To the editor: Concerning all of the hand-wringing in Los Angeles over whether or not to modify to everlasting commonplace time or everlasting daylight saving time (“The dark side of making daylight saving time permanent in California: How late would our sunrises get?,” July 22), ask your self these two questions:
Do you really need sunrises in L.A. that precede 5 a.m.? That’s what you’ll get for 78 days beneath year-round commonplace time.
Do you really need sunrises in L.A. that come after 7:30 a.m.? That’s what you’ll get for 99 days beneath year-round daylight saving time.
The present system of adjusting our clocks twice a yr takes benefit of the solar’s cycles to create optimum dawn and sundown instances. There are not any loopy extremes within the common sundown/dawn instances.
It’s like what they are saying about democracy: It’s the worst type of authorities aside from the opposite ones. Depart nicely sufficient alone, it nonetheless works greatest.
Paul Haddad, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Somewhat than focus on the professionals and cons of everlasting commonplace time versus daylight saving time, why not simply cut up the distinction with a one-time and everlasting “fall again” of simply half-hour when altering the clocks within the fall?
Philip Ginter, Sunland
..
To the editor: Completely nobody has the authority to take our clocks and switch them to their will.
Daylight saving time originated in Germany and Austria as an effort to preserve electrical energy for World Battle I. Nonetheless, it should be famous that within the U.S., it wreaks havoc on youngsters who find yourself going to high school at the hours of darkness. In the meantime, it’s extra harmful for these driving within the early hours.
The present system isn’t excellent, however individuals have tailored. We don’t want somebody telling us they will change our lives to go well with their wants.
Please assist our kids keep protected, in addition to those that want daylight of their earliest hours.
Rick Mervis, Reseda
..
To the editor: There isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” resolution within the daylight saving time debate. Daylight saving versus commonplace time is the mistaken dialogue to have. If colleges ought to begin or finish at completely different instances based mostly on the seasonal solar, then transfer the beginning/finish instances, not the clocks. The size of daylight is extra dramatic the farther north you reside, so some communities could need to change their schedules (not their clocks) based mostly on what works greatest.
If high-traffic density whereas the solar is rising or setting is a matter, then unfold out the “work” begin instances. Adapt commute, faculty and work schedules to suit the seasons.
Don’t change the clocks! Change the conduct based mostly on seasons. And we shouldn’t have lawmakers deciding for all individuals what works greatest for us. Such vanity is so widespread in the present day.
Bruce Farber, Oak View
..
To the editor: Lacking within the debate about everlasting daylight saving time: scholar achievement.
We all know low attendance is an issue nationwide, significantly because the pandemic. Darkish mornings should not going to assist get children to high school.
I’ve been a center and highschool trainer for greater than 20 years and I can attest that even when college students handle to reach for first-period class on time, their brains are sluggish at greatest, and that’s when there may be some gentle within the sky (research proves beginning faculty later would assist, however that’s not possible).
If we care about supporting college students’ studying, we’ll make selections that put their wants above our comfort and pleasure.
Kristin Burcham, Santa Monica
