Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Extending daylight savings? Put that to sleep

By HOWARD TROXLER
Published July 31, 2005

How can we not be paying more attention to this? Congress just voted to extend daylight saving time by another four weeks a year - from March until November. I rise to speak in opposition.

We already have enough daylight saving time as it is, if not too much. It now lasts from the first Sunday in April to the last Sunday of October.

That's almost seven full months.

With this new law, it will last eight months, from the second Sunday of March to the first Sunday of November. Our so-called standard time will be in effect for only one-third of the year.

Please do not misunderstand. I like daylight saving time. But I like it precisely because it comes with the middle part of the year, and then it goes away.

I like it because of the change.

The advent of daylight saving in April is a harbinger of long, full, summertime days to come. In those languid well-lit hours, one might have a bite of supper, wash the dishes and still think about whether to do a little yardwork, or play catch with the kids, or visit on the stoop with the neighbors.

Yet, in its turn, the resumption of standard time in October is the true beginning of fall. The timing feels about right. Henceforth the days will get shorter, the night will come sooner. It is a time for endings. The year is aging fast; the holidays are only weeks away.

Instead - March to November?

Why not just get it over with, and permanently change standard time? Get everybody in the world to go along. Reset all the atomic clocks (if they can get them little electrons to jump ahead an hour). Have a big global party at Greenwich.

Phooey.

There's a more practical objection. If you are the parent of a kid in school, or a morning jogger or cyclist, or a morning person in general, then you already know:

Daylight saving is a robber of mornings.

According to the U.S. Naval Observatory, the sun in late June peeks over the horizon around here as early as 6:34 a.m. (it's June, so that's EDT).

Sunrise just after 6:30 - well, that's not too bad. You can get out and walk the dog, go for a run, take out the garbage without tripping over something.

But now consider the other extremes. The second Sunday of March falls as early as March 8. The first Sunday of November comes as late as Nov. 7.

Sunrise in Tampa Bay on March 8 arrives at 6:48 a.m. STANDARD time. If we were observing daylight saving, sunrise would not occur until just before 8!

Likewise, sunrise on Nov. 7 occurs at 6:46 a.m. - or under daylight saving, that would be 7:46 a.m. (Imagine thousands of citizens lined up in the darkness on Election Day.)

The notion of not having sunrise until almost 8 in the morning is simply too much. It is offensive. It is unnatural.

It is big-government meddling.

This scheme is part of the much bigger "energy bill" in Congress. Maybe that's why it hasn't gotten much attention - it is camouflaged, if you will, inside a big fat bureaucratic blob.

Supposedly, this extra hour of daylight will (a) save energy and (b) reduce accidents, although I am skeptical.

So here is my proposal:

Let's refuse to go along.

Under federal law, each state can decide whether to observe daylight saving time. States that cross time zones, such as Florida, can decide whether the time change will apply in each zone.

Arizona doesn't observe daylight savings. Hawaii doesn't do it. Until this year, parts of Indiana didn't do it.

I hope more states rebel. After all, our Florida Legislature is run by Republicans who are always telling me that they oppose big-government foolishness.

Well, what's more foolish than Washington, D.C., ordering that sunrise doesn't come until almost 8 a.m.?

Speaking of daylight saving, I'm going to take advantage of it and go paint my house. Yes, I know, it's hot. Bring it on. See you in a week or so.

[Last modified July 31, 2005, 01:30:13]