Transportation

Daylight Savings Time Could Miraculously Be Saved By Self-Driving Cars


Spring forward, fall back.

Simple enough.

That’s what is supposed to happen due to our acceptance of abiding by Daylight Savings Time (DST). In the Spring, our clocks are to be moved forward by one hour. Later on, during the Fall, we move the clocks backward one hour. This is a ritual that we all undertake, though seemingly begrudgingly and with a lot of acrimonious debate and confusion involved.

One form of confusion gets some people really upset, namely whether it is spring forward and fall back, or maybe it is spring back and fall forward. Those that are unsure about which is correct are seen by others as complete dolts. It doesn’t make any sense to say spring back, or to mention fall forward, so how in the world could you make such a mental error, those irked by their fellow humans are apt to exhort feverishly.

Another aspect of confusion seems to underly the rationale or basis for why we do all this clock changing anyway. One of the most commonly assumed reasons is that the time change is good for farmers and therefore as a society that was once predominantly dependent on agriculture and farms that we have continued the tradition ever since. You might find of interest that some farmers support the time change and others oppose it. For example, oftentimes dairy farmers complain that the time alterations are upsetting to their cows, disturbing their milking routines, and undermining at least initially the amount of milk production.

Some assert that the switching of the clock on these two mandated occasions each year is bad for our economy. Supposedly, people are initially less productive in their work due to the time change (perhaps we aren’t so different than those cows), and there is a cost too in actually having everyone manually change their clocks and watches. Of course, given that we nowadays tend to rely on electronically-fed clocks that are connected online, the changeover is frequently automatic and there is a lot less manual labor involved in making the grand switch.

Indisputably, upon springing forward, our mornings are essentially additively darkened by that encompassed hour, and the evenings are lighter later.

Some relish this change.

When you get off work each weekday, there is still sunlight available and you can enjoy those gorgeous summer sunsets and frolic with the extended daylight. Others argue that the evening enchantment is not worth the soul-crushing aspects of getting up in utter darkness each morning, and also makes the morning commute to work a dismal drive while trying to see in less overall light than you’d prefer, and that we all are arguably less safe at the wheel.

There are likewise those that favor and those that disfavor what occurs when we do the change for falling back.

Mornings are lighter due to the hour changeover, which some emphasize is safer for kids as they start heading back to school, being more easily seen by car drivers and also the children themselves seem more alert and aware of their surroundings in the lightened conditions. In terms of the evening darkness coming an hour earlier, one viewpoint is nighttime belongs to getting homework done anyway, plus inspires families to have dinner together to discuss the efforts of the day. That is the smiley face version of the fallback but be assured that are ample ways to carp about it and not be so sanguine on the matter.

Numerous research studies have attempted to analyze the impacts of our ongoing observance of DST.

Not all researchers necessarily agree as to whether we ought to keep or perhaps instead ditch the whole Daylight Savings Time regime. Some persuasive line-up facts and figures to showcase that we are collectively asleep at the wheel (figuratively speaking) by allowing the infamous and undesirable DST to continue. Others offer rather convincing evidence that we should accept DST without reservation, indeed we should embrace it wholly, and stop whining about it.

On the topic of falling asleep at the wheel (now literally meant, plus notice that smooth segue), one particular factor that looms large when it comes to debates about Daylight Savings Times has to do with cars and car drivers.

Based on intuition, it would seem that when the spring forward occurs, drivers are hence driving in a darkened environment and therefore perhaps more prone to driving less capably. Keep in mind too that the morning commute to work is one of the most frequently traveled times of the day, thus, the time change is directly affecting a moment of driving that is already jam-packed with cars. All of this would suggest that car crashes are likely to flare.

You might try to counterargue that the evening commute is going to compensate by the fact that there is a brightened ambiance of light in the early evenings, yet also being a packed commute time, and that there might be fewer car crashes than usual. If that were the case, the increase in the morning car crashes might be offset by the reduction in the evening car crashes, achieving, in the end, a neutral result of no added aggregation in the counts of car crashes.  

Depending on how far you want to extend that logic, one supposes that you could try to argue that the net result could be a savings of sorts if the reduction in evening car crashes were to somehow swamp the presumed increase in the morning crashes.

Well, the counter to that counter-argument is that we are wide awake by the occurrence of the evening drive, whereas during the morning drive our eyes are drooping and our senses remain in a sleep-induced lull. In that case, it might not be patently obvious that the morning and evening cancel out each other in terms of car crash volume. There is a potential asymmetry involved. The belief is that we are worse by far in the morning drive, while only slightly better off in the evening drive.

Further stoking these flames, we decidedly need to consider what impacts the fallback phenomena might have on car crashes too. Does the added light in the morning help to reduce car crashes? Does the darkened evening tend to increase car crashes? Is there is a net result that produces fewer car crashes all told, or does it lead to more car crashes?

If all of this doesn’t already seem exceedingly complex, we can up the ante by proffering the notion that perhaps we should combine together any net result, positive or negative, occurring during the spring forward, along with any net result from the fallback, such that we can seek a grand total to illuminate what happens over the course of these two brother and sister time changes.

In short, does the spring forward net result exceed the fallback, or are they equal, or is the fall back the larger count?

Dizzying.

Let’s consider an article published in the journal Current Biology entitled “A Chronobiological Evaluation of the Acute Effects of Daylight Savings Time on Traffic Accident Risk” that was posted earlier this year and provides ample food for thought on the topic.

Per this particular study, their statistical analysis seemed to indicate that the number of fatal car crashes in the workweek immediately following the spring forward time change increased by about 6% (confined to just the one-week initial period, not generalizable for weeks henceforth). This was predominantly due to an increase in the number of morning car crashes. Meanwhile, the fallback time change generally was a neutral net result, whereby there was a decline in morning car crashes that were met by a similarly increased count in evening car crashes.

All told, it could be interpreted that the initial week 6% rise in fatal car crashes of the spring forward is said to account then for the final net tally of the combined impacts of both the spring forward and the fallback occurrences.

Bluntly, based on this particular study, one interpretation is that we are accepting as par for the course that the DST will generate a one-week increase of 6% in the number of car crash fatalities (that’s a one-week only increase, occurring once per year). If that’s the case, one would be hard-pressed, it seems, to justify DST based on those added deaths, though this is a somewhat oversized way to reach such a harsh conclusion. You should be aware that there are a variety of caveats about all of this statistical wizardry and please be mindfully cautious in overstating the results of one such study alone.

Also, the focus was on fatal car crashes, which leaves out of the societal equation concerning the non-fatal car crash statistics and potential injuries accordingly. Imagine, for example, whether there was an impact on the volume of injuries, and perhaps might bolster the point about the dangers of the time change or could (counter-intuitively) support the time change. This would also raise the ugly question of how to compare the deaths incurred versus the number of injuries incurred. And so on.

In any case, the researchers speculated that the statistics underlying the rise of 6% in that initial workweek of the spring forward are possibly due to drivers being less alert, presumably as a result of sleep disruption and a circadian rhythm misalignment.

You might be tempted to conclude that we ought to overturn and outright ban the vaunted Daylight Savings Time since doing so would potentially save lives and prevent the annual one-week momentary increase in the number of car crash deaths (assuming you take at face value these results and set aside any limitations or caveats).

Yes, that is one answer, but there is another one that maybe can accomplish the same, and yet keep the DST legacy alive and kicking.

Here’s today’s intriguing question: Will the advent of AI-based true self-driving cars potentially “solve” the car crash-related concerns entailing Daylight Savings Time and obviate the need to necessarily cancel DST due to car crashes?

Let’s unpack the matter and see.

Understanding The Levels Of Self-Driving Cars

As a clarification, true self-driving cars are ones that the AI drives the car entirely on its own and there isn’t any human assistance during the driving task.

These driverless vehicles are considered a Level 4 and Level 5 (see my explanation at this link here), while a car that requires a human driver to co-share the driving effort is usually considered at a Level 2 or Level 3. The cars that co-share the driving task are described as being semi-autonomous, and typically contain a variety of automated add-on’s that are referred to as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems).

There is not yet a true self-driving car at Level 5, which we don’t yet even know if this will be possible to achieve, and nor how long it will take to get there.

Meanwhile, the Level 4 efforts are gradually trying to get some traction by undergoing very narrow and selective public roadway trials, though there is controversy over whether this testing should be allowed per se (we are all life-or-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking place on our highways and byways, some contend, see my coverage at this link here).

Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of those types of cars won’t be markedly different than driving conventional vehicles, so there’s not much new per se to cover about them on this topic (though, as you’ll see in a moment, the points next made are generally applicable).

For semi-autonomous cars, it is important that the public needs to be forewarned about a disturbing aspect that’s been arising lately, namely that despite those human drivers that keep posting videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a Level 2 or Level 3 car, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away their attention from the driving task while driving a semi-autonomous car.

You are the responsible party for the driving actions of the vehicle, regardless of how much automation might be tossed into a Level 2 or Level 3.

Self-Driving Cars And Daylight Savings Time

For Level 4 and Level 5 true self-driving vehicles, there won’t be a human driver involved in the driving task.

All occupants will be passengers.

The AI is doing the driving.

One core assumption about self-driving cars is that they will only be allowed onto our public roadways if the AI driving systems are as safe or possibly even safer than human drivers. The hope is that the annual 40,000 car crash-related fatalities and the approximate 2.3 million car-related injuries will be lessened, perhaps demonstratively so, as a result of the use of self-driving cars.

For those that insist we’ll end-up at zero fatalities, I’ve repeatedly cautioned that it will not drop to zero (see my discussions that zero fatalities have a zero chance, at this link here), since there is a multitude of situations in which the physics belies the chances of a self-driving car avoiding getting into a car crash or similar collision.

Indubitably, it would seem that the AI driving systems will not get drunk, thus no more drinking and driving (at least per AI), and the AI will not get distracted as human drivers do. The AI doesn’t need any food, it doesn’t need any rest, and in fact, the expectation is that self-driving cars will likely be running all day and all night, providing ride-sharing capabilities 24×7 (other than when needed to be refueled or during maintenance and repairs).

How does this all relate to the discussion about Daylight Savings Time?

The answer is rather straightforward.

We would anticipate that the AI driving systems would not be bothered in the least by the DST time changes. If the clocks change on a Sunday, the AI is not going to wake up on Monday morning and be cursing the time change. Nor will the AI be sleepy or have been knocked off its circadian rhythm. The AI will continue essentially unchanged in its driving approaches and will be otherwise oblivious to the human felt changes of the fallback and spring forward.

In theory, you can kiss goodbye that momentary increase in car crash fatalities that currently appears to be accompanying the DST institution.

That’s exciting news.

It means that the use of Daylight Savings Time can continue unabated, assuming that the sole qualm was related to car crashes and fatalities thereof. Of course, this has little or nothing to do with the other complaints about the use of DST. Those cows, for example, won’t be any better off simply due to the aspect that self-driving cars will be untouched by the time change.

Will humans be any better off (other than the lives saved, which, certainly is a pronounced benefit)?

You could argue that humans will be better off in other potential ways, as it relates to the use of self-driving cars. For example, it is predicted that most true self-driving cars will be radically altered in terms of the interiors of the vehicle. Rather than having a driver’s seat, something no longer needed, the interior will be freer and possibly allow for swivel seats that provide more comfort to the passengers. Also, the seats are likely to be built for reclining, allowing riders to take a nap while the AI is handling the driving chore.

This brings up a small facet worth pointing out. As humans commute to work in the workweek following a time change, they can potentially use that “extra” hour of the day to catch more sleep, potentially aiding their circadian rhythm alignment. In general, the odds are that people will be sleeping quite a bit while inside self-driving cars, doing so in the morning on the way to work, and catching some winks on the ride back home in the evenings.

Furthermore, some believe that we will be taking longer driving trips once self-driving cars are prevalent (see my discussion at this link here). Today, if you wanted to go across your state or drive to another nearby one, it would require hours upon hours of your being fully awake and paying rapt attention as the driver of the vehicle. In the future, you can take a nice long doze while the AI hauls you across great distances and brings you in a refreshed state-of-mind to your faraway destination.

The key point though is that the advent of self-driving cars will take off the table the factor about how bad our driving is during the days following the DST time changes.

All else being equal, there should not be any statistically significant increase or decrease in car crashes on those days versus any other days of the year. The AI will consistently drive the same way all of the time, regardless of how the clocks are changed.

Realize that you can still readily carp about Daylight Savings Time and seek to have it obliterated since there are plenty of other reasons that can be used to make that argument stick. AI driving systems are a narrow solution to a smaller piece of the pie, though we all might agree it is a notable portion since it involves human lives.

Conclusion

It would be nice and tidy to leave the matter at this aforementioned indication about how beauteously the AI driving systems and self-driving cars will eradicate the car crash concerns from the DST disputes.

Sorry, I feel obligated to add some bitter-tasting slops of realism back into the picture.

First, those self-driving cars are only going to make a demonstrative difference in the statistics once they are extensively prevalent, nearly ubiquitous. That is going to be a long time from now, possibly many decades away. There are about 250 million conventional cars in the United States today, and those are not going to magically disappear when self-driving cars start to popular the roadways.

You need to brace yourself for the reality that in the foreseeable future, the loss of lives due to car crashes in the workweek following the time change will continue as is. Gradually, inexorably, self-driving cars will be seeded into the car populace, but that is a distant future.

Second, some humans are likely to fight back at the advent of self-driving cars, insisting that they relish driving and won’t give up their “right” (it is a privilege) to drive. In that case, the prevalence of self-driving cars could be further stymied by those human drivers that will never stop driving. This means they will still drive as they already do today, including presumably some portion will, sadly, on the workweek following a time change drive (as usual) worse than they normally drive.

Eventually, the number of human drivers would seem to dwindle and therefore the presumed benefit of the AI driving systems as being safe or safer at driving will arise. Nobody can say how long this societal clinging to human driving will last. Time will tell.

In the United States, we started the use of Daylight Savings Time in 1918, principally to conserve energy while World War I was being waged. DST has had quite a storied history ever since. When you head to work on this upcoming day after the DST time change, imagine how nice it would be if the AI was lugging you to the office, rather than your having to drive yourself, accompanied currently by those half-awake drowsy eyes and foggy mindedness.

Come to think of it, please do not be thinking about anything other than paying attention to the road, since you need to be on our sharpest toes for a week of driving that is going to be abysmally challenging.

And, remember, make sure to change your clocks this coming Sunday, November 1.



READ NEWS SOURCE

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.