Posted on 07/29/2005 3:57:42 PM PDT by BenLurkin
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) As Congress voted to extend daylight-saving time, some parents whose children wait for school buses in the morning darkness doubted whether an extra month of daylight is such a bright idea.
"I don't think that it's safe," said Nikki McIntosh of Little Rock, whose children Myah, 12, and Alex, 11, occasionally ride a bus to school.
Congress on Friday gave final approval to an energy bill that includes a four-week expansion of daylight-saving time in an effort to save energy. If President Bush signs the bill, most Americans would see their clocks "spring forward" the second Sunday of March and "fall back" the first Sunday of November, beginning in 2007.
Daylight-saving time now starts on the first Sunday of April and ends the last Sunday of October.
According to Congress' thinking, if Americans can wait an hour to turn on their lights at night, the nation should be able to conserve at least some energy.
"It won't be a huge savings, but it'll offset fuel costs. Every little bit helps," said Sue Clothier, 40, of Gansevoort, N.Y.
The extra hours will also give her more time to garden and spend outdoors with her three dogs, she said. "It's like extending the summer for four weeks," she said.
But the tradeoff for parents with school-age children is an extra 20 weekdays of sending pupils off to class in the dark and having them stay up later at night.
Lynnette Ryan of Colorado Springs, Colo., is already anticipating the battles with her children, now aged 1 and 5.
"It's going to be hard on them because they'll be going to day care in the dark. Then they come home, and it's going to be light in the evening -- and they're not going to want to go to bed," said Ryan, visiting her mother Friday in Morgantown, W.Va.
The change, though, would be beneficial for some farmers who would get an extra hour of daylight for a longer portion of the year.
Al Davis, who raises cattle in southwestern Cherry County, Neb., said the new daylight-saving plan will be helpful for his operation on the eastern side of the Mountain time zone.
"It gets dark here at 4 p.m. on the darkest day of the year," Davis said. "So this will be advantageous to us."
Jan Koch, who with her husband milks 250 cows and farms 500 acres near De Forest in southern Wisconsin, was mostly disgusted with Congress, but not for any effect the change would have on her farm.
"If that is the best Congress can come up with for an energy idea, we are in trouble," she said. "They should be able to come up with something better than that to save energy."
Matt Hand, 29, of Manhattan, said that even a few minutes more of sunshine would be welcomed in the fields where he sometimes plays frisbee after work -- even in the chill of autumn.
"It's not the temperature that stops us. It's when you can't see anymore," he said, resting by the edge of Central Park with his bicycle.
Others though, said the change would just add to the list of things to worry about.
"Why screw with my calendar year? I have such a busy life," said Jesse Jette of Albany, N.Y. "This is just one more thing to remember."
I agree with you - I don't know what all the whining is for. I would much rather have more daylight in the evening. I hate sitting at work and having it get dark before I even leave.
I wish we had DST all year.
Change it by 1/2 hour year 'round and be done with it.
"DST is stupid, move to Arizona or Hawaii, we don't do that crap."
Or, if you really want to be confused, move to Indiana where half the state goes on DST (Central Time Zone), the other half doesn't (Eastern Time Zone) - except where they make other exceptions (as in the southern part of the state north of Louisville, KY).
Personally, I like DST and could like it year around. I don't mind getting up in the dark in the winter - it is dark with or without DST, so lights will burn in the morning either way. I like the extra waking hour of daylight in the evening. That saves some electricity use for lighting in those early evening hours that would be dark if on Standard Time.
I love daylight savings time.
If it was up to me, it would be year-round.
It may be fine where you live, but in the desert southwest, its damned stupid.
One of the few independent things we have left in AZ.
No problems here because it allows me time to come home after work and get all of my yardwork, car work, etc. done on weekdays so I can sit on my rear end and watch football on Saturdays and Sundays.
I LOVE IT!
The whole "free speach" thing is confusing isn't it?
My operating system does this auto-magically. BTW, I still have to re-adjust my watch twice a year.
Then when I travel to Europe, I have to set it to GMT. Oh, I am so mentally stretched. I can't stand it!!
Works for me. Let's do it!
Works for me. Let's do it!
My sentiments exactly. Why can't they leave the freaking clocks alone? It makes absolutely no sense at all. So people have to use lights longer in the morning.
The idiots in DC just need to feel as though they're earning their money.
And doing harm while they suck our tax money.
Best suggestion yet.
You buying me the ticket?
The trouble with the use of fixed length hours that dont track with daylight hours as they had for most of history is that our schedules dont stay in synch with the sunlight anymore, and we spend half the year either going to work in the dark or coming home in it, or both. Thus I see daylght savings time as merely a way to try to make our clock fit the real world, much like leap years do for years, not as intrusive big government.
Nam Vet
The clock in my car is correct twice a day.
The farm reality, (at least in the South):
They get up early to collect the eggs, feed the chickens, 'slop the hogs', milk the cows, weed the vegetable garden, cut the hay, 'put up' the hay, feed the cattle, and cook the meals, keeping in mind that as the day progresses, it begins to get HOT. Chores are done by the time the heat sets in.
Breakfast and dinner (lunch) are 'heavy', while supper (evening meal) is 'light' because it is too hot to cook by that time of day.
I don't know too many 'farm people' who believe that the day will have an extra hour of sunlight, but they do appreciate the re-ordering of time moving more to 'AM' and keeping less for 'PM'.
City-folk, on the other hand, have differing priorities, perhaps....
Pass it on.
The following was written to my State Rep {in Nebraska}...
The "wise folks" in DC have told use that 4 More Weeks of DST will save $$$.
Who's Money {Corporate, Home Owner, Renter}? Which Climate Zone {Gulf Coast, Alaska, ours}?
When DST started, less than 20% of Omaha homes or apartments had AC. A much smaller Metro Omaha supported 10 "Drive In" Movie Screens; now it supports ONE {it's in Iowa}.
In "post DST Omaha", Charities {like the Salvation Army} must BEG for FANS. These Fans are to be given to the working poor & those who Can't Work. For the "working poor", their bedrooms need artificial cooling to compensate for the delayed Sunset.
DST doesn't help average folks. It adds 1 of the hottest hours of any July Day to their Home AC Bill.
When Ben Franklin originated the Idea; it was to save on Candles & Whale Oil. Cooling was NOT part of the Equazition!
In 2007, 4 weeks of Autumn or Early Spring will be added to DST. That's 4 more weeks of dark & dangerous Mornings for "bus riders" {School or Mass Transit}.
If I had your Position; I'd offer a Bill to Remove the "Central Time Zone Portion of Nebraska " from DST.
For the "DST Months", our whole State would be on the Same Clock.
For the "DST Months", the Iowa & Nebraska Bars would close at the same TIME! 1 AM CT =2 AM DCT.
DST isn't an Idea that helps "the working poor"..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.