Cyclist visibility

[John B.]

My wife decreed, this morning, that if I wanted to eat I would have to
take her shopping.

Shopping here in Phuket involves an 80 Km. trip and visiting a large
number of stores. Luckily some of them have interesting things for me
to look at while my "better half" replenishes the pantry.

But to make a long story short when returning home we overtook a group
of 7 cyclists. All Thai's they were correctly riding down the L.H.
side of the road as the law requires and they were flying flags.

Six of the seven were riding "road bikes" and one was riding (whatever
you call them) a road bike with straight handlebars. All seven were
wearing the usual black cycling shorts and what appeared to be
bicycling shoes and clipless pedals but instead of colorful jerseys
they were wearing sloppy white tee-shirts.

But what made them distinctive was that they each had a small "flag
pole" attached to the top of their helmets with a flag attached.

The "flag poles" appeared to be approximately 12 - 16 inches tall and
while I couldn't see how the "flag poles" were attached to what seemed
to be normal cycling helmets they were flying small flags. Perhaps 8 x
10 inches in size, six were flying the Thai National Flag and one was
flying "The King's Flag" - a banner which represents the king.

The interesting thing was that while the flags didn't make the riders
more visible from directly behind them but as they were overtaken they
became very noticeable (Guys with flags on their heads!)

Perhaps this innovation could be implemented as a bicycle safety
feature.

I can also see a real marketing potential here. Whippy little flag
poles with a method of attaching them to a helmet. One could fly all
manner of innovative "flags". One could advertise one's candidate for
president or a notice that "my bike shop is better then your bike
shop" or even a notice that "this cyclist has a right to the road!"

As a safety device they certainly do make the cyclist more noticeable
and in addition that can be used as advertisement for almost anything.
Imagine a thousand people cycling down the road, each with a flag on
their head announcing "100 miles for Bellyaches" or whatever the cause
of the month happens to be.

Perhaps instead of paying for the privilege of riding 100 miles one
could convince the Organizer to pay the riders for advertising their
cause :-) (or at least free water)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

what foods did you buy ? costs ?

https://goo.gl/4HKvuB

https://goo.gl/mYuaMx

riders ride head down...so the pole goes over the occipital...there's a liability problem here.

[Frank Krygowski]

If Scharf can get a commission on them, we'll see them touted here very
soon.

After all, if it makes a cyclist more visible, then any cyclist would be
foolish not to use one, right?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Hey Frank, the apocalypse is near: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/04/dead_cyclists_family_sues_port.html

Here's the spot in a ratty part of NoPo. https://www.google.com/maps/@45.570134,-122.6186356,3a,75y,299.95h,56.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOCQB1qcFvMGetLkF8tEpDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Now Andre is going to go nuts on the American justice system -- Go Andre, go! The driver probably had a $25/50K policy -- or no insurance -- and the only option is to find someone with deep pockets.

I'm always amazed at the comments when these stories come out. Its the usual "how could bikes possibly ride on that road!" Well, it's a wide road with a pretty continuous shoulder and its a direct route and flat -- and it's probably where the cyclist needed to be. It's legal to be on that road, and motorists are required to pass with adequate room, etc., etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>
> But to make a long story short when returning home we overtook a group
> of 7 cyclists. All Thai's they were correctly riding down the L.H.
> side of the road as the law requires and they were flying flags.
>
> Six of the seven were riding "road bikes" and one was riding (whatever
> you call them) a road bike with straight handlebars. All seven were
> wearing the usual black cycling shorts and what appeared to be
> bicycling shoes and clipless pedals but instead of colorful jerseys
> they were wearing sloppy white tee-shirts.
>
> But what made them distinctive was that they each had a small "flag
> pole" attached to the top of their helmets with a flag attached.
>

> The interesting thing was that while the flags didn't make the riders
> more visible from directly behind them but as they were overtaken they
> became very noticeable (Guys with flags on their heads!)
>

As you said the flags on the helmet did not make them visible from behind. Just from the side when you already knew they were there. Not sure that counts as making them more visible. Visibility is yes-no, on-off, live-dead. There is not really any degree of visibility. If you see the cyclist, you see him. You cannot see him, visible, and then say I did not see him. You see him or you do not see him. So the flags on the helmet did not make the cyclist visible. You saw the cyclists from behind, knew they were there, drove beside them, and saw the flags on the helmet. The flags did not make the cyclist more visible from behind.

Sloppy white t-shirts. I suppose white shirts in a green landscape are visible. Assume jungle Thailand is green in mid spring or mid fall, whichever side of the equator you happen to be on. Better than black shirts.

I did not know Thailand followed the British system of driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 2:41:02 PM UTC-4, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
Snipped>

> I did not know Thailand followed the British system of driving on the wrong side of the road.

Unfortunatel a LOT of bicyclists in North America also follow the British system of riding on the wrong side of the road. I guess they're like this guy.

As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on Highway 401. Please be careful!"

"Darn!," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

Cheers

[AMuzi]

Roman Empire= left side
Britain Thailand Japan etc= left side.
Revisionist traffic theory= right side.
You're welcome.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[avag...@gmail.com]

Frank,

is your concern with opioids related to the musician's overdose ?

[avag...@gmail.com]

1 April, 1971

Florida Tourists both sides

South Americans unknown

Oregonians right mostly with occasional swerves into your lane

New Yorkers your lane is my lane

[John B.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
<russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>
>> But to make a long story short when returning home we overtook a group
>> of 7 cyclists. All Thai's they were correctly riding down the L.H.
>> side of the road as the law requires and they were flying flags.
>>
>> Six of the seven were riding "road bikes" and one was riding (whatever
>> you call them) a road bike with straight handlebars. All seven were
>> wearing the usual black cycling shorts and what appeared to be
>> bicycling shoes and clipless pedals but instead of colorful jerseys
>> they were wearing sloppy white tee-shirts.
>>
>> But what made them distinctive was that they each had a small "flag
>> pole" attached to the top of their helmets with a flag attached.
>>
>> The interesting thing was that while the flags didn't make the riders
>> more visible from directly behind them but as they were overtaken they
>> became very noticeable (Guys with flags on their heads!)
>>
>
>As you said the flags on the helmet did not make them visible from behind. Just from the side when you already knew they were there. Not sure that counts as making them more visible. Visibility is yes-no, on-off, live-dead. There is not really any degree of visibility. If you see the cyclist, you see him. You cannot see him, visible, and then say I did not see him. You see him or you do not see him. So the flags on the helmet did not make the cyclist visible. You saw the cyclists from behind, knew they were there, drove beside them, and saw the flags on the helmet. The flags did not make the cyclist more visible from behind.
>

But one of the major complaints voiced here is a vehicle that "passed
too close to me". The flags make the cyclist much more noticeable as
the overtaking vehicle closes in on the bike and thus might save some
lives. Which, after all, is the usual argument for bicycle helmets.

>Sloppy white t-shirts. I suppose white shirts in a green landscape are visible. Assume jungle Thailand is green in mid spring or mid fall, whichever side of the equator you happen to be on. Better than black shirts.

I mentioned that as it is very unusual to see a cyclist on a "sports"
bike here without the usual tight, bright, bicycle jersey.

>I did not know Thailand followed the British system of driving on the wrong side of the road.

Yup. Well, except that they call it "the right side to drive on" :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The sales possibilities are manifold. Initially a small "flag pole"
with, perhaps a three legged "glue on" base for existing helmets.
Next, the NEW helmet incorporating a mount for a (available at added
cost) flag pole.

And then the overwhelming favorite: The NEW bicycle helmet
incorporating the speed sensitive flag pole (at no additional cost).
The faster you go the more the flag pole bends. At a sedate 7 MPH the
pole will be vertical and as speed increase the air resistance causes
the pole to incline further and further from the vertical.

And, of course, there would also be a market for flags with catchy
messages :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 2:45:42 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Roman Empire= left side
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>

Are you sure about that? I'd check your facts again. I have ridden in Italy. Ridden in the city of Rome itself in fact. They drove, rode of the right, correct side of the road. Not the wrong, left side. I do not think you can get much more Roman Empire than Rome, Italy itself.

[Jeff Liebermann]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic>
"The history of the keep-left rule can be tracked back
to ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome, and was more widely
practised than right-side traffic. Ancient Greeks, Egyptians
and Romans adhered to the left side while marching their
troops."
So it is written. So it must be.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[AMuzi]

Well, I am Italian and I am old but I wasn't actually there
in Imperial times:

http://www.i18nguy.com/driver-side.html

[John B.]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:25:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:11:22 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
><russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 2:45:42 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> Roman Empire= left side
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>
>>Are you sure about that? I'd check your facts again. I have ridden in Italy. Ridden in the city of Rome itself in fact. They drove, rode of the right, correct side of the road. Not the wrong, left side. I do not think you can get much more Roman Empire than Rome, Italy itself.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic>
> "The history of the keep-left rule can be tracked back
> to ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome, and was more widely
> practised than right-side traffic. Ancient Greeks, Egyptians
> and Romans adhered to the left side while marching their
> troops."
>So it is written. So it must be.

Well, the "Near Side" of an animal is the critter's left side and one
normally leads, mounts, dismounts and tightens the girth from the near
side.

Thus if one is leading a horse, or ox or mule down the road one is
either"driving" on the left side or walking in the middle of the road.
It might also be noted that a lady walks on the left side of their
partner, which puts her on the side away from the road (in a normal
polite society) protecting her from mud splashes and allows the
gentleman's right (stronger) side freedom of movement in order to
protect his lady.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/25/2016 12:38 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> considered Sun, 24 Apr 2016

> 12:25:01 -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:11:22 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 2:45:42 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Roman Empire= left side
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that? I'd check your facts again. I have ridden in Italy. Ridden in the city of Rome itself in fact. They drove, rode of the right, correct side of the road. Not the wrong, left side. I do not think you can get much more Roman Empire than Rome, Italy itself.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic>
>> "The history of the keep-left rule can be tracked back
>> to ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome, and was more widely
>> practised than right-side traffic. Ancient Greeks, Egyptians
>> and Romans adhered to the left side while marching their
>> troops."
>> So it is written. So it must be.
>

> It was Napoleon who changed it, and it spread from the countries he
> conquered. I guess it's taken a while for the US to hear the news
> from 1815.
> Allegedly, the change was to make it more difficult for people to
> attack oncoming road users, as passing left to left means most people
> have their weapon hand away from oncoming traffic instead of on the
> same side. Another reason often given is that there was a wish to
> throw out everything with any association to the aristocracy (who were
> of course the ones riding in coaches). But it does seem that until
> then, everyone drive on the left. How North America ended up
> following the French convention is something of a mystery, although it
> may have been a similar wish to disassociate from anything British in
> order to evade taxes.

IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
the right hand, as opposed to the left.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

its the carriage/wagon .... a plateau

we are mainly right handed controlled by the left side brain

eyesight becomes secondary to hand motion...IYKWIM..

moving out of traffic then is easier from the right thus generally more comfortable as the sight line is open over the wagon carriage bulk to oncoming from the left...the weak physical reaction side but highly important collision side.

You see where we're going here ?

thus driver on left sees traffic but responds in avoidance to the right with the right hand.

like so:

https://goo.gl/LH12ur

[Rolf Mantel]

Am 25.04.2016 um 03:44 schrieb John B.:

> It might also be noted that a lady walks on the left side of their
> partner, which puts her on the side away from the road (in a normal
> polite society) protecting her from mud splashes and allows the
> gentleman's right (stronger) side freedom of movement in order to
> protect his lady.

On the contrary, I know that it is polite (and common in dancing) that
the gentleman is to the lady's left side; this includes Irish dancing.

So the rules of politeness are as varied as the rules of the road; they
might be connected as you imply.

[John B.]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 05:38:29 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>

wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> considered Sun, 24 Apr 2016
>12:25:01 -0700 the perfect time to write:
>

>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:11:22 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>><russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 2:45:42 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Roman Empire= left side
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>
>>>Are you sure about that? I'd check your facts again. I have ridden in Italy. Ridden in the city of Rome itself in fact. They drove, rode of the right, correct side of the road. Not the wrong, left side. I do not think you can get much more Roman Empire than Rome, Italy itself.
>>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic>
>> "The history of the keep-left rule can be tracked back
>> to ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome, and was more widely
>> practised than right-side traffic. Ancient Greeks, Egyptians
>> and Romans adhered to the left side while marching their
>> troops."
>>So it is written. So it must be.
>

>It was Napoleon who changed it, and it spread from the countries he
>conquered. I guess it's taken a while for the US to hear the news
>from 1815.
>Allegedly, the change was to make it more difficult for people to
>attack oncoming road users, as passing left to left means most people
>have their weapon hand away from oncoming traffic instead of on the
>same side. Another reason often given is that there was a wish to
>throw out everything with any association to the aristocracy (who were
>of course the ones riding in coaches). But it does seem that until
>then, everyone drive on the left. How North America ended up
>following the French convention is something of a mystery, although it
>may have been a similar wish to disassociate from anything British in
>order to evade taxes.

I read somewhere a very convoluted explanation that when teamsters
rode the near side wheeler - to allow them to flourish their whip with
their right arm - this meant that being on the left side of the rode
meant that they couldn't see whether their wagon would clear an
oncoming wagon.... Maybe :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=PSYCHOLOGY+DRIVING+RIGHT+SIDE+LEFT+SIDE+ROAD&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:22:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> But what made them distinctive was that they each had a small "flag
> >> pole" attached to the top of their helmets with a flag attached.
> >>
> >> The interesting thing was that while the flags didn't make the riders
> >> more visible from directly behind them but as they were overtaken they
> >> became very noticeable (Guys with flags on their heads!)
> >>
> >
> >As you said the flags on the helmet did not make them visible from behind. Just from the side when you already knew they were there. Not sure that counts as making them more visible.
>

> But one of the major complaints voiced here is a vehicle that "passed
> too close to me". The flags make the cyclist much more noticeable as
> the overtaking vehicle closes in on the bike and thus might save some
> lives. Which, after all, is the usual argument for bicycle helmets.
>

> John B.

Seems to me if a car is passing a cyclist, it starts BEHIND the bicycle. You said the flags on top the helmets do not make the cyclist more visible from behind. Just more visible when beside the cyclist. So your flag on the helmet does not help. The car comes from BEHIND and passes the cyclist very close. The flag does not help the cyclist be seen from behind. When the car is beside the cyclist, then the flag makes the cyclist visible to the car driver. Then the car driver just keeps driving and passes the cyclist one half second later, or moves to the side to give the cyclist more room. Being seen because of the flag when the car is already beside the cyclist does not provide any benefit. Your flags are only useful when cars and cyclists meet at intersections, cross roads. 90 degree angle meeting. Then the flag is noticeable by the car driver because the car driver is seeing the cyclist completely from the side.

[jbeattie]

I think the flags would cause close passing. If I were in a car and saw that, I'd go "what the f***, flippy flags on helmets? Let's take a look." Whap. It would be like putting a Koala Bear on your head -- a recipe for disaster! "Oooh, look at the cut 'ittle Koala Bear." Whap.

-- Jay Beattie.

[avag...@gmail.com]

no helmet flag here but moving ID like the illuminated rim is as MOVING more perceptually noticeable....perceived movement 'consumates' the nervous connection with a barrage of chemicals moving down n across sysnpases.

flag prob is flag motion is random but probably flying to the rear with wind from the front.

not the ideal selling pitch.

John ? everyone here sez Phuket pussy stinks ? T/F

[John B.]

And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/25/2016 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
>> the right hand, as opposed to the left.
>
> And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)

That makes even less sense to me. Why use a utensil concave downward?
Do they do that with soup spoons?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

Heathens. Tines down please.

At a conference near Tampa, we sat to lunch and began eating with a
knife and fork, and a USian woman exclaimed, "Oh, how quaint! Can you
show me eating with a knife and fork like that again?" My (future) wife
and I were a little stunned, while a Canadian fellow apologised for the
woman's outburst. We observed the woman then shovelling food into her
mouth, while holding the fork upside down in her right hand, and made no
mention of it.

--
JS

[Duane]

Some people are just ingrates. :-)
BTW, I use a fork in my left hand which seems natural being left handed. I
also use it as what you would probably describe as right side up but that's
mostly a New Orleans thing, I think. I'm doing that now as I finish my
oatmeal on my way out to the office. (Had to add some bike content...)

--
duane

[avag...@gmail.com]

https://goo.gl/5XdN8q

ahhhh a new micromouse in Ferrari red.......

alors !....3 wannabe depressions outta Texas/Mx in 3 weeks....

[John B.]

When I think about it I can't remember ever seeing an Englishman eat
soup although I'm sure that they must do so. But when they eat peas
they have a knife in one hand. :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:45:36 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Being Australian you will need to define upside down :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

When I was a child, I pondered the Asian cultures who ate
rice using chopsticks. It seemed perversely unwieldy and
inefficient to me then.

Now I know that was childish ignorance.

[avag...@gmail.com]

precision enhances quality n appreciation

of not starving

occasional 'chopsticks' improves flavor buy a pack this week

a spork improves soups

buy sporks from REI

nothing improves boiled cabbage

when in the super at Lower Thistle on Thames, are there quick packs of boiled cabbage with ham ?

https://goo.gl/EJkDcX

[Frank Krygowski]

When we've gone to Europe or the British Isles, I've made at least a
small effort to blend in. (I have a tale about choosing the proper
shoes, but I'll put that off for now.) So the issue of eating utensils
arose. And thinking about it, the American way of slicing with the
right hand, then trading utensils to eat with the right hand seemed
clumsy. So I practiced a bit to get competent with the British method.
It seemed to make sense to avoid juggling the cutlery.

But tines down just offended my sense of geometry. And I noticed Irish
friends who seemed to do most of the manipulation with the knife in
their right hand, scooping food toward their left-hand fork, which
didn't seem particularly elegant. And I thought, why should my
non-dominant hand be asked to manipulate a sharp-tined utensil toward my
face?

So I eventually decided that it's logical to slice with the knife in the
left hand, and use the fork concave upward in the right hand. As I
recall, it took maybe a month to become competent with left hand
cutting, but it's now graceful and efficient as well as logical.

This all means I now don't blend in with either Europeans or Americans.
That seems to be my usual state anyway.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

yawl coocoo

[W. Wesley Groleau]

Depends on what and how you're eating. Tines up for scooping; tines
down for stabbing. It's ridiculous to obsessively insist that only one
way is correct.

--
Wes Groleau

[James]

What you wrote above.

--
JS

[John B.]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:05:17 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>

But is up "up" to those "down under"?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:28:47 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/25/2016 9:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/25/2016 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with
>>>> the fork in
>>>> the right hand, as opposed to the left.
>>>
>>> And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side
>>> down too :-)
>>
>> That makes even less sense to me. Why use a utensil concave
>> downward? Do they do that with soup spoons?
>>
>>
>
>When I was a child, I pondered the Asian cultures who ate
>rice using chopsticks. It seemed perversely unwieldy and
>inefficient to me then.
>
>Now I know that was childish ignorance.

There are only a few that are perverse. The rest of them eat rice
with a spoon and fork, or their fingers.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

And those who eat with "chop sticks" think that fork and spoon eaters
are ridiculous and the finger eaters consider all utensils as somewhat
effete :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 4:19:04 PM UTC-5, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
>
> Depends on what and how you're eating. Tines up for scooping; tines
> down for stabbing.

Yes. That is how I do it. But like Frank I use the knife in the left hand and the spoon/fork in the right/dominant hand. I push the peas with the knife onto the fork. And use the knife in the left hand to cut the meat. Not the fork in the right to cut the meat. I think how people cut meat is the distinguishing characteristic between European and American eaters. Knife cutters and Fork cutters. Tines up or down and which hand holds which utensil is secondary. How the meat is cut is the key.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 9:40:54 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>
> And those who eat with "chop sticks" think that fork and spoon eaters
> are ridiculous and the finger eaters consider all utensils as somewhat
> effete :-)

I guess it depends on what you are eating. I would not want to eat hot food with my fingers. Burning your hands every time you eat seems foolish. And eating soup by drinking it from the bowl seems odd too. Macaroni and cheese with your fingers? Spaghetti with your fingers? Steak with your fingers? Do you just chew off a piece that you are holding in your hands?

[Radey Shouman]

Drinking soup out of the bowl is SOP for Japanese food -- chopsticks are
used to pick out the bigger stuff. For steak, hold the bit you want
between your teeth, then slice off the rest with a sharp knife, missing
your nose. Works a treat for muktuk, or so I'm told.

--

[John B.]

I would have to ask why one wants to stick meat, at a temperature so
high than one cannot touch it with a finger, into one's mouth.

Drink soup? The ultra civilized French commonly drink hot coffee from
a bowl.

Macaroni with the fingers? I'm not sure but a multitude of people eat
rice with their fingers. Very, very common.

Steak with the fingers? Why, the cook cuts it up in bite sized bits.

What you are ignoring is the fact that those who eat with different
implements, or no implements, prepare their food in different ways.
--

Cheers,

John B.