The U.S. House of Representatives this week passed a measure to invoke permanent daylight saving time. I figure the odds of it passing the Senate to be reasonably good, given that a similar measure passed that chamber a few years ago, before being stalled in the House, but it still begs the question of whether that's a good idea.
I'll be the first to admit that I am all for getting rid of the twice yearly time changes, especially the one in the spring, where we lose an hour to 'spring forward'. It typically takes me about a week to readjust, during which I have a bad case of jet lag, and statistics show I am not alone in this. It is well documented that traffic and workplace accidents spike up the first week following the change to DST, along with incidents of heart attacks and strokes. Tempers commonly become shorter and judges tend to impose harsher sentences then as well. Falling back to so-called standard time for about four months, beginning in early November is less arduous; in fact, it feels to me like a return to normality.
That said, eliminating semi-annual time resets by moving permanently to daylight saving time is not necessarily the best approach. What today's lawmakers seem to fail to take into account is that permanent daylight saving time was tried a little over 50 years ago and it was a failure.
Enacted in January 1974 as an energy-saving measure in response to the OPEC oil embargo and ensuing energy crisis of the time, year-round daylight saving time did not even last a full year before widespread public support for the measure quickly eroded in the face of reality.
People quickly realized this shift meant increased safety risks during morning commutes, especially for school-age children, waiting for their buses in the dark. And the promised energy savings were infinitesimal at best. Lawmakers back then learned from their mistake, but it seems today's lawmakers have repeatedly failed to learn from history.
After perpetual DST failed in 1974, lawmakers incrementally expended DST in 1986 and again in 2007, giving us almost eight months of DST and just four of standard time. The increase in 2007 was folded into an energy bill, although lawmakers admitted the intent was to stimulate the economy by enabling people to be outside their homes--and thus spending money--later in the day. The 'great recession' of 2008 proved the folly of that move.
The bottom line is that additional hour of daylight later in the day has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is at the beginning of the day. What people fail to consider is DST does not increase the net amount of daylight, it just reallocates an hour. Proponents say it would allow more time to be outdoors after work, but dusk at 6:00 p.m. versus 5:00 p.m. in the dead of winter would make little difference for most workers, who would, at best, arrive home in twilight. Like it or not, the amount of daylight at any given time of the year is purely a natural phenomenon, completely outside of human control.
It is no surprise that the greatest support for permanent DST comes from southern tier states, especially those like Florida, that have economies based largely on tourism, while the least support comes from the northern tier, where states like Michigan, where geography provides for less daylight in winter than is experienced in southern states. Under perpetual DST, the northern tier would not see daylight until well after 9:00 a.m. in the dead of winter.
Fortunately, the bill presently being considered does include an opt-out clause, allowing states to choose to remain on perpetual standard time, provided they choose to do so before perpetual DST takes affect. This is similar to a measure enacted in the European Union a few years ago, which required member nations to opt for perpetual 'summer time' or 'winter time' (their terms for daylight saving and standard time) before the next scheduled time change.
Although I have long jokingly advocated for split-the-difference time, permanently moving clocks 30 minutes to give all sides at least some of what they want, the more logical solution is permanent standard time. Days will get longer when they're supposed to be longer and will grow short when they're supposed to be short, just as nature intended it. No amount of clock tinkering will change that.
