‘Split the difference’ on daylight saving time change

As the nation once again approaches moving our clocks forward to begin daylight saving time, the debate on keeping a single time across the entire year begins. Instead of arguing for one or the other, why not “split the difference” and shift clocks 30 minutes forward in the spring and leave them there? 

Daylight saving time has its root in energy conservation, dating back to the First World War. When daylight saving time has been instituted year-round in the past, including during the Carter administration, it was generally not been well-received. 

In spite of such historical negative receptions, the Senate has already put forward a bill to make daylight saving time permanent. This bill, with support from both Republicans and Democrats, is the same bill that the Senate passed unanimously in 2022. 

The roadblock in passing this legislation has been in the House. They claim to be looking for additional research to determine which (saving or standard) would be better for the nation. 

There is no definitive answer to resolve this issue.  

Those in northern states and on the far ends of time zones are most affected by not changing the times, while those in southern states would see a negligible impact. Yet, research has shown that what is most disturbing is not which change to settle on, but the fact that a change is made at all. 

The data is informative on this effect. Fatal automobile accidents have shown a noticeable spike after the switch to daylight saving time, based on data analyzed from 1996 to 2017. By not switching time, it is conceivable that lives could be saved on our nation’s highways. 

Sleep researchers support daylight standard time, arguing that moving to daylight saving time disrupts sleep patterns immediately after the switch. It also generally disturbs circadian rhythms, which influence our natural sleep-wake cycles as people adjust to sleeping while confronted with daylight at different times. 

Even charitable giving has been observed to drop slightly and heart attack risk has slightly increased in the week following the switch to daylight saving time. 

Anyone who has traveled across time zones experiences the effect of jet lag. What changing our clocks does is create a forced jet lag effect across the entire population. 

Given that keeping everyone happy on this issue is impossible, perhaps a simple solution is to move clocks forward in the spring by 30 minutes and leave them there. 

One benefit of such a change is that the light-dark balance is smoothed out over the entire year. It also means that clocks will no longer need to be changed. This would also make every time zone in the United States measured from Universal Time Coordinated off by 30 minutes. 

One challenge with a 30-minute permanent shift is that the U.S. would be out of sync with its northern and southern neighbors, Canada and Mexico. When it is 6 p.m. in New York, it would be 6:30 p.m. in Montreal and Toronto during the daylight saving time months, and 5:30 p.m. during the daylight standard time months. 

Yet, in a tech-savvy society, where smartphones dictate schedules, the time may be ripe for making a permanent time change. Creeping forward by 30 minutes in the spring means that we are always within 30 minutes of the previous time switches.

Would everyone be happy with such a permanent change? In the short term, no.

As much as people dislike switching their clocks twice each year, they dislike even more settling on one time. However, over time, the 30-minute difference would feel negligible. Moreover, other countries may pick up the idea and follow suit. 

Just as our nation is often in a position of leading the world, perhaps it is time to lead by making a 30-minute clock change forward in the spring and leaving it there. By splitting the difference, we may discover that others may be enticed to do so as well. 

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor in computer science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. A data scientist, he applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy.