if we go for daylight savings, the sun would rise on the longest day of the year at 4:51 a.m. and set at 8:43 p.m. it would then rise on the shortest day of the year at 8:27 a.m. and set at 4:59 p.m.
if we abandon daylight savings and maintain the current itinerary, the sun would rise on the summer solstice at 3:51 a.m. and set at 7:43 p.m. on the winter solstice, the sun would rise at 7:27 a.m. and set at 3:59 p.m.
while i’ve long been a proponent of doing away with the twice-yearly torture of playing with time, the devil is in the details. there are obvious advantages and disadvantages to each scenario.
if we go with daylight savings, it would mean rousing the kids and getting them off to school in the dark in late december and early january, a most dreary prospect. but it would be lighter heading home from work at the end of the day. and a later sunset in summer would also mean an extra hour for outdoor sporting activities like baseball games, soccer matches or swim meets.
if we nix daylight savings, it won’t be as dark for as long waking up in the winter. but the birds will be singing at an ungodly hour come june.
the prospect you prefer probably depends on whether you’re an early bird or a night owl. in my humble opinion, remaining on daylight time permanently seems like the best choice, despite the fact we would — ugh! — have to push the clocks forward at least one more time to achieve this result.