It’s almost time to set clocks back for daylight saving time, but what’s the point?

The real goal of annual tradition is to save energy

We get the rituals associated with Fourth of July, Thanksgiving and Halloween.

But before bed Saturday night millions of households will engage in what many believe a pointless ritual: Setting clocks back one hour to end daylight saving time (officially, 2 a.m. Sunday). And, no the point isn’t to get an extra hour of sleep. The real goal is to save energy, but does it even accomplish that?

The European Commission recently proposed to end daylight saving time, possibly as soon as next year, believing the practice is outdated. It conducted a public survey that received 4.6 million replies and found 84 percent of European citizens were in favor of doing away with it. There is no similar movement in the U.S., but there are still plenty of people who question the point.

First, some quick background on daylight saving time. Ben Franklin sometimes gets credit for coming up with the idea of saving time because of a 1784 essay for The Journal of Paris that suggested the French could save on the cost of candles by getting out of bed earlier to take advantage of sunshine. But the piece was satirical and he never mentioned turning clocks back or forward.

Germany became the first country to adopt the measure to save coal during World War I. France and other countries followed suit. The U.S. tried daylight saving time in fits and starts beginning in 1918, but repealed it a year later. However, some states set their own daylight saving time, leading to confusion.

It wasn’t until the establishment of a uniform system under the Uniform Time Act of 1966 that daylight saving time became standard. It gained traction under the belief that electricity use inside homes would drop as people stayed outside to enjoy the later sunset. And, it was believed most people would be awake after the sun had already risen and have less need for lights.

The federal government also believed daylight saving time, which begins in spring and ends in fall, would prevent traffic crashes as more people would travel to and from school or work during daylight. Further, it was believed daylight saving time would reduce crime as more people remained outside during daylight when less crime took place.

The government liked daylight saving time so much that it decided to extend it in 2007. The start of daylight saving time was moved up to the second Sunday in March, instead of its traditional start on the first Sunday of April. In the fall, the return to standard time was moved from the last Sunday in October to the first Sunday in November, or one week later.

But no one really knew how much energy was saved during the sevenmonth period. So Congress asked for a study of daylight saving time’s impact on national energy consumption from an expert panel. Their findings: “meh.” In their 2008 report, panelists concluded that The European Commission recently proposed to end daylight saving time, possibly as soon as next year, believing the practice is outdated. They might be on to something; or not.

the total electricity saved in the extended daylight saving time amounted to about 0.03 percent of the entire year.

“The electricity savings are small compared to the national total for the year,” the study authors wrote. They found that changes in traffic volume and gas consumption were statistically insignificant.

The study did not examine whether daylight saving time impacted children traveling to school, or whether traffic accidents rose or fell, or if it reduced crime.

Rebecca Umbach, who graduated with a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania in May, authored a study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology that examined the impact of crime the day after the start of daylight saving time, and the day after the end of daylight saving time (this weekend). She thought people would be more irritable in the spring after losing an hour of sleep, a correlation borne out in previous studies, which might translate to an increase in crime.

She was wrong. From 2001 to 2104, there were actually almost 3 percent fewer assaults on the day after daylight saving time began. Counterintuitively, she found a near 3 percent rise in assaults the day after the return to standard time.

“It’s funny because people feel very strongly about daylight saving time,” said Umbach. “I didn’t realize that until the research received coverage in the news and people just came out of the woodwork with opinions on it.”

Other studies have suggested the sudden time shift in the spring disrupts the circadian rhythm of humans, bringing fatigue and inattentiveness. Studies have indicated a spike in car crashes and workplace injury.

In the end, though, it’s hard to draw any conclusions whether daylight saving time is hurtful or if it has real benefits.

Umbach has another hypothesis on why there are movements to do away with daylight saving time.

“I think people just get very annoyed by the inconvenience of it,” she said.

A pro-trump Twitter troll held a bizarre news conference Thursday during which he denied trying to bribe women into accusing Robert Mueller of sexual misconduct – though documentation obtained by The New York Daily News contradicts his claims.

Disgraced 20-year-old financier turned farright-wing theorist Jacob Wohl – appearing alongside right-wing conspiracy theorist Jack Burkman – claimed a woman named Carolyne Cass had accused the special counsel of raping her in New York City several years ago, but was too scared to come forward.

“She has been ruthlessly attacked,” he said. “She has been made to look like someone who took payment.”

Wohl, speaking at a Holiday Inn in Rosslyn, Va., then claimed he had not offered anyone cash to smear Mueller – but the Daily News has obtained emails that dispute that.

“There were no offers of payment,” Wohl said. “There was nothing illegal or untoward going on here.”

Surefire Intelligence – a self-professed “private intel agency” that Wohl has admitted to running – sent an email to Vermont Law School professor and author Jennifer Taub on Oct. 22, in which an employee identified as Simon Frick offered to “compensate” Taub “at whatever rate you see fit” to discuss her “past encounters” with Mueller.

“My organization is conducting an examination of Robert Mueller’s past,” Frick’s email to Taub states. “Tell me a decent method to contact you by telephone (or Signal, which would be ideal) and a beginning rate to talk with you about all encounters you’ve had with Special Counsel Mueller. We would likewise pay you for any references that you may have.”

Frick, it turns out, is not a real person and has a Linkedin account featuring a profile photo of actor Christoph Waltz.

Wohl, during his odd news conference, seemingly conceded he had created fictitious personalities to hide behind because he said he had to maintain his “un-involvement” with his company’s “investigation” of sexual assault accusations against Mueller.