If it’s true that walking makes you wetter than running through rain, why do I have to increase the speed of my windshield wipers when I accelerate from a stop? When I come to a stop again, I can reduce the speed of the windshield wipers and they do an adequate job. If I accelerate, water accumulates on the windshield and I find that I have to increase the speed of the wipers to accommodate the increased number of drops. It seems that the faster I go, the more water accumulates on the windscreen which seems to contradict your findings on walking vs. running in the rain.
First, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boareds, ljanz, we’re glad to have you with us.
Second, this is a comment on one of Cecil’s columns, so I’m moving it to the appropriate forum… you’ll get better responses. You might want to read the forum descriptions on the main page.
Finally, it’s helpful to other readers if you provide a link to the column, saves searching time. In this case, I assume: Which will keep you drier, running through the rain or walking?
No biggie, and, as I say, welcome!
Driving faster means more water on the car in a given time. However, the question in the column is how to get less wet travelling a given distance. So there is no contradiction at all.
Howdy all. I don’t think resolving this issue requires math at all. Simple logic and imagination also work.
Let’s say it’s raining at a steady rate. Now imagine that we’re looking at a 2-D rectangular section of the area – the distance to travel along the ground is the width, and a short distance in the air is the height. At any given moment this area is chock fulla rain.
Imagine a runner moving so swiftly that she goes between two points nearly instantaneously. She’ll collide with all of the rain already along the path (in a row as tall as her body) plus whatever small amount of rain strikes her head.
Now imagine a walker moving so slowly that he’ll almost never complete the distance. He’ll be struck by all of the rain above him (in a column as wide as his body), plus whatever rain he manages to walk into. But the slowpoke will also be struck by the NEXT column of water, and the next, and so forth – until he has been struck with the entire area of the rectangle – plus much more besides.
Of course, distance and size could nullify this. If the distance to travel is miniscule, there won’t be much difference, and if you’ve got a vast distance or a vast body, as Cecil points out, eventually you’re all wet anyway. But for practical purposes and short distances, of course running will keep you (a little) dryer.
On the other hand, still thinking practically, walking in the rain may soak you through, but running will get you a broken back. So: do you prefer pneumonia or traction?
Another consideration that’s often neglected in this debate: Rainfall isn’t steady. Usually, you’re travelling from one sheltered area to another, and can choose your timing. Meanwhile, the rain is sometimes falling more, and sometimes less. If you wait until the rain lets up a bit, and then run, you might get to the next shelter before it gets worse again, but such lulls don’t last long, so if you walk, you might still be out in the open when it gets worse.
I can categorically state that you get considerably wetter running through the rain than you get from walking.
Unless it’s raining when you’re walking, too, I guess that could make a significant difference
I apologize if I missed anyone who posted the information that follows - if I did, they get the credit, not me:
There are variables to consider in this debate that are difficult to measure, but which I think relevant.
First, this question is about preferences. The assumption I use is that if I walk, my head will get wetter than my body, and if I run, my body will get wetter than my head. Some may think this has been disproved, but I’m going on experience. Therefore, to me, it’s more a matter of preference than science. Personally, I would rather my head get more wet than my pants and shirt because naturally, my hair will dry quicker than my clothes. A person with long hair however, would likely choose the opposite.
Second, the degree to which one gets wet in the rain largely depends on the type of clothing one is wearing. Obviously one wearing a windbreaker is going to get less than one wearing a cotton shirt. That being said, I would more likely run in the rain if I was wearing shorts, particularly a pair that is less like a traditional fabric and more like a windbreaker or mesh. If I’m wearing jeans, they will take the longest to dry, and in that situation, I would much prefer to walk and let my head get wet, than walk around with wet jeans for a few hours. The choice of whether to run or walk also depends on whether one is wearing a hat.
It seems to me that this question can be argued using scientific data, but I think there are far too many variables, and it comes down to personal preference more than anything else.
G
Just a quick note. There was a Mythbusters show on this topic where they did the same experiment. And yes, running kept you dryer. drier… less wet.
Seeing as most rain does not alsways come directly down, but is often diverted by wind, does the angle of the rain affect the results? And is so, does it matter if you’re moving against or with the wind?
they did two tries at this and the first for whatever reason found that walking was better.
I think the reason is mentioned above. Walking slowly only wets the head and shoulders, and excess probably rolls off. Running wets the entire side. Thus one can absorb more water running, though may be hit by more water walking.