 5:40AM DST), and there's an hour less light in the evening.

Re:What the hell?

[hey!]

I like to have dinner around 6:30 PM. I could wait until each member of my family happened to be hungry and then feed them individually, but I don't. Because we all know dinner is coming at 6:30, everyone times their earlier meals they're ready to eat at 6:30. This is not natural behavior, but neither is it somehow underhanded. It's simply a logistical convenience made possible by the invention of the clock.

That's pretty much how all non-agrarian work is coordinated: we agree on when we'll show up for work and when we get home.

The purpose of daylight savings was to give people working industrial jobs more daylight leisure time in the summer. Remember, when it was first adopted electric lighting wasn't something those people would have. They could have got the same effect by telling everyone in your society to adjust their schedule twice a year, but the government doesn't regulate the start and end time of work shifts. It *does* regulate the time standard, making that the simplest mechanism for accomplishing this.

Daylight savings never made sense in near-tropical or near-arctic regions. Nor is the case for shifting back and forth between standard and daylight savings compelling in a world of ubiquitous electric lighting. You can either stick with standard time, and lose summer daylight leisure time, or stick with savings time year round, getting ready for work in the winter with the aid of light bulbs.

Re:What the hell?

[Darinbob]

What's wrong with that. There is a lot more hours of sunlight in the summer than in the winter. It's a balance between those who hate it being dark in the morning an dthose who hate it dark in the evening. It is impossible to please everyone here so it's better to err on the side of common sense.

Re:What the hell?

[Jerrry]

"You say that until you wonder why the sun is rising at 4:40AM in the summer (in June in Los Angeles, it rises on June 23 at 5:40AM DST), and there's an hour less light in the evening."

So what? Don't like it? Just get up and hour earlier and go to work an hour earlier so you can leave earlier if you want more daylight after work. Don't force everyone else onto your schedule. Or better yet, get a night job and then you can have as much daylight as you want during your non-working hours.

Re:What the hell?

[MobyDisk]

Easier to get kids up and to school if there's only a fifteen minute time change every couple of months instead of an hour all at once./quote.
Harder to change every computer system on the planet, and to remember to change your clocks every couple of months. Dang that would be expensive and annoying.

Re:What the hell?

[MobyDisk]

Now the clock is somehow more important than actual, physical reality.

Technology also made this happen. Every time somebody doesn't like the time and changes their rules, every computer on the planet needs a software change. The cost of doing that and the resulting security rules and confusion makes this no longer worth doing.

Re:What the hell?

[stinerman]

I recall a study that showed that regardless use of DST, people generally organize their lives around evening television schedules.

Re:What the hell?

[Uberbah]

Harder to change every computer system on the planet, and to remember to change your clocks every couple of months. Dang that would be expensive and annoying.

Good thing that's not what anyone was suggesting, then. Look at the post I was replying to, and how Lowes manages to change their store hours a couple of times per year without changing their clocks or computers.

Re:What the hell?

[adolf]

Nobody's suggesting getting rid of the clock.

But even as it stands, some businesses are open from 6-2, some are 7-4, others from 8-5, some are 8-4, and some are 10-6 [...]. It seems that we get along just fine with these already-wide variations in operating hours, where the first-shift factory worker's day is half-gone before the shop that is open from 10-6 even opens the doors. This is normal and it works as well as it needs to. Further discussion of this aspect is a really stupid thing to be doing.

Plenty of us are fed up with the twice-yearly tomfoolery of changing the clocks, though.

Solar noon happens at the same time every single day of the year for a given meridian.

If we stop doing DST, then the days just get shorter as winter approaches: The sun comes up a bit later, and goes down a bit earlier. The opposite happens after winter is over and the days get longer. No big deal.

If you need daylight to perform your job, you're already adjusting your schedule based on the sun.

The rest of your questions can be answered with "Figure it out once, and then write it down. And then change it later if it seems like a good idea." Just like every fucking thing else in business.

Re:What the hell?

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

You're confusing the benefit of accurate timekeeping for the purposes of coordination with the dogmatization of the INDICATED time taking precedence.

i.e. is 6:30PM dinnertime because we agreed to have it at the time that will be indicated at 6:30PM today, or is it because dinnertime is somehow inherently 6:30PM?

The benefit of the accurate timekeeping is that you can all have dinner at the same time -- and that time will happen whether your clock says 6:30PM, 6:30AM, or is marked with random trapezoids ("dinner time is at rhombus-o-clock!"). What's important is that you are picking the appropriate time, ahead of time, and your clocks are in sync so people know when it is.

The alternative (that many people seem to practice now) is worshiping the symbols on the clock rather than the time they represent. I.e. people feeling they MUST have dinner at 6:30PM even though it's been 25 hours since 6:30PM yesterday due to the DST change. If the government declared that the clock moved ahead by 23 hours at 7PM, it would follow that you'd have dinner twice in an hour since 6:30PM the next day would occur an hour after 6:30PM today. .... and if the government replaced the numbers with aforementioned random shapes you'd NEVER EAT DINNER AGAIN because it would "never be 6:30PM ever again", only Rhombus-O-Clock. Guess you have to starve.

That's the silliness -- instead of using the numbers to keep track of time, you're DEFINING TIME TO BE THE NUMBERS. It would be like if the U.S. switched to the metric system and you suddenly felt thin because you now weigh only 113 kilograms instead of 250 pounds.

Or someone born in 1980 claiming to be only 9 years old because they were born on Feb 29th and they've only had 9 birthdays since. =P

Re:What the hell?

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

Also DST was not implemented to give people leisure time. It was first implemented as national policy by the Central Powers during World War I in a (failed) attempt to save fuel to revive their war effort. The Entente/Allies followed suit since they didn't know if it would work or not but didn't want to risk giving any advantage to Germany and her allies. After WWI most places promptly dropped the practice.

Then WWII came around and a bunch of countries tried again, hoping to save fuel. It didn't help.

The current iteration of DST stems from the oil crisis of the 1970's (notice the pattern?) . It didn't help then either, but since there wasn't a clear "end" condition like the end of the world wars, nobody got around to repealing it this time.

Re:What the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but evening television schedules is now replaced by streaming services.

Re:What the hell?

[Nutria]

Just get up and hour earlier and go to work an hour earlier

Unless you need to work with people who work 8AM-5PM, not 6AM-3PM.

Re:What the hell?

[iggymanz]

No, when DST is in effect you are off standard time, the phrase "year round dst" would mean staying on that offset all year. We just went back from that offset to standard time

Re:What the hell?

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

I now suddenly wish I could use mod points to upvote your post, but it's in reply to a thread I've posted in. =( ...but yeah, I remember my grandparents scheduling their time so they were in the living room to watch the evening news, or a particular show they liked. Now the only schedules that really matter are work/school, plus random special events -- not everyday entertainment.

Re:What the hell?

[Pikoro]

They'll call it Pacific Time Standard Daylight

Re:What the hell?

[losfromla]

Maybe in the 1990's and before. Nowadays we have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, YouTube, endless porn, DVRs, etc. I think that outside of geriatric wards very few people organize their lives around evening television schedules.

Re:What the hell?

[losfromla]

Yeah, Kalifornia, the 6th largest economy on the planet. Step off you retrograde hillbilly and continue to enjoy the excess $$ that Kalifornia contributes to the Federal government. It allows leecher states (probably yours) to keep on hating progress and all the things that our hyper-productive economy brings you.

We'll have single-payer health care soon to so... better get your hoop-dee working so you can make the trip to Californee.

Cali-fucking-fornia to you bitches!

Re:What the hell?

[Osgeld]

its dark when I go to work and now that we fell back its dark when I leave so I don't see the sun during the winter

Re: What the hell?

[brunnegd]

Yes, no more DST

Re:What the hell?

[Trogre]

Fine, just don't call it DST then.

There is no easy-for-the-masses time algorithm that can ensure the clock strikes 12 noon when the sun is at its highest point over your town every day year-round.

Therefore, just pick a single time zone that loosely models the above and best fits the needs of the community, then stick to it.

Re:What the hell?

[Darinbob]

And for California, it fits quite well and is balanced in GMT-8 and Pacific Standard Time. Going permanently to DST throws it off by an hour.

Re:What the hell?

[Nutria]

You're living off growth initiated during a less socialist era, and the good fortune of being in a region with sun, deep water ports and land you can fertilize with other people's water.

Eventually, "other people's money" (in this case the earners in California) is going to run out.

Re:What the hell?

[amicusNYCL]

What they are saying is instead of going with the natural time (noon is midday, and midnight is... well, midnight), they want to keep the shifted time where we get up an hour earlier, so that we have more daylight later in the day after work.

So they're saying they want to stop DST and just move to a different time zone.

Re:What the hell?

[losfromla]

Nope. We're growing new income sources. We used to be 7th not that long ago and now we're 6th. That doesn't happen on inertia.

Being that California earners are going to keep earning, I don't see how you arrive at this eventuality. Please explain your reasoning, provide citations if necessary to bolster your case.

Re:What the hell?

[h33t l4x0r]

In other words, it will be the wrong time all the time, instead of for just a few months out of the year. Trump should sue them for stealing his moves.

Re:What the hell?

[Nutria]

California earners are going to keep earning

Maybe you're right (by draining the money from other states, leaving them with less ability to pay taxes for single payer health).

OTOH, according to https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/compare_state_spending_2017bH0a CA's per capita state debt is pretty high. (Not as high as that of DC and NY, though.)

Re:What the hell?

[losfromla]

Draining money from them? Please explain.

We sell them fruits and vegetables, software applications, stuff. They send us money. Is that what you mean by "draining money from other states"? I thought that was called commerce.

OTOH, we pay more to the federal government than we get back from it in goods and services. Other states pay in less than they get back in goods and services. That seems more like draining away money from California, would you agree?

Re:What the hell?

[smoot123]

No, the headline is sort of wrong.

The way I read the proposition is the legislature could also just drop DST altogether, which is my preference. My distant second is year-round DST and really off on the horizon is what we have today.

Re:What the hell?

[Nutria]

Selling fruits and vegetables (and -- back when it was a manufacturing powerhouse -- planes, automobiles, etc) is one thing, but selling overpriced bits of voltage and magnetism, and a fodder for the boob tube (movies, TV, advertising/b) is... less than productive.

Re:What the hell?

[losfromla]

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

You also haven't responded to my question. Do you agree that California is being drained (by excessive taxes) and that we provide goods and services in exchange for y'alls moneys?

Re:What the hell?

[Nutria]

Do you agree that California is being drained (by excessive taxes)

Push up taxes too high, and earners eventually decide to move. Especially when CalPERS has to eventually make good on it's underfunded liabilities.

and that we provide goods and services in exchange for y'alls moneys?

The economic equivalent of empty calories.

Re:What the hell?

[Nutria]

And don't forget that the skyrocketing cost of housing is driving people out, and down.

Re:What the hell?

[losfromla]

Housing costs are out of control here, definitely. But you seem to entirely lack the ability to take up an argument. Try to get back on track please, I eagerly look forward to your well thought out responses to any of the concerns I brought up. Please read the thread and notice how you bring stuff up but never follow through when pressed.

Re:What the hell?

[jroysdon]

Yup, and doing so would make California match Arizona in MST and not changing clocks. Might see Nevada follow suit. If so, maybe Utah would drop DST as well and just have MST, and so on, perhaps all the way to the northern US borders (and then influence bordering Canadian provinces as well). I'd like it, not sure if all the folks in the northern states would.

Re:What the hell?

[jroysdon]

Federal law doesn't allow variance in the days. It mandates that if DST is followed, it will be followed on specific dates - and it changed those days effective 2007. Current Federal law isn't going to allow California to change to permanent MST (aka PDT, or UTC-7). Current Federal law allows California to change to permanent PST (dropping PDT with the DST change).

https://www.timeanddate.com/la...

Re:What the hell?

[jroysdon]

Actually, DST is now (as of 2007) from half-way into March until the end of October (7.5+ months), so PST is actually used for less than 4.5 months out of the year. I could see Trump and blocking this just to spite California. I hope not, as I think it makes good sense and I voted for Prop 7 as I hate the time change. I don't care of we go to UTC-7 all the time or UTC-8, I just hate the change.

Re:What the hell?

[thegarbz]

But apparently this is psychologically too difficult to embrace

The shills on behalf of the Coalition of the Signs, Leaflets and Website Updaters are on fire today. Give up man. We won't bow to your masters or to autism and change the metric fuckton of documentation simply because you want noon to be time where the sun is highest in the sky. Time is an arbitrary construct and we are achieving the outcome as psychologically and socialogically responsibly as possible.

Re:What the hell?

[thegarbz]

[...]. It seems that we get along just fine with these already-wide variations in operating hours

Maybe you should check precisely *why* those businesses chose those hours. I think you'll find that they do it specifically because it best suits the integration with society as a whole. You said it yourself " This is normal and it works as well as it needs to. "

So in order to change everything, those businesses would need to change too precisely in order to maintain the "normal" and "works as well as it needs to".

If you need daylight to perform your job, you're already adjusting your schedule based on the sun.

Literally none of what the GP said is related to requiring daylight to perform your job. You still think it would be easier sending society to the drawingboard and then re-doing a world of paperwork than to just change the clock.

Screw your midday. It's not our fault you were silly enough to buy one of these: https://thelocalbrand.com/the-...

Re:What the hell?

[djinn6]

It's a balance between those who hate it being dark in the morning and those who hate it dark in the evening. It is impossible to please everyone here so it's better to err on the side of common sense.

Just tell them to move closer to the equator. It'll help with the immigration deficit too.

Re:What the hell?

[djinn6]

So how do you work with people in New York? Or Europe?

Re:What the hell?

[houghi]

What is natural about "Noon is midday"? The closest thing that comes to mind is a sun dial. Andc that is human made. And even then that would be off almost everywhere, except on a few lines.

If we would follow the "natural midday", we would have have 60 different time zones where we have only one now. Want more precision? Then you will have even more.

The reason the timezones we have now started was so train companies would be able to run n time. The times where not that much different, yet a few minutes was enough.

So we changed a while ago from "Natural midday" to "Artificial midday" where we not only look at where the average midday is, but also where the state or country lines are, as it would be inconvenient otherwise.

The time that the local church told you when midday was, based on the sun, is long behind us,.

Re:What the hell?

[amicusNYCL]

I live in Arizona, so I've never seen a use for it. We're relatively far south though.

Re:What the hell?

[Agripa]

What the hell is "year-round daylight-saving time" ? Isn't that just "time"?

It means noon is 1 PM or 13:00.

I would only support this if metric hours are used instead so noon becomes 5.42.

Re:What the hell?

[Agripa]

California Time contains stupidity known to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Re:What the hell?

[Agripa]

So, it's Mountain Standard Time year round, same as Arizona which doesn't use DST.

It puts two issues together - the time change issue and the issue of DST or no DST. As well as allowing the legislature to change the time of DST start and end. That's the ultimate problem with California propositions - they're not written by a committee who has sat down and thought things through, they're often written by a disgruntled person with a gripe who's able to raise money to get it on the ballot. Many of these propositions when passed are quickly struck down by the courts because they violate the California constitution, or they conflict with other laws, etc. This one seriously feels like a bunch of drunks in a bar hashed things out on the back of a napkin.

I might believe it was written by those anticipating selling new clocks and replacements for hardware which cannot be updated. Maybe Congress can get into the act and change it again like they did in 2005; I need an excuse to waste money on new clocks.

AZ and CA would be syncing their clocks

[bjdevil66]

We're a small part of the equations, but this would be a good thing for Arizona residents who make their way to California for vacations on the coast. Our clocks would be synced up 365 days out of the year.

timing of voting

[Anonymous Coward]

It passed because we all just went through daylight savings time, and it was annoying as hell.

Re:timing of voting

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't have a young child. Daylight savings is hell on toddlers, because their sleep schedule is all thrown off and there's no easy way to reset their clock.

Re:timing of voting

[Darinbob]

But if they had said "if we go on DST permanently, it would be even darker in the morning when you go vote" it might have swayed some people... The snag is that this was campaigned on being about changing the time, and the effects of being on DST permanently weren't mentioned.

We did try DST year round during the Nixon administration, and it didn't last long because everyone hated it.

Re:timing of voting

[Obfuscant]

Their sleep schedule is thrown off because some parent has decided that junior must go to bed at 7PM instead of going to be when they should go to bed. Gosh, it isn't a federal crime for a toddler to go to bed at 7PM tonight and 6PM tomorrow night when the CLOCK changes but the sunlight doesn't. And then shift his bedtime by five minutes a night, or every other night, until it's back on the same CLOCK time.

Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[PopeRatzo]

The proposition that Californians (like me!) just voted to does not make any Daylight Savings Time year-round. All it does is give the state legislature power to address the issue of Daylight Savings Time.

Now, it may well end up being that we pick one or the other or maybe just leave it, or it might be that nothing is changed. My preference would be to just keep DST all year round, because it would give me an extra hour in the afternoon to hang out at the beach and maybe surf. For example, today sunset is a 5:03pm, and we're still over a month out from the Winter Solstice. If I want to hit the pier at first daylight to fish for surfperch (which are fucking delicious) or halibut, now I have to get up at like 5am to make coffee and get rolling.

By the way, to show how enlightened we are here in Cali, you don't need any kind of license to fish off the piers or the rocks if you're not commercial. Shit, back in Texas, any time you wanted to do anything in nature you had to fork over money to the state government. They were always up your ass. Here, it's more chill, as long as you're not trying to fuck shit up for other people.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[techno-vampire]

My preference would be to just keep DST all year round, because it would give me an extra hour in the afternoon to hang out at the beach and maybe surf.

And how's that going to work for you in mid winter, when sunset is at about 4:30 PM PDT? You can't get extra use from sunshine that isn't there, you know, as the country learned when they tried going to DST year round from 1973-1975.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[EvilSS]

And how's that going to work for you in mid winter, when sunset is at about 4:30 PM PDT?

He said staying on DST year round, not moving so far offshore that sunset would be at 3:30PM standard time (4:30PM daylight time). Do you even DST bruh?

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[PopeRatzo]

And how's that going to work for you in mid winter, when sunset is at about 4:30 PM PDT? You can't get extra use from sunshine that isn't there, you know.

Easy, I just start surfing an hour earlier. I mean, why is this so hard that we have to change clocks twice a year?

I don't expect to be able to legislate the analemma, but we can least stop with the fall ahead nonsense. It's a waste of time and energy and nobody likes it.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[techno-vampire]

So you're able to get off of work an hour earlier in the winter? That's nice, but most people don't have that choice. Oh, and by the way, it's "spring forward, fall back" because you turn your clock back in an hour in the fall, not an hour forward. I know that you're from California, but so am I and I never had any trouble keeping that straight.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[techno-vampire]

I grew up in California, just like the OP, but recently moved to Colorado, where I just had my first White Halloween. My point, which obviously went over your head, is that if sunset is at 4:30 PDT, as it is in most of Southern California in mid winter, setting the clock forward so that sunset's at 5:30 won't be much help, especially as it gets cold (by California standards, of course) that time of year so that even if there's enough light for surfing it's probably too cold.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[PopeRatzo]

So you're able to get off of work an hour earlier in the winter?

What is this "work" you speak of? I own my own business and on the few days I actually work, I knock off at lunch. I didn't move to this beautiful place so I could sit in some cubicle somewhere.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[EvilSS]

My point, which obviously went over your head, is that if sunset is at 4:30 PDT,

Do you know what PDT stands for? Maybe google it.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[techno-vampire]

You're one of the lucky ones, then. Most people spend eight or more hours working on at least five days out of every seven.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[losfromla]

Actually, it sounds like he was from Texas originally so... Now you're off insulting Texans, but maybe you didn't catch it because you're really from Alabama and just moved to California because it's fantastic to be here.

I would imagine that almost everyone posting here does in fact have the choice to leave work an hour or three early. Because we aren't widget makers or construction workers. Most are salaried employees who can, at the very least, choose their work hours.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[losfromla]

I don't think any of your proposals would actually fix your situation. It sounds like you should live in Nevada and maybe y'all should group clients by timezone and assign them to local case managers that way. But I'm sure its much more complicated than that .

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[techno-vampire]

I rather think I do, after living in California for almost seventy years. What you're nitpicking was a typo.

Re: Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[brunnegd]

The earliest sunset in LA is 4:44pm, around Dec 10. After that, sunset slowly comes later.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[PopeRatzo]

You're one of the lucky ones, then. Most people spend eight or more hours working on at least five days out of every seven.

I put in my time as a wage-slave. I'm one of the lucky ones to get out alive.

Re: Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[techno-vampire]

Considering that I was just guessing about how early sunset gets in LA, that's not bad.

Re:Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline

[EvilSS]

It's a little more than a type since it throws your entire argument out the window.

PDT = MST

[OrangeTide]

Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) is the same as Mountain Standard Time (MST). (not to be confused with MT which generically refers to both MST and MDT)

Seems to make sense to me. Disadvantage is now tech workers in California will have phone meetings to the East Coast that will be an hour off sometimes. Advantage is the harder to schedule meetings with India will be more consistent, as India does not use daily savings (and has a weird half-hour adjustment, UTC +5:30). Frankly the disadvantage is insignificant in my case I do more business with India, China, Taiwan, Japan, Europe, and Washington state than I do with the rest of the US.

Re:PDT = MST

[PPH]

Not a big deal. You already have to look up the time for remote locations. Keeping track of who changes to/from DST and on what date is too much work to handle manually. Calendar apps will do that for you. And on top of all that, you need to account for businesses that keep different hours.

Re:PDT = MST

[OrangeTide]

The calendaring apps make reoccurring meetings across time zones a bit weird when one region goes into a daylight savings change and another does not. It usually ends up following the organizer's own time zone, which isn't always obvious to attendees.

Re:PDT = MST

[djinn6]

Scheduling recurring meetings between US, Europe and India is a nightmare.

Re:PDT = MST

[PPH]

If only there was a database of time zones that computers and calendaring apps could use to convert between various local times.

Re:PDT = MST

[OrangeTide]

I don't think you understand the problem.

I go to a 9:30a meeting once a month, but suddenly it becomes an 8:30a meeting because one organizer doesn't follow the same DST schedule. The computer knows exactly when it happens, and shows it correctly on my calendar. But I may not be able to agree to attend such an early meeting.

Re:PDT = MST

[PPH]

But I may not be able to agree to attend such an early meeting.

That's a different problem. If one of the organizers prefers to meet at your 8:30 am and they outrank you, you either show up or lose your job. If you outrank them, then you get to set the meeting time at their 10:30 am.

If your company gets bought out by a firm based on the East Coast, you'd better get used to 6:30 am meetings. And that has nothing to do with a change in DST schedules.

Re:PDT = MST

[OrangeTide]

you either show up or lose your job.

I complain and get it moved. Technically I'm lower in the ORG chart, but I'm at headquarters and they are not so I (usually) win.

I'm pretty reasonable about it. I get a lot of 9pm-10pm meetings followed by 8:30 am meetings the next day. Syncing up between teams in India, China, and Europe is a pain. Our East coast teams are happy when the West coast has late morning meetings, and are the least likely to complain.

If your company gets bought out by a firm based on the East Coast, you'd better get used to 6:30 am meetings. And that has nothing to do with a change in DST schedules.

The CEO and board chairman has a poison pill, so that won't happen in my case. Also I can't do 6:30 am meetings in person, no matter how badly management wants them. If they try to terminate me over it, then I can send ADA lawyers on them. My inflexibility is not a personal preference but due to a family member with a legitimate disability.

light the fuze

[Jedi Holocron]

Or maybe, just maybe, this sparks the rest of the country to follow...

Re:light the fuze

[jroysdon]

Here, here! Or at least the Western Interconnection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:misleading...

[Darinbob]

Some states are already not on DST. However there are no states or areas in the US that are on DST year round, that's just dumb.

Note that the arguments FOR the proposition were all about getting rid of the time change twice a year, they never said why PDT was preferrable to PST. The legislature of every state already has the power to appeal to the the feds to change time zone borders or how they deal with DST, no proposition is necessary for that. (and by the "feds" this means the Department of Transportation of all things :-)

I don't care California goes to UTC...

[Mike Van Pelt]

... as long as that stupid time change twice a year ends.

Re:They just wanted a year-round time

[Darinbob]

And yet, the text of the proposition is clear that about either changing dates of DST or going DST all year round, it does not mention abandoning DST. Whoever wrote the proposition was clearly biased towards keeping DST. But with or without the proposition the legislature can still request the feds to let them leave DST altogether.

The proposition really serves no practical purpose. But it could send the wrong signal that permanent DST is preferred even though most voters merely wanted to get off of the twice-a-year clock change.

Re:misleading...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

They could choose to change the days, they could choose to make it DST year-round, or they could choose to makee it standard time year-round (i would vote for the latter).

Federal law mandates that, if a state does daylight savings time, it makes the change at the federally mandated dates and times.

If it chooses not to do the biannual clock dance (oh PLEASE!) CA could chose to go with PST or pick (or define) another fixed time zone. (MST would be equivalent to permanent PDT.)

Note that not all time zones are at one-hour offsets from each other.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

15 years later...come on.. really???

[AndrewFlagg]

so its gonna take what 15 years to get this passed because of the government red tape? really... really??? come on POTUS Obama, Clinton, Bush, Trump - executive order time -- just abandon the fall back and spring forward fiasco... pretty please..

Re:NO ONE wants it

[snapsnap]

I disagree. Most people want light after work instead of before they wake up.

Either way, this change is going to suck since a lot of people use LA time. Even Linux has decided to make you pick a city rather than a timezone. This is going to suck for everyone I know in Seattle where we had to pick LA time and now LA time is moving to mountain time.

California vs New York

[holophrastic]

DST is a royal pain for most people twice a year. I get that.
We like to remove pain. I get that too.

Does anyone remember why we have DST in the first place?
Can anyone imagine what New York would be like without DST?

I suspect that we're going to find out.
And I'll wager that DST will return to New York within three years of being removed.

I'm sure L.A. doesn't have the same needs as does New York.
New York is a business city, whereby most people work in offices and in general business schedules.
Let's say most business people leave the house no later than 8am, and return home no earlier than 6pm.
Standard 9to5 day.

In the winter, sunrise is what, 7:30am?
And that's just barely, and on a sunny day.
It's 8am before a human being would call it daylight.
And it's 10am before a human being would call it daylight on a cloudy day.
And don't forget, New York City has tall buildings.
The reverse produces a 5pm or 4:30pm sunset.

Without DST, there's simply no way for an office-worker to ever see the sun between december and march.
Given that to be an unacceptable scenario, for health and wellness and mental and family reasons, DST to the rescue.

DST doesn't solve the problem.
DST reduces the problem.
Instead of three months of hell.
DST reduces the hell to only two days.

Alas, it would seem that humans have forgotten the benefits of DST -- because there aren't any "benefits", there are simply far fewer negatives.

I live farther north than New York. For me, daylight from december through march would be 10am to 3pm on cloudy days. 9am to 4pm on fully sunny days.

I work from home. Technically, I don't care. But when it comes to the 10 million people who use my city every day, I'd suspect that morning rush-hour might benefit from some celestial illumination.

Good luck.

Driving to work/school before sunrise?

[phozz bare]

So Californians will enact year-round DST, which is fun and good, until they realize they're going to spend a couple of months of every year getting to work and school before sunrise, often in cold rainy weather. This is the sort of thing that people living in Seattle or Canada or Norway (and, oddly enough, Spain) may be familiar with, but for most Californians will come as a nasty surprise. I'd love to see the backlash when these voters realize what they've gotten themselves into.

Re:Driving to work/school before sunrise?

[fibonacci8]

Exactly the same sort of backlash Arizona faces, since they already do that? None what-so-ever. Businesses and people can adjust scheduling one time, and be done with it.

Re:Driving to work/school before sunrise?

[PseudoAnon]

Morning darkness is a significant problem, but there should be far fewer accidents during the after-work commute and holiday shopping if year-round DST is enacted. I suspect that there would be fewer accidents overall, but it's hard to really know.

History

[brunnegd]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The entire country trid year round DST in the mid-70s. It was a disaster. And now the granola state wants to do it again. Congress will never break up the uniformity it set up in 1967 in the interest of the economy and a reasonable social structure.

Re: misleading...

[brunnegd]

No, it is a law. Only Congress can allow a state to be on DST all year.

Typical California behavior

[Applehu Akbar]

We all just got through discussing how much the concept of Daylight Saving sucks. So the Gilded State's response is to...make it permanent.. Yeah, right. Now Newsomstan will be permanently out of sync with surrounding states, rather than just every summer.

This is the state that in earlier proposition drollery passed a toxic chemicals labeling law so draconian that now certain trees have to be labeled:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018...

Re:Typical California behavior

[eagl]

The idea is to pick a time zone and stick with it. Nobody gives 2 craps whether it is DST or standard, just stick with it. For me personally, DST year-round "feels" more normal, so I'd be happy sticking with DST instead of just changing time zones completely.

Either way, we ought to pick one and stick with it. The changing back and forth is stupid.

Re:Typical California behavior

[Applehu Akbar]

That would be a small increment of convenience in not having to change clocks, but permanent DST would put California permanently out of sync with surrounding Pacific Time states. Same old problem juggling airline schedules and phone calls out of state to the east, and with the rest of the world.

Are you old enough to remember that national nightmare, the Carter administration? In that time of hostage humiliation and skyrocketing fuel prices, we enacted nationwide year-round DST as a fuel saving measure. It was about as popular as its companion 55-mile speed limit, and was quickly abandoned. Having year-round DST in one state would be even harder to manage, because of the interfaces with surrounding states.

Re:Typical California behavior

[jroysdon]

Gotta agree. Changing to Standard time this late in the year with the sun setting earlier only makes it hurt that much worse.

But, if California has to pick PST year-round vs. a time change, I'll settle for that as well.

If it can be done wrong

[zkiwi34]

You can be sure that California will do it. You're more likely to see sanity out of Trump than CA.

That and like him, they'll claim it as the biggest success ever.

If they're going to stop the DST changeover they should revert to standard time, NOT DST.

Re:If it can be done wrong

[eagl]

In California, DST actually seems more "normal" a lot of the time. It's the switch away from DST that always seems stupid.

Actually it's more cynical than that

[rsilvergun]

the purpose of Daylight savings was to give people more shopping hours. Retailers like it because folks shop less when the sun goes down. We've basically massively inconvenienced ourselves so that sales don't dip a bit in the winter.

Re:misleading...

[jroysdon]

Current Federal law only allows it to go to permanent PST. It cannot move to another time zone that it isn't located within.

https://www.timeanddate.com/la...

morning light

[nten]

Morning light is the best light. I'd rather miss evening light. I'm not a morning person at all, but when my child wakes me up to play just as it gets light there is something wonderful about the quality of the light and the air in the morning. I Luke fall back because I get that time again. Why is everyone obsessed with light after work?