Daylight Savings Time

tht00 · 04-08-2005, 08:13 PM

the indiana legislature is attempting to switch indiana to DST. frankly, i don't like DTS and i don't see any advantages of having it (except just to match everyone else). we are already an hour ahead of where we 'should' be.

what would be the advantages of DTS? does anyone even like it? why does it even exist?

disadvantages?

opinions?

oh, and i was also wondering what other countries adhere to DTS.

marvinranch · 04-08-2005, 08:40 PM

I'm not sure why it exists. Some people like it to be dark when they get home from work, some don't - so . . . personally, I prefer for it to be ligh when I wake up (regular time) but I also like it to be light later at night (DST), but I could get used to either way if they'd just stick to ONE way.

Danny · 04-08-2005, 11:46 PM

In my uneducated opinion, DST sucks, is pointless and stupid, and needs to go away.

Jonular · 04-09-2005, 02:39 AM

It's not easy making me thoroughly enjoy living in Japan, even if for just a weekend....but DST does a real good job of trying to.

~Jon

Visirale · 04-09-2005, 06:56 AM

Research has shown the the longer it is light outside, the less car accidents there are. Frankly, you're situation is nothing. Oh darn, you'll have an extra hour of sunlight to do any one of a number of things...

The real pressing issue is that most everywhere else who already has it is considering possibly doing double daylight savings. So Instead of the sun going down at 8, it would go down... and of course that depends on where, geographically, you live.

I personally like it. It gives me more time for lacrosse practice, and it saves TONS of energy... Like all the football stadiums don't have to use their power sapping lights for an hour longer...

Jay Tea · 04-09-2005, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visirale

and it saves TONS of energy... Like all the football stadiums don't have to use their power sapping lights for an hour longer...

Somebody's trying to get US daylight savings time extended for a couple months for this reason.

***Art*** · 04-09-2005, 12:33 PM

In california, it has been shown that the average person uses 1% less electricity during DST. It is definitely a good thing.

Danny · 04-09-2005, 02:48 PM

So...why not just stay in "DST-mode" all year long? Why revert back to standard time at all?

***Art*** · 04-09-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

So...why not just stay in "DST-mode" all year long? Why revert back to standard time at all?

There was legislation in California to do just that. It got suspended because of something or other. Personally, I would prefer it.

WackyCanadian · 04-09-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

So...why not just stay in "DST-mode" all year long? Why revert back to standard time at all?

Because it's not a good idea to have kids walking to school in the dark. For instance, when I was in elementary school, I left for school at 8:15... where I live (Southern Ontario), the sun wouldn't come up until nearly 9:00 in the winter. It'd work fine for someone who lives closer to the equator where they get more sunlight to begin with, but I'm only at 43 degrees north, and I can see where there would be huge problems here (I might mention that all of Washington State is north of me, and a good chunk of Northern California...)

tht00 · 04-09-2005, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art

In california, it has been shown that the average person uses 1% less electricity during DST. It is definitely a good thing.

1% less electricity? big whoop. if it were 20% or even 5%, i could see an arguement... 1% is puny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art

There was legislation in California to do just that. It got suspended because of something or other. Personally, I would prefer it.

interesting... simply a change in time-zones then (and effectively, no DTS).

Quote:

Originally Posted by WackyCanadian

Because it's not a good idea to have kids walking to school in the dark. For instance, when I was in elementary school, I left for school at 8:15... where I live (Southern Ontario), the sun wouldn't come up until nearly 9:00 in the winter. It'd work fine for someone who lives closer to the equator where they get more sunlight to begin with, but I'm only at 43 degrees north, and I can see where there would be huge problems here (I might mention that all of Washington State is north of me, and a good chunk of Northern California...)

thats what we do here in indiana. school starts at 8:20... the sun usually comes up around 8-9 am at the height of winter. many days i have to be there for extracurricular activities even earlier... 7 or 7:30. i havn't experienced any problems, and actually prefer it that way.

the biggest arguements for indiana adopting it are like this:
everyone else is on DTS, we may as well join.
companies will save so much money.

the way i see it, it won't do much other than to inconvenience. companies saving money? if they were truly interested in saving on their energy bill, there are thousands upon thousands of things that they could do. as already stated, the average savings will be 1% (not sure if that is a net energy savings / number of people, or if that is an actual household savings).

preferably, i am quite comfortable with the current time settings. if it ain't broke, don't fix it... right?

AJ. · 04-09-2005, 10:52 PM

Just to jump in here for a little bit since I live in Indiana too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tht00

thats what we do here in indiana. school starts at 8:20... the sun usually comes up around 8-9 am at the height of winter. many days i have to be there for extracurricular activities even earlier... 7 or 7:30. i havn't experienced any problems, and actually prefer it that way.

You're lucky, my old high school started at 7:30 and they had morning practices for several sports earlier than that. So when I would leave for school it would be dark and when I got home it would be dark too if I had to stay after for stuff. I didn't really mind all that much and I don't really think DST would fix this enough to make it worth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tht00

preferably, i am quite comfortable with the current time settings. if it ain't broke, don't fix it... right?

this is basically how I feel about it too. And if we do change I think I would like changing with Chicago, I think that is Central, its late right now I can't really think going on 2 hours of sleep.

tht00 · 04-09-2005, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ.

Just to jump in here for a little bit since I live in Indiana too.

You're lucky, my old high school started at 7:30 and they had morning practices for several sports earlier than that. So when I would leave for school it would be dark and when I got home it would be dark too if I had to stay after for stuff. I didn't really mind all that much and I don't really think DST would fix this enough to make it worth it.

no, DST would [should] have no effect in the winter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ.

this is basically how I feel about it too. And if we do change I think I would like changing with Chicago, I think that is Central, its late right now I can't really think going on 2 hours of sleep.

and switching to chicago's time would completely defeat the purpose of what their claiming DST would do (at least on energy savings). that would only set us back an hour during the winter. during the summer, we would be the same as we are now.

right now, we are with central time(Chicago) (when DST is active). the rest of the year, we are with eastern time (New York). so, we are pretty much already an hour ahead of where we 'should' be (a border state- most states this far west move to central & DST). when central states shift to DST, our time, in all practical purposes, becomes central... instead of being central with DST, we are eastern without DST. the only difference is that when central states mover back from DST, we don't move back. we become aligned with eastern time then.

i really don't see any advantages for indiana to switch. eastern + DST is a very much unneeded boost forward. in the summer, it usually gets dark 8-9pm. i'd hate to see that change to 9-10pm.

central + DST is the opposite... instead of moving our summers forward (relative to now), we would move our winters an hour back. another unneeded change. the sun rises late and sets early. you can't add hours to a day.

either way, there isn't a jusfitiable reason for indiana to switch.

***Art*** · 04-10-2005, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tht00

1% less electricity? big whoop. if it were 20% or even 5%, i could see an arguement... 1% is puny.

Either you are crazy, or you have no idea whatsoever of how many people are in California. That is millions upon millions upon millions of dollars. Monthly.

tht00 · 04-10-2005, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art

Either you are crazy, or you have no idea whatsoever of how many people are in California. That is millions upon millions upon millions of dollars. Monthly.

but, as i said earlier, if people/companies were truly worried about their energy bill, there are thousands upon thousands of things they could do. and i'm sure that they could do a heck-of-a-lot more than 1%... if they wanted to...