Three U.S. times zones instead of four — it would be better than daylight savings time

To the editor: Your opinion on eliminating daylight savings time is wholly practical, but why stop there? Why not move our time zone boundaries to the Mississippi River and the Continental Divide, thereby reducing our four time zones to three? (“The madness of daylight saving time. And how not to fix it,” editorial, June 25)

The river is a natural boundary; all of the states who touch it use it as a state border. The Continental Divide does cross state borders, but its remoteness creates another natural boundary.

With three time zones rather than four, our populous east and west coasts could do business with each other for five hours each day rather than four. Almost all of Europe manages with one time zone (this doesn’t include, you guessed it, Britain). Canada and especially Mexico would profit from this move.

This gift to our economy ought not be too hard. It merely requires a congressional bill. (Did I say that?)

Ron Williams, San Juan Capistrano

..

To the editor: Yes, switching time twice a year is disruptive. But I like having extra daylight in the evening.

Let’s stay on daylight time nationwide all year.

Randall Gellens, San Diego

..

To the editor: I pinched myself, as I often don’t agree with your editorial positions. But you absolutely nailed it regarding the continued antiquated practice of daylight savings time.

Why don’t we just ditch e-mail in favor of the beloved Pony Express, which makes as much sense as changing our clocks twice a year? Mother Nature gives us only so many hours of sunshine regardless of how much we artificially manipulate the hands of the clock.

You are right: Twice a year we disrupt our circadian rhythms and business practices for absolutely zero gain. Put it to a vote — don’t mess with Mother Nature.

Steve McNeely, Pasadena

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook