Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: So how many hours do you spend in traffic each week?

This is topic So how many hours do you spend in traffic each week? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006861

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-20-2013, 08:19 PM:

Just curious. Not long ago over 6 hours per week of my life were irrecoverably wasted in traffic. Nowadays it is closer to 1-2 hours a week. How many hours per week do YOU figure you waste away forever in traffic?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-20-2013, 09:13 PM:

Almost none at the moment. I commute to my current job by train or (occasionally) bus and only drive when I want to get somewhere else. Commuting time for me is about 25 min. each way, five times per week, for a total of 250 minutes per week.

I don't really think of driving time as being wasted time--when I drove to work, it gave me a good chance to think and to listen to news on the radio. I am much less in touch with current events now that I rarely drive, for better or worse.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-20-2013, 09:21 PM:

Absolutely none. But then I live in a town of 3600. However, I assume the question is directed at those stuck in large metro areas. But there is life outside the large metro areas.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-20-2013, 10:28 PM:

I'm with you, Robert. I live in a town of 5000 people, in an apartment behind the screen in my theatre. So my commute to work literally consists of walking through a door. Plus I live "downtown", so all of the stores, banks and whatnot are within a three block radius of the theatre.

I rarely drive unless I'm (a) going out of town, or (b) have a big stack of freight to pick up at the bus depot. Neither occurs very frequently.

Living in the theatre is very convenient since I would otherwise be spending a lot of time here waiting around for couriers, the Pepsi truck, you-name-it. This way I just get on with my day and when someone shows up they either call my office number or ring the doorbell.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-20-2013, 11:17 PM:

If everything goes well (no trains on the tracks, no idiots driving 10mph in front of me, etc.) I can get from home to my day job in about 3 minutes.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 06-21-2013, 05:53 AM:

And now, the other end of the spectrum: from my home in New Jersey to my office on West 57th Street in Manhattan is about 18 miles one-way. Depending on weather and road construction the drive takes anywhere from 25 minutes to 3 hours. On average, to drive in the morning takes about 90 minutes, and probably an hour going home. The exception is Friday, when the drive home is about 90 minutes to two hours because of everybody headed out of the city for the weekend. I like to drive because of the flexibility, I don't like to be a slave to the train/bus schedules, but if I took mass transit I could possibly shave 15 minutes or so from that. On days like Rosh Hashanah or when the holiday shopping season starts, that's what I do, because driving and parking become almost unbearable.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-21-2013, 07:43 AM:

My commute time is about 6 minutes if I take I-44. It might be closer to 10 minutes if I take the stop & go route through town. It takes me about 15 minutes to get to my girlfriend's house on the east side of town.

Contrast that with my commute when I was going to School of Visual Arts in New York: 3 hours each day. 30 minutes on the S2 bus from Fort Wadsworth to Richmond Terrace & the Staten Island Ferry terminal. Another 30 minutes riding the ferry. And then another 30 minutes riding the subway from South Ferry/Battery Park to 23rd Street in Manhattan. 90 minutes each way Ugh. If I timed it just right I could take a city bus across the Verazzano Narrows Bridge into Bay Ridge Brooklyn and transfer to the R-train. Sometimes that would cut off 20 minutes of commute time, but depending on subway operations it could actually cost me more time.

Living in a smaller city/town does have some perks.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-21-2013, 08:48 AM:

It takes me about 5-7 minutes to get from my place downtown to the university. Traffic isn't usually bad when I'm heading in, unless it's a football gameday or commencement weekend.

AJG

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-21-2013, 09:12 AM:

About an hour in each direction, door to door, for the 26.2 mile-commute from York to Leeds. As I usually work from home on one day a week, that's about eight hours a week commuting. The morning trip I don't mind, because I do it before the rush hour, traffic is pretty light, I can listen to the Today programme and generally get my head straight. But the return trip is not pleasant: heavier traffic and at the end of a long day, when you just want to get home and wind down. Also, the main road linking the two cities, the A64, now carries a lot more traffic than it was designed to, with the result that one minor accident can extend the journey by hours. My record is 4 hours and 27 minutes for a single trip, on 1 December 2009. It suddenly started snowing like buggery around lunchtime (unpredicted: snow had not been forecast north of the Midlands), with the result that the entire workforce of Leeds got straight in their cars in an attempt to get home before it got bad. When I set off 3-4 hours later, all went well until a four-mile single carriageway section of the A64 just beyond the eastern outskirts of the city, when I ended up behind an accident (a lorry had skidded, overturned then been hit by multiple cars from both directions, completely blocking the road), and sat shivering in a stationary car for three hours until the police had cleared the wreckage. By that time there was a lot of snow on the road, and it was a second-gear crawl (passing dozens of broken down cars on the way) all the way home. Not fun.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-21-2013, 09:53 AM:

It would take serious work for me to get used to driving in the UK. The streets appear more narrow and buildings are often positioned pretty close to the road. Not many of the super highways there are built wide with many lanes like you'll see in some American and Canadian cities. Traffic snarls are more likely to happen. Top that off with higher fuel costs, increasing the expense of being stuck in a traffic jam.

Oh, and there's that whole driving on the left side of the road thing!

Back to my earlier post about commuting in New York, I wasn't sure if I was remembering the bus numbers on the routes I took for my commute back and forth to college. I pulled up a current MTA bus map for Staten Island. The numbers are all different!

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-21-2013, 10:54 AM:

My eight mile commute is about 15-20 minutes each way. I take a mainline US highway in, but rural 2-lane blacktop home. Doesn't really save time, but it's far less stressful.

If I REALLY want to avoid traffic, there's a route I can take that's largely dirt roads too.

So...3, 3 1/2 hours per week or so.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 06-21-2013, 12:37 PM:

Zero- Most of my assignments are within walking distance or a short city bus ride
from my house. Even if I decided to drive- I'd spend more time looking for parking
than it would take for me to get to the location. Or I'd have to pay for parking.
(and in most parts of the country you could rent a small apartment for
what it costs to pay for parking in San Francisco)

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-21-2013, 01:38 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
It would take serious work for me to get used to driving in the UK. The streets appear more narrow and buildings are often positioned pretty close to the road. Not many of the super highways there are built wide with many lanes like you'll see in some American and Canadian cities. Traffic snarls are more likely to happen. Top that off with higher fuel costs, increasing the expense of being stuck in a traffic jam.

Maybe Southern California is not typical of the rest of the United States, but I've driven there quite a bit now, and would say that traffic congestion is a broadly similar problem there and in most English cities. Driving out of LA on the I-10 in the rush hour is a similar experience to driving out of London on the M1: slow and frustrating! You're right: inner-city and suburban roads usually only have one lane in each direction, apart from major trunk roads, but there tends to be more public transport use, and so you don't have the same number of cars trying to use them.

As for the fuel cost, in terms of pence or cents per mile driven, I don't think there's much difference. European cars tend to have smaller, higher compression engines and manual transmissions, and therefore are more fuel-efficient, and the fuel itself is higher octane (95 RON is standard in most of Europe, with 98 as 'super'). High efficiency Diesel engines are a lot more common in cars, too. So the cars drink less (a typical modern family saloon or hatchback would get 45-50 miles to the US gallon), but the fuel itself is taxed up the wazoo (roughly $8-9 per US gallon in the UK). In the US, cars tend to be less efficient and Diesel-powered cars are very unusual, but the fuel itself is cheaper. My 2001 Ford Fiesta here (1.25 litre, four-cylinder engine) consumes around £32-33 worth to do 300 miles or so, whereas my fiancee's 1999 Honda Civic (1.6 litre, four-cylinder engine) in California drinks about $40-43 worth to cover the same distance. OK, the cars aren't directly comparable (the Civic is probably about a third larger and heavier), but the price difference isn't that big.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Oh, and there's that whole driving on the left side of the road thing!

I've never had a problem changing the side of the road on which I drive, unless the steering wheel side of the car is 'wrong'. I once took my own car through the tunnel to France, and that was really stressful, because if you're driving on the right and the driver's side of the car is also on the right, you're nearest the kerb, with limited visibility and having to rely on your offside wing mirror a lot. I actually find it a lot more stressful as a pedestrian than as a driver in countries that drive on the right, because I'm instinctively looking in the wrong direction before starting to cross a road!

The things that took some getting used to about US driving for me were big intersections instead of roundabouts, stop sign etiquette, 'right on red' and automatic transmissions, which I still don't like.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-21-2013, 01:47 PM:

My daily commute is 15 mins each way 7 days a week right now. When I lived in Newburgh NY and worked at the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan my commute could be 1.5 hours or 4 hours depending on the traffic if I drove. Luckily the metro north rail road is one of the best passenger rail roads in the country for frequency and on time service. An afternoon "super express" from Grand Central first stop Beacon (my stop) only took 70 minutes.

Posted by Louie Gonsalves (Member # 7097) on 06-21-2013, 01:56 PM:

10 hours per week, and that's a good week. Bad weeks can add 5 more hours per week.

At least I have a job.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-21-2013, 02:15 PM:

Leo - just curious, why don't you like automatic transmissions?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-21-2013, 02:15 PM:

About 30 minutes on the bus each way to and from work five days per week, so about five hours. I occasionally have to work Saturdays, but that doesn't happen very often these days, and very occasionally on a Sunday, probably about once each year now.

Scott, why can't you think, listen to the radio, read or whatever, on the train or the bus? I always go through my e-mail on the way in, usually on a smartphone, sometimes on a laptop. Laptops are difficult if the bus is full enough for somebody to be sitting next to me.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-21-2013, 03:14 PM:

Well, if you're just counting the commute to and from work, I live 3/4 of a mile from the theatre. That can take up to 5 mins each way.

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 06-21-2013, 08:31 PM:

I live about 10 miles from work and have about a 20 minute commute. Works out to 40 minutes a day, 5 times a week, so 3 hours, 20 minutes.
Occasionally traffic will add the odd five minutes, here and there, but not often enough to drive me crazy.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-21-2013, 09:40 PM:

2.5 miles from home to work at the Tom Ridge Center. Five to ten minutes driving. Twenty minutes by bicycle.

7.5 miles from home to Mercyhurst. Twenty to thirty minutes driving. I don't ride my bicycle to Mercyhurst. The route goes through a couple of busy, major intersections and drivers are often openly hostile toward bicyclists. After spending four days in the hospital and a month recuperating at home due to being hit by a car, I'm not about to take the risk.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-22-2013, 04:36 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Leo - just curious, why don't you like automatic transmissions?

The feeling of being out of control of the decision as to when to change gear. If I'm approaching a steep hill 100 yards in the distance at, say, 25mph and accelerating, an automatic gearbox will change up as I approach it, leaving the engine struggling until either it realises what's going on and changes back down again, or I override it. Likewise, if you're approaching a hairpin bend, it's going to leave you in the wrong gear for accelerating away from the other side in most situations. They're OK for urban driving on the straight and flat (e.g. driving two blocks and then stopping, repeated for 5-10 miles or so), but on roads that are twisty and/or of varying gradients, they just make the job of driving a lot harder, for me at any rate. It's probably because I just don't have much experience in them (learnt to drive in 1994 and didn't drive an automatic for the first time until 2009), and with a bit of practice would instinctively get used to when to leave it in D and when to use it in override mode, effectively as a manual but without a foot-operated clutch.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-22-2013, 10:59 PM:

I owned and operated a photographic portrait studio from July 1965 until May 1998 in Waipahu, my home town .At that time, It only took me about ten minutes to drive to the studio which was about a mile and a half away from my home. There were many times during the week when I had to drive to Honolulu on assignments or to pick up supplies and often would have to drive home or to the studio during rush hour traffic on the freeway. Commute time would be about an hour and a half but I did not mind because I used to tune my radio to my local public radio station and listen to classical music and their many excellent news programs that helped reduced the stress of driving through rush hour traffic. Because I am now semi retired and seldom drive a car anymore, I never have to deal with rush hour traffic because almost all of my trips into the city and back is on a city bus and most of the time, it is during the morning. Because I am a senior citizen, I am eligible to buy an annual unlimited bus pass for only $30.00 and that is quite a deal and is the reason I use the bus more than driving now.

-Claude

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-23-2013, 01:32 AM:

I've never driven an automatic, and haven't driven anything for over thirty years now. I've only ever driven the Toyota which I learned in, and my only car, a 1967 Morris 1100. I think it would just feel wrong to not be changing gear, but I suppose I'd get used to it if I ever did drive one, which is very unlikely.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-23-2013, 10:17 AM:

I'm guessing that your Morris 1100 didn't have synchromesh, and therefore not only was the gearbox manual, but you had to double-declutch as well. My first car was a 1979 Ford Fiesta (the very first year of the mk. I, and built at Dagenham), which had a weird sort of half-assed synchromesh. You didn't have to double-declutch when moving sequentially up the gears, but you did when changing down or moving up but not sequentially (e.g. if accelerating heavily away after overtaking a tractor and then changing directly from second to fourth after pulling back in). I still instinctively double-declutch now, even though with today's gearboxes it's totally unnecessary. I once drove my cousin's Morris Minor Traveller (late '60s, but can't rememeber the precise year), which he lovingly restored over several years. It even had a magneto and a starting handle for use if the battery was flat! That had no synchromesh whatsoever, and so you had to double-declutch on each and every gear change.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Commute time would be about an hour and a half but I did not mind because I used to tune my radio to my local public radio station and listen to classical music and their many excellent news programs that helped reduced the stress of driving through rush hour traffic.

I tend not to listen to music while driving, because I'd be afraid of concentrating on it too much and not on the road enough. One of the things I like about driving in the US is there are lots of talk radio stations to choose from, that are stimulating enough to lessen the boredom of chugging through miles and miles of desert freeway, but not demanding enough of your attention that you can't switch off from them if you suddenly need to. In Britain there are only two national speech stations that you can receive pretty much anywhere on the road: BBC Radio Four, which is a highbrow speech/documentary/drama station (if it's broadcasting something interesting, great, but more often than not it's a self-righteous, preachy documentary about global warming, or a depressing play laced with feminist propaganda), and Radio Five, which is 90% a sports coverage station (if it's cricket or Formula One I'm fine with it, but otherwise no thanks).

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-23-2013, 10:56 AM:

When the master cylinder was failing in my car you had to double clutch in order to shift gears.

The seals were failing and the cylinder wasn't pumping enough fluid to throw the clutch far enough out of engagement. When the engine was hot, that was the only way to shift gears at all.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-23-2013, 11:32 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
I've never had a problem changing the side of the road on which I drive, unless the steering wheel side of the car is 'wrong'. I once took my own car through the tunnel to France, and that was really stressful, because if you're driving on the right and the driver's side of the car is also on the right, you're nearest the kerb, with limited visibility and having to rely on your offside wing mirror a lot.

I had the same kind of experiences. Taking my own car across the channel was a really bad move. The last time I had to drive there, I took a rental and that worked a lot better, although I was kind of anxious at first to drive with the steering wheel on the "wrong" side.

quote:
I actually find it a lot more stressful as a pedestrian than as a driver in countries that drive on the right, because I'm instinctively looking in the wrong direction before starting to cross a road!

Since we're in the majority, we reserve the right not to paint "look left" on every curb [Wink]

quote: Mike Blakesley
Leo - just curious, why don't you like automatic transmissions?

Although automatic transmissions are getting more regular around here, they're still in the minority.

My girlfriend's car has automatic transmission, I tend to drive "with a stick". I don't have a real preference, if you're used to drive with manual transmission, you're almost on automatic pilot, switching gears is something that's almost a subconscious process.

The most annoying thing while switching from MT to AT is the tendency for your left foot to hit hard on the brake while trying to locate the clutch every time you want to stop.

I don't have a real problem with the "lack of control" for flat or slightly hilly terrain, most modern automatic transmissions seem to be reasonably intelligent. The only exception is mountainous terrain, even if you put it in "3" or "1", the lack of control in those situations can be frustrating.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-23-2013, 12:39 PM:

In the movie, "The World's Fastest Indian" there's a scene where Paul Rodriguez shouts at Anthony Hopkins, "The driver always sits closest to the center of the road!"

It's a funny scene. The rest of the movie is worthwhile, too. [Smile]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-23-2013, 02:29 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
I'm guessing that your Morris 1100 didn't have synchromesh, and therefore not only was the gearbox manual, but you had to double-declutch as well. My first car was a 1979 Ford Fiesta (the very first year of the mk. I, and built at Dagenham), which had a weird sort of half-assed synchromesh. You didn't have to double-declutch when moving sequentially up the gears, but you did when changing down or moving up but not sequentially (e.g. if accelerating heavily away after overtaking a tractor and then changing directly from second to fourth after pulling back in). I still instinctively double-declutch now, even though with today's gearboxes it's totally unnecessary. I once drove my cousin's Morris Minor Traveller (late '60s, but can't rememeber the precise year), which he lovingly restored over several years. It even had a magneto and a starting handle for use if the battery was flat! That had no synchromesh whatsoever, and so you had to double-declutch on each and every gear change.

The 1100 had syncromesh, except on first. It was an odd car in many ways, transverse engine, front wheel drive, positive earth electrics, the gearbox was underneath the engine, with lots of rodding between it and the lever. It also had an odd suspension system which had to be de-pressurised before doing any major work, and then pumped up again afterwards.

The Toyota which I learned in had a short lever with a very positive change; the 100 was horrible in comparison, very sloppy, and often difficult to get into a gear. I was once driving home and when I changed gear at a junction the lever came away in my hand! I managed to shove it back in and get into second, but didn't dare to move it again, and so had to drive the whole way home, which fortunately wasn't far, in that gear. The following morning I went to the local garage who told me that it was quite common for that to happen on the 1100, the lever was held in by a stell plate with two bolts in it, and those bolts often work loose. Great.

I never wanted to drive, I only ever learned at the insistance of mother who wanted taking to places such as the old 'Orange Luxuary Coaches' station in Brixton. I think I drove less thann 1000 miles in the several years that I had the car, and when car and mother both expired at about the same time I stopped driving. I absolutly hated it, and the roads are even worse now than they were then. I'd far rather leave somebody else to do the driving.

I don't know what 'double-declutching' is, though I have heard of it.

The old British Rail Diesel trains from the '50s had an interesting gearbox; I don't know why a smaller version of it wasn't designed for cars. It's a Wilson constant mesh epicyclic box. There are four gears, in the top one all of the gears are locked together and there is a direct 1:1 drive through the box. The other three gears are provided by three epicyclic gear systems, with the one to be used selected by tightening a brake band around it. To change gear, other than to fourth, one brake band is loosened and another is tightened. As suggested by the name, all of the gears are constantly meshed. There's an automatic wear adjuster thich takes up any slack in the brake bands. It's a very simple system, and seems to work well.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-23-2013, 03:30 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
I don't know what 'double-declutching' is, though I have heard of it.

If you don't have a synchronized manual transmission (which has been standard for at least 25 years), you need to first clutch and switch to neutral, adjust the engine RPM roughly to the RPM of the desired gear and then clutch again and switch to the desired gear.

I've only tried it once, it's not for everybody I guess... It's a bit like running changeovers, doing it right takes some practice [Razz]

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 06-23-2013, 03:51 PM:

My commute recently tripled last month when I moved. It rose from a 5 minute walk to a 15 minute walk to work!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-23-2013, 04:20 PM:

Once you shift out of gear, into neutral, you have to momentarily engage the clutch so that the drive side of the transmission is rotating at the same speed as the driven side in order to prevent grinding as you shift into the next gear.

Modern automobile transmissions have extra gears that keep everything synchronized so double clutching is not necessary.

Many large trucks don't have synchronized transmissions so, depending on the vehicle, you might have to double clutch but passenger cars are universally synchronized, these days.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-23-2013, 05:09 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
The old British Rail Diesel trains from the '50s had an interesting gearbox; I don't know why a smaller version of it wasn't designed for cars. It's a Wilson constant mesh epicyclic box. There are four gears, in the top one all of the gears are locked together and there is a direct 1:1 drive through the box. The other three gears are provided by three epicyclic gear systems, with the one to be used selected by tightening a brake band around it. To change gear, other than to fourth, one brake band is loosened and another is tightened. As suggested by the name, all of the gears are constantly meshed. There's an automatic wear adjuster thich takes up any slack in the brake bands. It's a very simple system, and seems to work well.

Sounds like the predecessor to the continuously variable transmission, which is just starting to become standard on some seriously expensive luxury cars. I've only driven a CVT once, in a rental (free upgrade, as they didn't have the boring compact I'd booked) for a couple of days. I only ever drove it in inner city streets and never got a chance to see how it would cope with serious bends and gradients, though.

Interesting that the basic principle was understood and implemented over half a century ago.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-23-2013, 05:19 PM:

It has even been in production over half a century ago and not only for luxury cars [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-23-2013, 11:18 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
I tend not to listen to music while driving, because I'd be afraid of concentrating on it too much and not on the road enough.

If I'm driving in "regular" highway situations I tend to have some form of entertainment on the stereo. But if I get into a situation with icy roads, or in a lot of traffic I'll turn the stereo off. It definitely can be distracting. Don't even get me started on these idiots with cellphones.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-24-2013, 11:17 AM:

I always drove automatics until last december when I bought my most recent car a 99 Mustang GT 5-Speed with a short throw shifter and a bunch of other assorted mods (the car was built from the ground up as a project car by the previous owner) I had only once ever driven s standard in my life so it took some getting used to but after a month or two I don't think I would ever buy an automatic again.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-24-2013, 01:36 PM:

quote:
Sounds like the predecessor to the continuously variable transmission, which is just starting to become standard on some seriously expensive luxury cars. I've only driven a CVT once, in a rental (free upgrade, as they didn't have the boring compact I'd booked) for a couple of days. I only ever drove it in inner city streets and never got a chance to see how it would cope with serious bends and gradients, though.

This past weekend my girlfriend bought a new 2013 Nissan Altima 3.5 SV that has a Continuously Variable Transmission. Nissan seems to be putting their Xtronic CVT in all their vehicles, even the entry level Versa. The dealer in Wichita Falls had a $100,000 Nissan GT-R in the showroom. I'm not sure what kind of transmission that race car had, but I did enjoy looking at its 600 horsepower twin turbo charged V6 engine.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-24-2013, 03:40 PM:

I don't have a commute any more, but being stuck in traffic can make one rethink the choice of a manual transmission...

I've got a 96 Mustang GT with a stick and I love going through the gears, but sitting in stop-and-go traffic is so annoying that I would not have a stick-shift in a car that I used for commuting through traffic.

That said, I don't think I could stomach being stuck in traffic twice a day, every day. I don't know how people do it! I would find some way to make public transportation work for me and then use that down time to zone out, check E-Mails and RSS feeds, or just listen to music/audiobooks. Just the idea of spending hours every day stuck in traffic makes me feel unwell.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 06-24-2013, 06:32 PM:

When I lived in San Francisco it took me total of an hour each day. I thought it would be worse moving to Oakland since any time you pass the Bay Bridge approach you should just kiss your ass goodbye. But no... 20-min each way. So per week: 3.5 hours?

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-25-2013, 08:14 AM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
but being stuck in traffic can make one rethink the choice of a manual transmission...

The only thing that gets to me about getting stuck in traffic with a manual transmission is the people who feel they will get to their destination faster if they get their car as close as physically possible to yours. The last thing I want to do is roll backwards into someone. I have gotten pretty good about letting out the clutch just enough to not allow the car to roll backwards (even on a steep hill) without stalling out before I take my foot off the brake. I know some people who use their parking brake on hills but I find it to be a little difficult. My only concern is incresaed wear on the friction disk and pilot bearing that you get from "riding the clutch" so I much prefer if someones leaves me a little room to just take my foot off the brake put it on the gas and engage the clutch with just a tiny bit of backwards motion.

So to all of you automatic transmission drivers out there... Please leave your fellow motorist a little room in traffic there is no need to have your front bumper practically touching the rear bumper of the car in front of you. Thank You! [Smile]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-25-2013, 12:29 PM:

I was taught never to ride the clutch or to leave it disengaged for prolonged periods, as these are basically quick and efficient ways to wear them out. I always go into neutral, clutch up and handbrake on when stopped in traffic. It's not such a problem here, because the traffic light sequence pauses on amber for 1-2 seconds when going from red to green, not an instant red-green switch as in California; so your reaction time doesn't have to be instant when setting off.

The other thing that irritates me about people who leave their foot on the footbrake while stopped in traffic is that their brake lights can dazzle the driver behind, especially if it's dark outside and they have a high level brake light. There's also another safety issue: without wanting to sound overly morbid, if I'm stopped at at pedestrian crossing with the car in D and held stationary on the footbrake alone (or, in a manual, in first gear with the clutch and footbrake both pressed down), then if I have a masssive heart attack, I will probably release my foot from the brake, the car will roll forward and I'll take any pedestrian who is on the crossing at the time with me into the next world. At least if I'm in neutral with the handbrake applied, I'll just be me.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-25-2013, 02:00 PM:

No need for a massive heart attack; a sudden severe bout of sneezing, as I have from time to time, would do it. I don't think it involved a stationary vehicle held on the footbrake, but there was a story in the news last week about a driver running into a group of people outside a school, said to have been caused by coughing.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-27-2013, 10:12 AM:

I did not intend to imply that I sit with the clutch partially enaged or disengaged. I usually will shift into neutral and on most roads without a steep grade I can sit in neutral without a foot on the brake. If I am on a hill I will keep my foot on the brake with the car in neutral until I am able to proceed then I will shift into first and partially engage the clutch enough to prevent rolling backwards without stalling while I give it some gas and fully engage the clutch. This allows me to prevent my car from rolling backwards on hills.

I could see the point of the brake lights if most of the vehicles on the road in the US weren't automatics in which people sit in drive with their foot on the brake at stop lights.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-28-2013, 01:39 AM:

The way to solve that problem would be to fit some sort of timing device whereby the brake light automatically goes out after, say, ten seconds of the car being stationary and the brake pedal remaining pressed. That way the brake light will do its job (alert the driver behind that you're slowing down while you're still moving), but it won't dazzle the driver behind while you're waiting at the lights. Once you let your foot off the brake and the car begins to move, that resets the timer.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-30-2013, 10:40 AM:

Leo, that is a GREAT idea. I find that sometimes people are so sensory over loaded that they don't even realize your brake lights are illuminated. I have been rear ended sitting at a red light by someone who claimed they never saw my brake lights even though they were functioning properly.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 06-30-2013, 11:11 AM:

Add to that, there should be a modification that turns on the headlights when the wipers are activated. A simple diode would do the trick.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 06-30-2013, 12:20 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
The way to solve that problem would be to fit some sort of timing device whereby the brake light automatically goes out after, say, ten seconds of the car being stationary and the brake pedal remaining pressed.

quote: Sean McKinnon
Leo, that is a GREAT idea.

Sorry, that is a very STUPID idea. Consider this:

There are plenty of times where, even here in L.A. with all it's horrendous traffic, I have been at a full stop for an extended period of time either on surface roads or the freeway with NO ONE behind me.

Now, have someone approach the back of my car/truck at speed, seeing no brake lights and they WILL automatically assume that I am either moving or about to move. The end result will be ugly for all parties involved.

Tell you what Leo, you be the first to outfit that kit on your car and if you survive at least three years without getting your car totaled, I will change my comment about it from "stupid" to simply "really bad." [Big Grin]

That said, my average commute here in L.A. is about 2025 miles and I spend at least 2.5-3 hours per day round trip.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-30-2013, 10:12 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
my average commute here in L.A. is about 2025 miles

So....you must live in Denver or Boise...? [Big Grin]

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 06-30-2013, 11:17 PM:

LOL that should be 20-25 miles, I forgot the dash. [Big Grin]

Funny your should mention Boise, I would love to get some property in Idaho and retire there.

My friend and landlord has a cabin up at Henry's Lake, I went there a few years ago to change out his deathtrap electric service. Loved it up there, very peaceful, most relaxed I had been in years.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-01-2013, 04:30 AM:

quote: Tony Bandeira Jr
Now, have someone approach the back of my car/truck at speed, seeing no brake lights and they WILL automatically assume that I am either moving or about to move. The end result will be ugly for all parties involved.

I always apply the handbrake and release the footbrake while stopped at lights (i.e. no brake lights showing), and have never had that happened to me in 19 years of driving. In the dark, tail lights will still be showing. I suppose that could be more of a risk in sparsely populated rural areas, though.

quote: Rick Raskin
Add to that, there should be a modification that turns on the headlights when the wipers are activated. A simple diode would do the trick.

Sort of agreed, but in light and/or intermittent drizzle I guess there might be the risks that headlights would be constantly going on and off (with the wipers).

In Sweden, dipped beam headlights have to be on by law whenever the car is moving. That's why you can't turn them off in Volvos - the dipped beam headlights are on whenever the engine is running. Can't be good for fuel efficiency, having to generate 100w or so of power even in the middle of the day when you don't need it (I reckon at a rough guess that on my Fiesta, having the headlights on costs 1-2 miles per gallon).

I've noticed that some newer rental cars I've driven over the last couple of years have a light meter built into the headlamp assembly: the headlights have an auto mode, in which they will automatically come on when the ambient light level goes below a certain point. I quite like that idea: if everybody had them and they were set to a standard lux level, it would get rid of the situation whereby during the hour or two around dusk and dawn, some people are driving around with headlights on and others not (thereby creating a hazard, as you have to be looking carefully for the unlit ones).

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-02-2013, 04:28 PM:

I hadn't thought about it at first but I'm certain that proper design would solve the intermittent wiper/headlight issue.

In the US many states require headlights on when the wipers are active. I'm simply amazed at how many people still haven't figured it out. Or, maybe its just the atrocious driving culture here in the East.

BTW: Commutes here in the DC area can easily average 2 hours each way. When I was part of that madness I'd average about 70 minutes on a good day. Thankfully, commuter rail arrived and kept me sane for the final 12 years of my commuting.

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 07-02-2013, 04:56 PM:

My home is 4 minutes of no traffic to my shop. The theater is 17 minutes of exceptionally light rural traffic with two stop signs from my home. I am blessed. My wife, however spends 110 minutes per day in the car 180 days a year (teacher).

Posted by Geoff Newitt (Member # 6663) on 07-05-2013, 01:26 PM:

I live in the middle of England - more or less - bringing 17 of our 21 cinemas within three hours drive. So a typical day, if there were such a thing, might include up to six hours in the car.

The epicyclic gearbox has a long history; I've an idea it was at least an option on the Model T Ford. Leyland made a hydraulically controlled automatic version (the Hydracyclic) for various bus chassis, at least as far back as the 70s.

And I've noticed more car builders are producing vehicles with 'daylight sidelights', usually LEDs...

Posted by Christopher Crouch (Member # 3784) on 07-06-2013, 02:39 AM:

After a recent move, I'm now averaging 10 to 12 hours a week. A few years back, it was barely thirty minutes a week. While one would think this dramatic increase in travel time would be a negative, I've actually found the greater distance between work and home to have a positive impact on my overall well being. The primary reason being that the increased distance has allowed me to better separate my home life from work.

When I was living down the street from work, I found myself spending excessive amounts of time at the theatre and constantly stopping in on my "days off". Once I created some distance between the two, I tended to stay away from work when I was off and began living a more well rounded life.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-06-2013, 11:36 PM:

Surprisingly, I'm fairly good at taking a night off from work. I don't take off too many nights from the theater, but when I am off I make it a point not to go there or even call unless there's some kind of emergency.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-07-2013, 06:33 PM:

quote: Rick Raskin
In the US many states require headlights on when the wipers are active. I'm simply amazed at how many people still haven't figured it out. Or, maybe its just the atrocious driving culture here in the East.

I've just (as in, last week) got back to Southern California to spend the summer with my fiancee, and the intervening few days have reinforced my belief that atrocious driving is something that transcends national, regional and cultural boundaries: anywhere in the world the horseless carriage has reached, the braindead driver arrived along with it.

The local variant I've noticed most often here is that everyone ignores the California state law which prohibits suction cap-mounted GPS units (or suction cap-mounted anything, for that matter) on the windshield. The first time I ever drove in California, about 10 years ago, I bought the California map data download for my British GPS and took the unit with me, having been forewarned that the rental car companies charge an arm and a leg to supply one with the car. At the Hertz desk I was asked if I wanted a GPS, explained politely that there was no need, as I had my own, and was told in response that I wasn't allowed to mount it on the windshield with a suction cap, or I'd probably be pulled over by the CHP. No problem - it stuck onto the glovebox quite happily, and off I went. But in the years since I've seen hundreds of cars with suction caps in their windshields, and furthermore the auto parts stores around here (e.g. O'Reilly's and Pep Boys) all sell GPS units with suction caps.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-07-2013, 07:59 PM:

It's not entirely true that you cannot suction-cup a GPS to your windshield in Cali. I did it for years until I got a smart phone with a talking maps app. The rule is that you have to keep it to the very lower left (driver's side) corner of the windshield, or the lower corner of the passenger's side as long as it doesn't obstruct an airbag deploying.