There's no need to make fun of me.
I am grappling with similar kinds of information as you (the charts on blockchain.info are good), and frequently, I request that if there is other information available, then that information should be provided. If you have some constructive criticism or better information than the charts on blockchain.info, then please provide it.
Sorry for making fun of you (I couldn't resist). But average block size isn't a good metric. Empty blocks (and also soft limits) skew the result a lot, that's the reason why ChartBuddy takes that into account. Also, like in the rush hour, there are particular time windows that traffic spills over, e.g. when only 3 or 4 blocks in an hour are found. So there are isolated periods of delays, and the required fees go up and down with it. On top of that, not all wallets have good fee prediction algorithms (and some don't at all -- I think blockchain.info still uses a flat fee).
All this explains there are some users who have bad experiences, while other don't have any. If I send txs, I use my Mycelium wallet, which works like a breeze. Like you, I never have serious delays. I do sometimes pay high fees, though. My record fee has been 128 sat/B (0.000621 BTC in total) on 21 January.
But that doesn't mean that there's no capacity problem developing. Nor that there are no bad user experiences because of it. And those damage the reputation of Bitcoin. New users have to know too much of the workings of Bitcoin to protect themselves from having a bad experience. About transaction sizes, rate per byte, double checking cointape.com . It's damaging.
Saying "there's no problem (yet) -- so no need to worry" just doesn't cut it. We saw it coming for a year already, it's happening now, and it will get worse.
