Would you prefer “steady-but-slow” traffic, where you travel just 20 mph the entire trip but never have to stop, or heavy “stop-and-go” traffic, with frequent periods of complete stoppage, but you’ll arrive at your destination 15% faster (you’d save 9 minutes per hour)?
I guess what I’m really asking is if you’d trade a frustrating drive to save a little time, or conversely, if you’d trade a little time for a less frustrating drive.
Stead-and-slow for sure. Yes, getting somewhere faster is great, but the issue is that stop-and-go traffic is not only stressful, it’s also demanding on one’s focus and thus far more draining. I have to commute into DC to work and it’s rare that significant portions aren’t stop-and-go. I’ve managed to find some routes that are sometimes longer but tend to have more steady traffic. I’d even go farther than suggested by the OP. I’d take 1:15 of steady driving over 1 hour even of stop-and-go (so 25% over 15%). Trading 15 minutes for that lack of stress is a fair trade. I think for me the break even point would be about 1:20 to 1 hour, or around 33%, so I imagine that might trend down if my commute were typically even longer.
Traffic, to me, is only frustrating if I’m not sure I will get where I’m going on time. In the OP’s scenario where I know I will get there 15% sooner in stop-and-go traffic that’s the option I would choose.
This question is like the Kobiyashi Maru of traffic questions. My response would be to find an alternate route where the traffic is light enough that I could move along at a faster clip. Or else to avoid the traffic entirely by traveling at a time when it’s not rush hour (or whatever). Or, maybe just stop at a hotel and finish the trip on the next day. In other words, cheat to beat the no-win scenario.
Living and working in the DC/VA/MD area, I’ve found that neither style makes much of a difference, frustration-wise. People are still very inconsistent, constantly change lanes for no reason and will find some way to cause a backup on a major roadway.
So in the end, I’ll go with whatever saves more time.
**Now if I can break the rules of the hypothetical, I’d just navigate using the fastest route or do what NeonMadman said.
I’m still getting used to my manual transmission. Stop-and-go traffic has quickly become my newest recurring nightmare.
It’s not really a valid poll when you bias the results by making one side faster.
If I were choosing between making my trip in sixty minutes or fifty-one minutes, I’d choose fifty-one minutes regardless of what the traffic was like.
If I were choosing between “stop-and-go” or “steady-but-slow” traffic and both trips would take the same amount of time, I’d choose steady-but-slow.
Stop-and-go traffic and manual transmission do not go well together. At least your left leg will get buff.
Easily the latter. Traffic aggravation costs me more than a little time.
I’m not a fan of driving but I don’t mind traffic at all. It forces me to slow down my thinking and enjoy whatever song is on, or the sunshine, or my company… to not have control over things is sometimes a boon for one’s mental health.
An alternate route with light traffic is pretty much guaranteed to be a much-longer-mileage route, and/or a lower-speed route for non-traffic-volume reasons (hills and twists, surfaces, intersections, speed limits). So this answer is really the same as mine: trade time for nicer driving.
Traffic around here usually slows down because of bad weather conditions. In that case, I’d rather go slow and steady than have to brake regularly and maybe not stop as expected.
Even if I didn’t own a manual, I would prefer stead-but-slow. Easier on the car, easier on the driver.
But note, even with biasing the results towards stop and go, most people still hate it, and won’t choose it.
Slow and steady traffic means that my brakes don’t wear out quite so fast.
Yes that was pretty much the point, although Blaster Master brought up something else interesting, his “break even point” on the time savings. I’d like to see where people draw that line.
I just clicked in to see if this was a sex thread.
Steady but slow ---- but in the interest of full disclosure everything I drive/ride is a manual shift.
There are actually several routes I routinely drive where I have selected a longer route vs the shorter simply to avoid traffic lights and traffic. I think my break-even point is about 5%, namely, if it takes more than 5% longer time to get there on the easy driving route I’ll take the other route instead.
spamforbrains: I agree…and, in fact, I would take the 15% of the OP. Stop and go traffic is dangerous. That’s how little bumper-thumper incidents happen. (And you might spill your coffee!)
A nice, gentle, dependable route is safer and less stressful.