Twice a year we change our clocks to reflect daylight savings. In the spring we jump ahead and in the fall we get an extra hour of sleep. Who knew that something so simple could be so controversial.
There is a bill that gets introduced every year in the Nevada Legislature that wants to get rid of daylight savings for Nevada. It is not because the sponsor of the bill doesn't want to change their clocks, it's because of the state's 120 day time limit.
The Nevada Legislature has a 120 day time limit to pass all their legislation for the biennium. However, with daylight saving right in the middle, we lose a whole hour of time. Believe me this hour makes a difference. So to make up for the loss, our time limit is 120 days plus one hour; meaning we go until 1am instead of midnight. Much legislation goes on in this last hour; in the 2003 session many things that had been overlooked due to the major tax packet, were passed through.
This bill would change that, we would still get the same number of hours; however, instead of going until 1am we would stop at midnight. We would be like Arizona and Hawaii, never changing our time! Would this effect other things in our state? Would we have to move our prime time to 7pm like Arizona?
All I know is that last hour before sine die is energetic and suspenseful simply because you feel like you're on borrowed time. I wouldn't want to lose that energy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Having just been in Arizona where they do not change their clocks I feel qualified to weigh in on this subject.
To your most important question-no primetime would not change. It would still start at 8pm. Primetime starts at 7pm in the mountain and central times zones because the networks and cables only provide two feeds-east coast and west coast.
As to whether we should change or not, I am torn. One the one hand, the practice is archaic dating back to a time when daylight hours in the field meant the difference between starving and eating. On the other hand, there is something about leaving work at 5pm while the sun is shining brightly, knowing you have another 2 hours of daylight to fritter away however you choose.
All in all, I choose to fritter :-)
Jessy's Mom
Just a quick add on. This weekend, in Arizona, where they do not change time, there were no less than 5 articles in the local papers about daylight savings time.
I guess their lack of participation doesn't translate to any savings of column inch space. Or maybe it was just a slow news day :-)
Good to know!
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-05-Tue-2005/news/26220543.html
I just found this amusing.
The main result of daylight savigns time is people being late to work on monday! I see no real use for it, and living so far north we don't see the sun on the drive home until May anyway. My main question is...if we have to do this why don't we change saturday morning instead of sunday? That would at least give people a day to adjust before they are late for church, school, or work.
Bryna
The benefit of daylight savings.... originally was to conserve fuel in homes, and to make the time in summer for families to be outside later....I feel that keeping the daylight saving would be of benefit to all. Although Arizona and the Indian Reservation do not practice the daylight savings program, I think that Nevada would benefit by extending it later...
I never knew that Indian Reservations did not observe daylight savings.
Post a Comment