3 ms·
Its not only done for reasons of energy efficiency; I'm sure theres UK research that says less children die in road accidents as they are going to school when i
by jarofgreen 13y ago
Its not only done for reasons of energy efficiency; I'm sure theres UK research that says less children die in road accidents as they are going to school when it's light, not when its dark. About to run out so can't look up reference now.
Also the author goes on about people commuting or arranging meetings across time zones and how annoying it is for them. I get that, but I think actually the vast majority of ppl almost never do that.
- zzleeper 13y agoBy your argument, DST should be suppressed entirely. If there are less accidents going to school during the day, then the switch in March to DST means that in many places people will go to school when it's still dark, which sucks..
- eddiedunn 13y agoIn many places, people go to school/work when it's dark regardless of whether DST is in effect or not. I would also wager that the risk of being hit by a jetlagged, drowsy driver offsets any dubious benefit changing the time twice a year might have.
- johnchristopher 13y agoFrom the previous article linked on HN: > Downing's research also suggests that studies of increased traffic accidents and injuries, which variously support or condemn the practice of daylight saving time, don't really show enough of a difference to be statistically significant in a nation where more than 30,000 people are killed in traffic accidents each year. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131101-when-does-daylight-savings-time-end-november-3-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131101-when-...