Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Time Zone Permanent Standard Time Vs Daylight Saving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Health experts, municipal advocates and residents clash over permanent standard time versus year‑round daylight saving
Summary
Medical and safety witnesses urged the committee to adopt permanent standard time (House bill H.3405) citing sleep, child safety and long‑term health benefits; proponents of year‑round daylight saving (Senate bill S.2157) emphasized evening daylight and economic benefits — committee heard both sides without taking action.
Doctors, pedestrian safety advocates and local officials told the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight there is a scientific case for adopting permanent standard time, while other witnesses urged year‑round daylight saving time (Atlantic Standard Time) for economic and recreational benefits.
"Permanent standard time is the naturally healthy choice offering multiple long term benefits to physical health, mental health, safety, and performance, and especially for our children," said Dr. Karen Johnson, professor of neurology and a practicing sleep medicine specialist, who testified for House bill H.3405 and opposed Senate bill S.2157. She told the committee research links later sunrises and circadian disruption to worse sleep, higher rates of heart attacks and other health outcomes.
Walk‑and‑bike safety advocates described crash data showing a disproportionate share of pedestrian collisions happening in the dark; Elizabeth Johnson of Walk Bike Springfield said children waiting for school buses on dark mornings are a distinct safety concern. "This is when drivers are less alert," she said, and she cited other states’ reversals of daylight‑saving experiments after fatal crashes.
Opponents of permanent standard time urged regional coordination or favored year‑round daylight saving. Tom Emsweiler, president of the nonprofit Safe Standard Time (testifying from Arizona), supported S.2157 and told the committee year‑round summertime would eliminate the twice‑yearly clock change and its short‑term harms. He cited economic arguments such as increased evening recreation and higher green‑fee revenue for golf courses presented in federal testimony.
The committee heard scientific and pragmatic points on both sides: supporters of permanent standard time highlighted studies of circadian health and child performance, while proponents of permanent daylight time said longer evenings boost commerce and recreation and reduce the springtime health shock of the clock change. Several witnesses suggested Massachusetts coordinate with neighboring states to avoid cross‑border clock differences.
Ending: No committee vote was taken. Witnesses asked the committee to favor either H.3405 (permanent standard time) or S.2157 (permanent daylight saving/A.S.T.) depending on their position; members requested additional evidence and follow‑up from proponents on economic and health data.
