• AmberPrince@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I never understood the arguments people use surrounding daylight savings. The health risks, accident risks, any risks surround the actual switch, not really the what time is used. If the clocks were set forward for “summer time” then 3 months later Daylight savings was abolished and no one changes their clocks anymore (as you said, permanent summer time) there would be no ill effects from it cause everyone was already used to the time change.

    I want to get rid of daylight savings. I don’t care whether it’s standard time that use used or daylight savings time that is used as long as the switchover stops happening.

    • ebikefolder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      With people mostly using clocks which don’t need adjusting, we could have the best of both worlds.

      Currently, 12 o’clock is defined as the sun being at its highest point at a specific location (in winter, standard time)

      Imagine you take the same reference location, and define sunrise as 7:00 (am). No health issues, no sudden changes, and probably best for the biorhythm.

    • Ooops@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the clocks were set forward for “summer time” then 3 months later Daylight savings was abolished and no one changes their clocks anymore (as you said, permanent summer time) there would be no ill effects

      Yes, there would be “ill effects”. Having more daylight later the day is a pure luxury/convenience (for the people not working at that time anymore…). Having to an hour more between waking up and the sun coming up however has adverse effects on your natural clock and health.