According to this yahoo news story, a House committe has voted to extend daylight savings time by two months (1 month each direction). It will now run from March thru November.
Will this really have much effect on energy use in today’s environment? As much as I relish the idea of more daytime in the afternoons, I can’t believe it will make that much difference.
Your opinions?
Are you pulling my leg? Did they really? I am so happy if its true. I doubt it would save oil, though. Didn’t they try that back in 1973-74?
It might not be for the ‘right’ reasons, but I’d welcome the change!
Well, I wouldn’t. I have to get up at 6:30, and the last thing I need is two more months of getting up in the dark. I especially don’t need it because some politicians think it will make us consume one-twentieth of one percent less oil.
Yes, and my recollection was that they found that it was far too dangerous for children to be walking to, and waiting for busses in the pitch dark in the winter months, so they scrapped it. However, this cite seems to make a different claim:
… the inference I take to mean that farmers didn’t like having to either work in the dark in the mornings, or extend their workday to the later evening in order to get the same number of daylight hours.
And while it expresses it as a positive, it admits that the winter months were more dangerous for morning commuters and school children, which kindof backs up my memories:
Actually, it does not “admit” this. It states that DST reduces traffic accidents in the evenings, especially during the winter months. Which more than offsets the effect of dark morning travel. Most kids have extra curricular activities in the evenings, too, so they often travel home in the dark when standard time is in effect.
Personally, I’d like to scrap standary time altogether, and go to DST all year round.
So I say it’s a step in the right direction.