Put a stop to the back and forth of the clocks twice a year. Let’s turn the clocks forward one last time in March of 2025 and then never change them again.
There has not been any opposition to this in the past that I’ve found credible, a few States such as Florida and Arizona do not even recognize daylight savings time.
Daylight savings has a negative impact to our health and for all intensive purposes is completely useless.
With now many people working from home, the prior arguments from 2005 really do not apply.
Daylight saving time (DST) was first implemented in the United States in 1918 as a wartime measure to conserve energy during World War I. The current federal policy for DST was enacted in 1966 with the Uniform Time Act, which established a set of rules for states to observe DST. The most recent change to DST was made in 2005 as part of the Energy Policy Act.
We must make daylight saving time year round and eliminate standard time, not eliminate daylight saving time and make standard time year round. Here’s why:
-
Lives Would Be Saved. Simply put, darkness kills – and darkness in the evening is far deadlier than darkness in the morning. The evening rush hour is twice as fatal as the morning for various reasons – far more people are on the road, more alcohol is in drivers’ bloodstream, people are hurrying to get home, and more children are enjoying outdoor, unsupervised play. Fatal vehicle on pedestrian crashes skyrocket threefold when the sun goes down. DST brings an extra hour of sunlight into the evening to mitigate those risks, whereas Standard Time has precisely the opposite impact by moving sunlight into the morning. A meta-study by Rutgers researchers Coate and Markowitz demonstrated that 343 lives per year could be saved by moving to year-round DST; the opposite effect would occur if we imposed year-round standard time.
-
Crime Would Decrease. Darkness is also a friend of crime. Moving sunlight into the evening hours has a far greater impact on the prevention of crime (especially juvenile crime that peaks in the after-school and early evening hours) than it does in the morning. Criminals strongly prefer to do their work in the darkness of evening and night; crime rates are dramatically lower in the early morning hours, even before sunrise when it’s still dark. A recent British study found that improved lighting in the evening hours could reduce the crime rate by up to 20 percent. Whatever reason that criminals are late to bed and late to rise, let’s take advantage of it by removing an extra (dark) evening hour from their workday.
-
Energy Would Be Saved. Energy use is reduced when the sun is out later in the evening. Many people don’t know that the original justification for the creation of DST was to save energy, initially during World War I and II (when it was prioritized for our troops) and then later during the 1973 OPEC oil crisis. When the sun is out later in the evening, peak energy loads are reduced. Virtually everyone in our society is awake and using energy in the early evening hours when the sun sets, whereas a considerable portion of the population is still asleep at sunrise (and hence has significantly less demand for energy then). Having more sun in the evening requires not just less electricity to provide lighting, but reduces the amount of oil and gas required to heat our homes and businesses when people need that energy most. Under standard time, the sun rises earlier (reducing morning energy consumption), but only half of Americans are awake to be able to use it.
It was this energy-savings rationale that motivated some in California to recommend permanent DST a decade ago, when the state experienced recurrent electricity shortages and rolling brown-outs. Officials at the California Energy Commission estimated that 3.4 percent of California’s winter energy usage could be saved by moving to year-round DST. Similarly, DST resulted in 150,000 barrels of oil saved by the U.S. in 1973, which helped us combat the effect of OPEC’s oil embargo. -
Avoiding Clock-Switches Improves Our Health And The Economy. Critics of DST are correct about one thing: The bi-annual clock switch is bad for our health and welfare. It wreaks havoc with our sleep cycles, notably causing a 24 percent increase in heart attacks in the week after we “spring forward” in March, and even an uptick during the week we “fall back” and “gain” an hour of sleep in November. If that’s not bad enough, the major financial market indexes NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ average negative returns on the Monday trading day following both clock switches. Clearly, messing with sleep cycles twice per year has perverse second-order consequences.
But the critics of biannual clock-switching ignore one crucial, simple point: the benefits of avoiding clock-switching are also available under year-round DST. They act as if the benefits of preserving sleep cycles are available only under permanent standard time, when that proposition is of course false, and particularly when the option of standard time doesn’t offer the energy or life-saving or crime- prevention effects of DST. -
Recreation And Commerce Flourish In The Sun. Finally, recreation and commerce flourish in daylight and are hampered by evening darkness. Americans are less willing to go out and shop in the dark, and it’s not very easy to catch a baseball in darkness either. These activities are far more prevalent in the early evening than they are in the early morning hours (so sunlight is not nearly as helpful then). Not surprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as most outdoor recreational interests favor extended DST.
-
A Counterpoint to Recent Research regarding Eastern vs. Western Portions of Time Zones. Finally, in the interests of balance and full disclosure, I wish to address the recent research purporting to show an increase in cancer risk in western portions of time zones relative to eastern portions (western portions have longer evening sun, as year-round DST would also create). This research is relatively new and may be better explained by lifestyle choices in different parts of time zones than by the proponents’ theory that evening sunshine increases cancer risk by disrupting circadian rhythms. For instance, personal lifestyle choices (like diet and exercise) might be healthier in Washington, D.C. and New York City (eastern parts of the eastern time zone) than they are in Chattanooga, TN or Lexington, KY (western parts of the eastern time zone).
But even if that is not the case, it is crucial to realize that the net benefits of evening sunshine far outweigh their costs. Americans make decisions all the time that increase our cancer risk (e.g., drinking soda or alcohol, smoking, or eating steak instead of broccoli), because the utility from these activities outweigh their risks. The same is true of afternoon/evening sunshine: any small, increased risk that evening sunshine creates is dwarfed by the benefits of living life during the early evening in more sunshine. “Primetime” is 8 p.m., not 5 a.m., for a reason – it is futile to ask us to “just wake up earlier” to take advantage of the morning sun. It is true that we could all wake up at sunrise (which would be a jolting 4:24 a.m.(!) in New York City during summer if standard time were imposed year round), but very few Americans are going to do that. Please don’t fight human nature; instead recognize that by transferring an hour of sunlight into the portion of day when ~99% of Americans are awake and moving about, we are creating far greater benefit than an extra hour of sunshine would offer in the early morning (when ~50% of Americans are still in bed). As Ben Franklin implored centuries ago, please don’t “waste an hour of sunlight” by imposing year-round standard time – half of Americans will just sleep through it.
Again and again, research has shown that sunlight is far more important to Americans’ health, efficiency and safety in the early evening than it is in the early morning. That’s not to say there aren’t downsides to DST (notably an extra hour of morning darkness). But on net, when all of the costs and benefits are balanced, the advantages of extended DST far outweigh those of standard time. It is past time that we set our clocks forward forever, and never have to switch them again.
Hello:
Fantastic research and insightful wisdom presented. The one thing I have viewed and also observed, was the ~sunlight in the morning was helpful for kids trying to a bus. Instead of darkness, that morning ~light was beneficial for them as each are standing at the stop for the bus.
Beyond that, this was a delightful presentation for a policy change.
MAGA MAHA!
God Bless,
John German
Yes please make it year round, not eliminate it 
Yes. Keep the daylight setting year round. Stop the insanity of changing clocks.
Permanent DST would not Make America Healthy Again, as it would run against human circadian rhythms.
Permanent Standard Time is naturally more healthful. Please read more on this other post, thanks!
Permanent DST has repeatedly failed in the US, sometimes with loss of money and lives.
Permanent Standard Time instead would better align clocks to human circadian rhythms for naturally better sleep.
To Make America Healthy Again, please consider instead this counter-proposal. Thanks!
Thanks for your sources. It’s not like a choice will be made at the federal level anytime soon anyways. The president can’t stop this himself, since he can’t change federal law without congress passing a bill, and congress has not had an appetite for changing current DST rules recently. Thanks though
Take away daylights saving time federally
Remove the “fall back” (November time change)
As a clinical health coach for over 7 years, it was automatic to see mental health concerns rise when daylights savings time took effect in November. This originally was set up for farmers. I can speak as a resident in Iowa all my life, there is not a single farmer that benefits from daylights savings time. Our equipment comes with lights and every kind of bell and whistle now on equipment.
The benefit is no longer necessary and the benefit to stop this practice will improve mental health issues that come with “going to work in the dark and heading home in the dark.”
This would mean making it year round, not getting rid of it
OP is asking for two different things.
-
To “eliminate” or “take away” DST would be to restore permanent Standard Time, which is the clock set to the sun, and which would be great for natural health!
-
But to “remove the fall back (November time change)” would extend DST permanently into winter, which is the oppose of eliminating DST.
Please read (and consider voting for) this post, for more information, thanks!
The fall-back transition is upsetting, but 12-month DST would make winter mornings even more challenging. Seasonal affective disorder is usually treated with extra light in the morning. The healthier year-round solution is standard time, leaving roughly half of the total daylight in the AM hours.
Farmers got DST repealed in 1919 and continued to oppose it until 1966. Northeastern cities were the first to bring it back.
I prefer more light in the evening than in the morning. Keep DST year round.
I’m curious: why do you believe that permanent DST costs money and lives?
Don’t we have the same problem on the other end of the day with permanent ST?
I prefer more light in the evening than in the morning. Keep DST year round.
DST doesn’t technically make more evening light, but rather it forces early waking to create an illusion of more evening light. Let those who like early waking wake themselves early. Let the rest of sleep later for naturally better health. #MAHA
I’m curious: why do you believe that permanent DST costs money and lives? Don’t we have the same problem on the other end of the day with permanent ST?
Permanent Standard Time naturally aligns clocks to the sun and to human circadian rhythms for optimal sleep/wake schedules. DST forces early waking for an illusion of added evening daylight. The early waking makes it harder to wake naturally, and the later daylight makes it harder to fall asleep on time. We sleep on average 19 minutes less every night that we observe DST.
Please see the post I linked above for more information, thank you!
From my understanding, it was not farmers that wanted the time change but companies that deal with leisure activities, so people had more time. Dairy farmers would have to get up in the dark by changing the time as cows stay with natural time.
This is the position I agree with most out of the other arguments presented. At least in Socal where I lived, and CenTx where I am now, this makes good sense to avoid early darkness in the winter. My counter would be that the sun would rise VERY late in the rocky mountains. Since it’s not populated, either the few folks can keep time change, or opt in for a PDST time zone.
Farmers and overnight factory workers could actually care less about how the clock aligns with daylight hours. Farmers wake before sun up and go to bed long after sun set. Night shift factory workers (especially those working 12 hour shifts) have no real circadian rythm and their pay schedual is changed twice a year often resulting in one short paycheck and one long (13 hour) paycheck. The long paycheck can cost businesses millions annually in overtime cost. (Which is also taxed currently)
Yes please!!
Daylight savings ends in November. You want it to be implemented and permanent based on your argument, which I do agree with.
Clearly, you don’t live in NW Florida inside the central time zone where it gets dark around 4:45 - 5:00 p.m. in the winter on “standard time”. There is no circadian rhythm which aligns with this. I’m off work earlier than many people at 4:30, and it’s extremely depressing to have zero daylight after working all day. I surely don’t want to go to bed at 7:00- 8:00 p.m. and wake up at 3:00 - 4:00 a.m. to maintain this “rhythm”.