California Voters Embrace Year-Round Daylight-Saving Time (sfchronicle.com) 279
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.
OR and WA to follow suit (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's get real, it's highly probable that both Oregon and Washington State will follow suit. Just easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OR and WA to follow suit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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?... [youtube.com]
Re:OR and WA to follow suit (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 [sciencedirect.com] — specifically, on the Monday after the spring shift to DST and, curiously, on the Sunday of the fall shift away from DST.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:OR and WA to follow suit (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
BC is even further north than Washington state, and the problem would be even worse where you live.
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
Re:OR and WA to follow suit (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad none of the clinical results line up with that theory. It was mainstream while it lasted, though.
Re: (Score:2)
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 unfortunat
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Oregon?
Near Ontario?
You're kidding, right? This is a joke, isn't it?
Re:OR and WA to follow suit (Score:4, Insightful)
#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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 th
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenfield = Never Land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: OR and WA to follow suit (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: OR and WA to follow suit (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I live in Seattle. I disagree. Even when I lived in BC, switching to year round DST would have been fine.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
What the hell? (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
There is. It's called Pacific Daylight Time, or Mountain Standard Time. Or UTC-07.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
They'll call it Pacific Time Standard Daylight
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 prop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 ("din
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
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
Actually it's more cynical than that (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I recall a study that showed that regardless use of DST, people generally organize their lives around evening television schedules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
"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? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
AZ and CA would be syncing their clocks (Score:2)
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.
Jesus, you guys, ignore the headline (Score:2)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I put in my time as a wage-slave. I'm one of the lucky ones to get out alive.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
PDT = MST (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 [pinimg.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
light the fuze (Score:2)
Or maybe, just maybe, this sparks the rest of the country to follow...
I don't care California goes to UTC... (Score:2)
... as long as that stupid time change twice a year ends.
California vs New York (Score:2)
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
Driving to work/school before sunrise? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Typical California behavior (Score:2)
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... [acsh.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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 Transport
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.