High Sierra Topix

On Sunday I would have said "anything but C!" After adjusting to the lost hour and taking a gorgeous bike ride after work today (it was 74 degrees in my neck of the Bay Area today) I like C!

Why not just keep daylight savings time year round? We tried that during the 70s "energy crisis" and it was really hard to get up and walk to school in the dark. Adjusting to a time change twice a year is worth it so those of us with rigid school or work schedules get to enjoy more daylight when we're not stuck inside.

Now I'm off to my 11pm conference call with my Indian co-workers that I forgot to re-schedule back to 10pm after the time change (they don't have daylight savings time in India, and their time is on the half hour when most of the rest of the world is on the hour...)

maverick wrote:Which would you prefer if it came up for a vote:

A. Standard Time

B. Daylight Savings Time

C. As it is currently 4 months of PST and 8 months DST

My vote would be for B.

None of the above. I have a much better proposal.

The confusion around DST arises because the change occurs too infrequently for people to be used to it. What we should do instead is have the time change every day. Daylight Savings time would kick in at, say, 3:00 pm--so we would lose an hour in the afternoon, and it would be light later in the evening--and then standard time would resume the next morning at, say, 5:00 am--so it would be light earlier in the morning. It's a win-win!

Tom



Mike