If I'm bored, sure. Otherwise it's to the nearest 5 minutes

I don't generally read them to the minute very often. For the most part, 5 min increments are close enough for what I need, most of the time. If I do need a more precise time, I'm usually already closely watching the clock and it's just addition (was 1341 when I started this, now it's 1345.).

If I need to get the precise time, cold, than it's as simple as: closest 5 min tick, then add or subtract minute ticks till you get to the minute hand

Eventually you get to the point where it's not something you consciously think about. You just look at the clock and then pattern recognition takes over and you just know what time it is.

I would call that down to the seconds accuracy. Minute accuracy is like plus or minus 59 seconds. I mean if something is not using ntp or such it can be off by a minute easily enough.

Imo for most applications that I'd be using an analog clock for a time difference of even up to 5-10 minutes is irrelevant. If I really needed up to the minute accuracy I'm using a digital clock with the seconds counting down

There are usually ticks for every five minutes, most clocks have ticks for each minute. It won’t officially become the next minute until the second hand hits 12.

If you get used to looking at analog clock with minute ticks, you start to get a sense of spacing. If you subdivide the interval of a clock with only five minute ticks, you know what time it is.

It depends, but in most cases I can't determine the exact minute on an analog clock. In practice, the quickest way is to choose the worse case.

You might look into getting a slow watch.
It doesn't really matter exactly what minute it is mostly.

I wear an analog with a blank face so I just round to the latest 5 minute increment. But if I need the exact time I just check my phone or another clock/watch with a numbered face

I think of analog time as kinda a pie chart telling me how much of the minute and hour that's elapsed. So I don't see 13:45, I see 75% past one o'clock.

Does that make sense?

I grew up with analog clocks and can read them at a glance.

For the most part, I don't really care precisely about minute. E.g. the analog clock in my kitchen is only used to tell me that it's "roughly 2 minutes past 5 soon" and it's enough for me to put the potatoes on.

If I need to know precisely whether it's 16:03 vs 16:04, I use a digital clock. Though mostly because my analog clocks are not precisely synced at all times.

Back when analog was the norm, nobody cared about a minute here or there unless they had some specific profession. Like, the bus came "15:15 ish maybe 5 minutes early maybe 10 minutes late". Everyone's clock were off by at least 2 minutes anyway.

Today in the digital age, the bus schedule says "15:17"

Fun fact - I was 23 and studying for my MSc before I learned how to read analogue clocks.

If you're after speed, all I can suggest is that you've got to embrace the old-people habit of using the nearest 5 minute mark and accept that level of accuracy.

• "Quarter past"
• "It's just gone quarter-past"
• "It's nearly twenty-past"
• "Twenty past"

It takes time to get used to it, no pun intended. Everything is easier with practice.

Those of us who grew up with analog clocks can read them at a glance. If you are new to them, it'll probably take you a few months (or more) of daily use before you can tell time at a glance.

Memorize visually how far into a new minute marker the hand is when a new minute ticks over. So the moment it switches from 9:22 to 9:23, is the hand directly over the line, or maybe aligned on the left edge? Then use that as a mental model for future comparisons