On April 10, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing titled “If I Could Turn Back Time: Should We Lock the Clock?” Witnesses offered testimony for and against replacing the current practice of changing our clocks twice a year with either permanent standard time or permanent daylight savings time.
In his opening statement, Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave a history of daylight savings time, stating his opposition to it. He noted that while originally created to reduce energy consumption by using daylight during longer summer days, advances in technology, particularly lighting and climate control, have rendered this benefit obsolete. Additionally, he summarized the results of studies that found numerous health detriments to springing forward and falling back each year—disrupted circadian rhythm, sleep deprivation, even heart attacks and strokes – behavioral and brain scientists have contributed to this body of research.
Ranking Member Lisa Blunt Rochester (D- DE) shared his reservations, adding that “darker roads with tired drivers make it more dangerous for pedestrians”. She also mentioned that states across the country are considering legislation to pick a permanent time.
Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) then spoke, adding that he introduced legislation, the Sunshine Protection Act, that would stop people from having to change their clocks twice a year. Scott’s bill specifies changing the nation’s clocks to daylight savings time, with states able to opt out.
Four witnesses spoke on their views regarding daylight savings time versus standard time:
- Scott Yates, who founded the Lock the Clock movement to maintain daylight savings time all year.
- Jay Karen, CEO of the National Golf Course Owners Association.
- Dr. Karen Johnson, a sleep medicine doctor and professor at University of Massachusetts School of Medicine Bay Sate.
- Dr. David Harkey, President of the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety
Mr. Yates spoke primarily on the harms of switching the clocks twice a year. As an example, he brought up research from the University of Washington that studied criminal sentencing, and concluded that the Monday in March when we first spring forward is the day the harshest sentences of the year are given out.
Dr. Johnson spoke in favor of permanent standard time. Her argument was mainly related to circadian rhythm, the disruption of which attributed to daylight savings time can cause numerous negative health effects downstream. She asserted that while switching is bad, making daylight savings time permanent would be no solution either, because “later sunrises and sunsets… lead to higher risks of chronic diseases, [such as] to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity”. She also spoke on the adverse effects of daylight savings time on children and teenagers, noting that teenagers’ internal clocks often run late and are thus at more of a risk from losing crucial morning sunlight, and children’s academic performance improved with standard time. She additionally noted that poor sleep increases the risk of drug use, alcohol use, and other risk-taking behaviors.
Dr. Harkey finished with an overall concern about darkness for road safety and a call for more infrastructure investment to keep people safe in the dark. “We do a quarter of our travel at night, but nearly half of motor vehicle occupant deaths and three quarters of pedestrian deaths occur in the dark,” he said. He stated that when he studied fatalities during the change, “When we fall back, vehicle occupant deaths go down about 7 percent, and when [we] spring forward, vehicle occupant deaths go up about 12 percent and [vice versa] with pedestrian fatalities”. Based on that research, he does not advocate for one time over the other but rather to make travelling at night safer overall.
Given all of the dramatic and detrimental changes, FABBS was pleased to see a Senate hearing drawing from the behavioral and brain sciences to inform policy.
