You look up to enjoy a starry summer sky but instead see a flash. For most of us, this is thunderstorm season. You finish dinner at a restaurant and it's suddenly pouring. You gaze at your car parked not so far away. Should you walk or run?
Believe it or not, scientists have debated this for years. If you run you get there faster, so less rain hits you. But meanwhile you're slamming more frontwise into the droplets, making them preferentially strike your chest and legs. If you'd walked, they'd mostly hit your head and shoulders, which offer less surface.
Is this logic correct? Which strategy results in you being dryer?
In the late eighties, an Italian physicist calculated that running through a rain storm would keep you 10% drier than walking. Barely any difference. Hardly worth the effort, especially since you'd be more likely to slip and fall. Then in 1995 a British researcher decided that walking is better, because the drenching of your entire front side would negate the slight benefit of getting there faster.
The next year, two North Carolina climatologists put the whole issue to an actual test. They each wore identical clothing and water measuring equipment. One of them ran 100 meters through a downpour while the other simultaneously walked. Result? The one who walked was 40% wetter.
Bottom line: run to the car.
But you already instinctively knew that, didn't you?