Daylight savings time: yes or no?

The House of Representatives is looking at doing away with our current, twice-yearly switching to and from daylight savings time. One bill they’re considering would make daylight savings time permanent. Another would lock the clock on standard time. Thus, we have three possibilities: permanent daylight-savings time, permanent standard time, or the seasonal clock-switching we have now. Here are some considerations:

• A network of clocks throughout the body coordinates everything from immune defenses to metabolism. Bright mornings and dark evenings (standard time) help keep the internal clocks in sync. If we shift an hour of daylight from the morning to the evening, we potentially disrupt our circadian systems.
• Pedestrian and motor-vehicle accidents occur more frequently in the dark, making the case for permanent daylight savings (lighter evenings). During the oil crisis of 1974, the country tried permanent daylight savings time. With the dark mornings, children were struck and killed walking to school in the dark. The idea was scrapped.
• Adolescents (and night owls) tend to fall asleep later and wake up later. Being forced to go to school in the dark (daylight savings time) affects both their safety and school performance. (One study in Indiana, where not all counties follow daylight savings time, found that SAT test scores were an average 16 points lower in counties that observed seasonal daylight savings time compared with those on permanent standard time.)

Scientific opinions are all over the place. A review of more than 150 studies found that the effects of resetting clocks “were not uniformly detrimental." The American Medical Association and other scientific organizations have endorsed permanent standard time. But other scientists vote for keeping the twice-yearly clock reset.

I’d vote for permanent standard time. I like lighter mornings.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.