Daylight-saving time (DST) has been a controversial issue ever since it has first been observed. I believe DST is a useful and effective idea, and I would recommend continued use of it. In fact, I believe it should be observed year-round, which means America’s standard time would be moved back one hour.
Many people make arguments that DST saves energy, and there are studies to support it. (Sources B & C) But an equal amount of people make the argument that it doesn’t save energy at all, and that, contrary to popular belief, it increases energy consumption. There are studies to support this also. (Source F) So there seems to be no clear verdict regarding energy consumption and DST’s relation. So how do we determine whether or not we should continue to implement DST or get rid of it? Well the answer lies in this question: What’s worth more; saving energy, or saving lives? In Source D, the evidence of the life-saving repercussions DST generates are undeniable. What was put into effect to save energy, ultimately, saved lives. Quite a pleasant side-effect, wouldn’t you agree? For me, this study alone is enough of a reason to continue using DST. On average, approximately 100 more fatal car crashes occurred during the same hour after shifting back to standard time. Also, this study was done between 1987 and 1991, when DST was roughly 7 months. (Source A) Since then, the amount of people who own vehicles has greatly increased due to vast growth and development, especially among urban areas. Imagine how many more crashes could be prevented if we applied DST to the other 5 months of the year. This may be far-fetched, but regardless of whether or not that ever happens, DST should be continually observed due to these statistics alone. DST also has other life-saving implications. The DOT study mentioned in Source C “found that violent crime in Washington, D.C., was reduced by 10 to 13 percent during periods of daylight saving time…” This means that, during DST, people...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document