I've always had problems with Spring-forward and Fall-back. I think adjusting yourself twice a year is harmful to your long term health. I propose that with modern technology we can slowely ease into daylight savings time by digitally having clocks add a few seconds a day fro three months in the Spring and the reverse in the Fall. The change would be imperceptible, if all clocks moved in the same manner.
As an added benefit, all clocks would have to be changed or retrofitted with the new timing device spurring a boom in the business of time keeping and giving a lift to the entire global economy.
A draw back would be that all timed sporting events would have to be held in the summer or winter. Otherwise sprinters would have and advantage in fall months when time is actually shorter.-- StAndrew, Apr 03 2002 Nah--just ignore clocks except when work or other appointments require it. Too many clocks. They are as numerous now as gravel underfoot.-- entremanure, Apr 03 2002 UB, the difference is that dst suggest a transition period of just one weekend to one month. I suggest a three month period or even a perpetual change. Also, suggested universal implementation and the benefits to the world economy. Maybe just moved a half baked idea to a 3/4 baked one.-- StAndrew, Apr 03 2002 Moving clocks forward and backward is busywork - if you forget to dust and clean, there is a clean spot where the clock once was, dust encircling it - ridiculous.-- thumbwax, Apr 03 2002 My clock changes automatically for the GMT/BST changeover, but what i've often thought is why bother changing it at all? Why not keep it at GMT all the time? And just how did Daylight Savings and BST come into play anyway? It's time to get me accusin' gun.-- [ sctld ], Apr 03 2002 // I think adjusting yourself twice a year is harmful to your long term health. //
I agree. It's not uncommon that I adjust myself a couple of times a day (depending on what I'm wearing, of course).
[Agreement on abolishing the time change - I'm in favo(u)r of adopting DST as standard time year round.]-- waugsqueke, Apr 03 2002 You can't have DST/BST all the time because in winter in the dark areas of Scotland, you'd be coming home from work etc in pitch black. Now, if it was kept as GMTm all the time, then there would be no major effect because the days are lnoger in summer time anyway. Go GMT!-- [ sctld ], Apr 03 2002 I honestly don't much care. Ideally, we would just eliminate the whole time change thing - one way or the other - since we've moved past the largely agrarian culture that Ben Franklin lived in when first proposing the whole scheme. As I've shared with po, I am really rather ignorant of time, both clockwise and calendarwise. My watch of current partial use (like UnaBubba's partial use), has been an hour off ever since the last time change. I believe it will be "correct" again after next weekend. And the clock in my vehicle is currently four hours off. My alarm clock, on the other hand, is currently "correct," and will be an hour off next weekend (and will stay that way until the next time change). Which brings up that old stupid riddle/puzzle/crap story about the clock that is broken. The typical story says that, since the clock's hands never move, it is correct twice a day. Bullshit. "Correct" means, not that it displays the right time, but that a person viewing the clock can determine the correct time. Since the broken clock's display bears no relation to the passage of time, it is never going to assist anyone in determining the correct time. And that's just a long-winded way of saying that I prefer leaving my clocks as they are, since they permit me to determine the objectively correct time at, er, all times.-- quarterbaker, Apr 03 2002 I love the first evening after daylight savings time has taken effect. It's magical to me. I look forward to it for six months. I get to visit every clock in my home and reset it--a task I enjoy. I don't want that sudden change to go away. Ever. In fact, I would move to somewhere different to preserve it if it got legislated away here (okay, maybe that's too extreme).-- bristolz, Apr 03 2002 sctld... dark areas of Scotland? It's already that way in a lot of places. Here in Pennsylvania, it's completely dark by 4:30 PM most days in late December/early January. So I'm already coming home in the dark (and leaving in it in the morning, too). So that doesn't make any difference to me.
Staying with DST year-round would give you more light in the evening, not less. You'd lose it in the mornings.. it would stay darker longer. In winter mornings I might not see sunrise much before 8-830AM, for example. I'm cool with that, if it means I get to drive home in daylight.
bris, I love the first evening after daylight savings time has taken effect too (this coming Sunday night... yes!). What I don't like is the corresponding first evening after it's switched off, and the early darkness comes back.-- waugsqueke, Apr 03 2002 Just move to Arizona, you will never have to mess with your clocks again.-- dag, Apr 03 2002 They have clocks in Arizona?-- [ sctld ], Apr 03 2002 My 2 cents:
If you want the sun to be up later or earlier WAKE UP AT A DIFFERENT TIME! Pardon my raised voice. I'm just another person perplexed and annoyed by the time-change silliness.
It is indeed busywork, and has caused me to miss stuff a couple times. Besides, I've noticed that most people, oddly enough, schedule their waking hours according to their favorite TV programs, not to sunrise and sunset.-- lumpy, Apr 03 2002 [sctld] Arizona has lots of clocks, and lucky for Arizonians, they have lots of sun, otherwise the sundials would never work. How exactly would you set a sundial to daylight savings time anyway. It probably involves spherical coordinate math - ickky. Bonus point to anyone who knows. (without looking it up)-- dag, Apr 03 2002 I'd love to visit Connecticut. Never been. I'd want to do it in the fall, though, when the trees are in colors.-- bristolz, Apr 03 2002 When you do... you must visit Mystic. It's one of my favorite places on this planet.-- waugsqueke, Apr 04 2002 I dont think this is a good idea. One purpose of clocks is to measure time from one point to another. If clocks were altered to tell time in a different way, that operation would not be possible. I mean a 26 minute television show would seem like a 30 minute show, then we would have to reschedule everything to fit that frame of advancement. I don't know about you but having our lives revolve around a clock that tells time in advance is just too stressful, I think clocks move too fast already. By doing this you may relieve stress from daylight savings time, but you're also going to cause more stress by jumbling with all the altered numbers of warped time. Maybe a better solution to your problem is to move time a little less gradually, let's say for every change of season we move the clock by 30 minutes, be it forward or back. I think this is a little more drastic than your proposal but I just think that your subtle approach involves too many increments of time to be messed with.-- sh4d0ww4rri0r, Apr 04 2002 As I said the last bunch of times this idea showed up here, I don't care which way, just pick one and stay there. There's no reason for this jumping back and forth, not even what's usually put forth as the original reason, to give farmers more daylight. A) they can get up earlier if necessary, and B) all farm equipment has headlights.-- StarChaser, Apr 05 2002 I stated my reason for its existence, Star, so there's at least *one* reason.-- bristolz, Apr 05 2002 random, halfbakery