Zoomorph

[Quinn C]

I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.

So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

So animalomorphizing? That doesn't sound right. Anthropo- is Greek, so
zoomorphizing? M-W actually has that (but no other of the onelook
dictionaries does), but it defines it as depicting deities or
supernatural forces as animals. Theriomorphizing, pretty much the same.

Is there a better word for what I'm looking for? I'm surprised that
this was so difficult, given that we have animated movies, in which
sometimes, things come to life and move around, without showing signs
of strict anthropomorphization, like speaking.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.
So animalomorphizing? That doesn't sound right. Anthropo- is Greek, so
zoomorphizing? M-W actually has that (but no other of the onelook
dictionaries does), but it defines it as depicting deities or
supernatural forces as animals. Theriomorphizing, pretty much the same.

The OED has:

zoomorph, n.

Etymology: < zoo- comb. form + -morph comb. form, after zoomorphic
adj.

A representation of an animal form in art; a zoomorphic design or
figure.

zoomorphic, adj.

1. That represents or imitates animal forms, esp. in decorative art
or symbolism.
1849...

2.
a. Esp. of a god or supernatural being: that has, or is conceived or
represented as having, the form of an animal.
1872...

b. That ascribes the form or nature of an animal to something, esp.
to a god or supernatural being. Cf. anthropomorphic adj. 1.

Post by Quinn C
Is there a better word for what I'm looking for? I'm surprised that
this was so difficult, given that we have animated movies, in which
sometimes, things come to life and move around, without showing signs
of strict anthropomorphization, like speaking.

[Don P]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.

Is this an Irish police bike (as documented by Flann O'Brien)?

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Nah. You are just reassuring the bicycle that it need not decide if
it's a boy's bike or a girl's bike and it's OK to be confused.

By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Nah. You are just reassuring the bicycle that it need not decide if
it's a boy's bike or a girl's bike and it's OK to be confused.
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but that
interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The distinction is
now more between sporty (high bar) and urban (low bar). Plus, a lot of
bicycles are now "non-binary" anyway.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:07:25 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Nah. You are just reassuring the bicycle that it need not decide if
it's a boy's bike or a girl's bike and it's OK to be confused.
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but that
interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The distinction is
now more between sporty (high bar) and urban (low bar). Plus, a lot of
bicycles are now "non-binary" anyway.

I thought the non-binary ones are called "tricycles". I see them in
retirement communities.

It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo on dropping the distinction.
https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=Bicycles&adid=22222222220206823123&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=e&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=51254070236&wl4=kwd-667580975&wl5=9011760&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&veh=sem

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:07:25 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Nah. You are just reassuring the bicycle that it need not decide if
it's a boy's bike or a girl's bike and it's OK to be confused.
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but that
interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The distinction is
now more between sporty (high bar) and urban (low bar). Plus, a lot of
bicycles are now "non-binary" anyway.

I thought the non-binary ones are called "tricycles". I see them in
retirement communities.
It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo on dropping the distinction.

Of course they would be years behind. No surprise there.

This large maker has the categories On-road, X-road, Off-road, E-bike,
Youth and Women. But many of the bikes in the Women category have the
same "ambiguous" frames as the "ungendered" ones. The difference is
elsewhere (size? saddle? ...)

<https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes/startpage>

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:07:25 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Nah. You are just reassuring the bicycle that it need not decide if
it's a boy's bike or a girl's bike and it's OK to be confused.
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but that
interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The distinction is
now more between sporty (high bar) and urban (low bar). Plus, a lot of
bicycles are now "non-binary" anyway.

I thought the non-binary ones are called "tricycles". I see them in
retirement communities.
It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo on dropping the distinction.

Of course they would be years behind. No surprise there.
This large maker has the categories On-road, X-road, Off-road, E-bike,
Youth and Women. But many of the bikes in the Women category have the
same "ambiguous" frames as the "ungendered" ones. The difference is
elsewhere (size? saddle? ...)
<https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes/startpage>

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

[Disregard my accidental previous post, screwed up.]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo
on dropping the distinction.

Of course they would be years behind.

Of course the whole world is years behind fanatical Quim.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 00:44:08 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:07:25 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Nah. You are just reassuring the bicycle that it need not decide if
it's a boy's bike or a girl's bike and it's OK to be confused.
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but that
interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The distinction is
now more between sporty (high bar) and urban (low bar). Plus, a lot of
bicycles are now "non-binary" anyway.

I thought the non-binary ones are called "tricycles". I see them in
retirement communities.
It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo on dropping the distinction.

Of course they would be years behind. No surprise there.

Years behind? Walmart is selling bikes to school-age kids and some
adults who want a bicycle for some leisurely rides. What they are
offering is smack-dab in the present for their market. They are
selling bikes to parents who know the kid they're buying for will grow
out of that bike in a year or so, lose it, or have it stolen. Parents
who are looking for a bike at price they can afford.

What you consider the present to be is evidently the adult rider who
willing to spend hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars on a road
machine, or off-road machine, and that's an entirely different market.

It's sheer snobbery to say that Walmart is "years behind".

Post by Quinn C
This large maker has the categories On-road, X-road, Off-road, E-bike,
Youth and Women. But many of the bikes in the Women category have the
same "ambiguous" frames as the "ungendered" ones. The difference is
elsewhere (size? saddle? ...)
<https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes/startpage>

Right. The "present" is a $9,180 Defy Advanced SL bicycle. And it
doesn't even come with Lycra pants, a helmet with a tiny mirror, or
water bottle holder.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 00:44:08 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:07:25 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Nah. You are just reassuring the bicycle that it need not decide if
it's a boy's bike or a girl's bike and it's OK to be confused.
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but that
interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The distinction is
now more between sporty (high bar) and urban (low bar). Plus, a lot of
bicycles are now "non-binary" anyway.

I thought the non-binary ones are called "tricycles". I see them in
retirement communities.
It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo on dropping the distinction.

Of course they would be years behind. No surprise there.

Years behind? Walmart is selling bikes to school-age kids and some
adults who want a bicycle for some leisurely rides. What they are
offering is smack-dab in the present for their market. They are
selling bikes to parents who know the kid they're buying for will grow
out of that bike in a year or so, lose it, or have it stolen. Parents
who are looking for a bike at price they can afford.
What you consider the present to be is evidently the adult rider

Yes in my world, bicycles are not a children's thing. I don't see many
children using bicycles, because it mostly wouldn't be safe for them to
ride where I go.

Post by Tony Cooper
who
willing to spend hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars on a road
machine, or off-road machine, and that's an entirely different market.
It's sheer snobbery to say that Walmart is "years behind".

If you want a bicycle you can actually use, you better spend "hundreds
of dollars". How cheap do you want it?

Most people are quite willing to spend thousands of dollars extra on
cars that are bigger, faster, or simply more ostentatious than they
need. Is it snobbery to you to mention the existence of BMW and Lexus?

And it's not just about price. Walmart caters to a lot of people who
learned about the world in their youth, but didn't change their outlook
much since they became adults in the 1960s, 70s or 80s. They don't
cater as much to people who ask questions about rampant consumerism,
ecological impact or exploitative labor practices.

Less aggressively stated, the clientele who wants a leisurely ride now
and then is fine with the bicycles of yesteryear, and doesn't need to
keep up with the technological developments. They have no need of being
up to date. That doesn't change what "up to date" means. I haven't used
a car with a starter button, an onboard computer or ABS, but I
recognize that these are now standard features, and my car experience
is stuck in the 1980s, when I learned driving. Not missing the choke,
though.

I'm in neither of the two groups of bicycle riders you recognize. I'm
using the bike to get from point A to point B in the city. My
observations are mostly about my group of riders, with whom I'm mostly
sharing the road or the bicycle path. The leisurely riders only come
out in the weekend, and the (real or aspirational) racing crowd stays
out of the city core.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C
This large maker has the categories On-road, X-road, Off-road, E-bike,
Youth and Women. But many of the bikes in the Women category have the
same "ambiguous" frames as the "ungendered" ones. The difference is
elsewhere (size? saddle? ...)
<https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes/startpage>

Right. The "present" is a $9,180 Defy Advanced SL bicycle. And it
doesn't even come with Lycra pants, a helmet with a tiny mirror, or
water bottle holder.

I believe Giant was at some point the biggest bicycle maker in the
world. They cater to all markets.

As you are into gendered bikes, here's one of their "women's" offers,
starting at $380:

<https://www.liv-cycling.com/us/bikes-alight>

Not sure you would recognize it as a "girl's" bike.

$380 is less than half of what the average bicycle sold in Germany
costs. That's because many Germans treat bicycles as serious vehicles,
not toys.

I'd expect stores to sell it for less than the maker's recommendation.
I wouldn't expect anything solid at that price. Not for using every
day; OK for occasional use, probably.

When someone complained to me that $500 (Canadian) was expensive for a
bicycle, I pointed out that this is the price of one fairly ordinary
car *repair*.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:31:14 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 00:44:08 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:07:25 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:49:03 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Nah. You are just reassuring the bicycle that it need not decide if
it's a boy's bike or a girl's bike and it's OK to be confused.
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but that
interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The distinction is
now more between sporty (high bar) and urban (low bar). Plus, a lot of
bicycles are now "non-binary" anyway.

I thought the non-binary ones are called "tricycles". I see them in
retirement communities.
It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo on dropping the distinction.

Of course they would be years behind. No surprise there.

Years behind? Walmart is selling bikes to school-age kids and some
adults who want a bicycle for some leisurely rides. What they are
offering is smack-dab in the present for their market. They are
selling bikes to parents who know the kid they're buying for will grow
out of that bike in a year or so, lose it, or have it stolen. Parents
who are looking for a bike at price they can afford.
What you consider the present to be is evidently the adult rider

Yes in my world, bicycles are not a children's thing. I don't see many
children using bicycles, because it mostly wouldn't be safe for them to
ride where I go.

If that's the case, then how can you say that Walmart is "years
behind"? Your world is evidently not the world of suburbia.

At the elementary school near me, the bicycle pen (a caged area locked
during school hours) is full of bikes. Most having cost less than
$100. Perfectly suitable for a grade-schooler.

[Quinn C]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:07:25 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that area where
the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model or a girl's model to
communicate to the bike that how it was made does not determine how it
should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but that
interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The distinction is
now more between sporty (high bar) and urban (low bar). Plus, a lot of
bicycles are now "non-binary" anyway.

I thought the non-binary ones are called "tricycles". I see them in
retirement communities.
It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo on dropping the distinction.

Of course they would be years behind. No surprise there.
This large maker has the categories On-road, X-road, Off-road, E-bike,
Youth and Women. But many of the bikes in the Women category have the
same "ambiguous" frames as the "ungendered" ones. The difference is
elsewhere (size? saddle? ...)
<https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes/startpage>

Actually, I've let you side-track me here. While it's true that many
bicycles now have an "ambiguous" frame shape, and many aren't marked
"men's" or "women's", that wasn't even my main point. Makers do silly
things. My son's last non-adult bike was marked "girls" for no other
apparent reason than being purple.

My actual point was about the (adult) cyclists I see every day.

When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image. These days, that's so
common that it's almost unremarkable. If I had to comment on it at all,
I'd just say that she's serious about cycling. There is in practice
little correlation between the apparent gender of riders and frame
shapes.

[CDB]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
By patting the seat, you are ostentatiously avoiding that
area where the bar is that determines if it is a boy's model
or a girl's model to communicate to the bike that how it was
made does not determine how it should consider it itself.

Welcome to the 21st century. You may not have noticed, but
that interpretation has widely been dropped a while ago. The
distinction is now more between sporty (high bar) and urban
(low bar). Plus, a lot of bicycles are now "non-binary"
anyway.

I thought the non-binary ones are called "tricycles". I see them
in retirement communities.
It seems that Walmart didn't get the memo on dropping the
distinction.

Of course they would be years behind. No surprise there.
This large maker has the categories On-road, X-road, Off-road,
E-bike, Youth and Women. But many of the bikes in the Women
category have the same "ambiguous" frames as the "ungendered" ones.
The difference is elsewhere (size? saddle? ...)
<https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes/startpage>

Actually, I've let you side-track me here. While it's true that many
bicycles now have an "ambiguous" frame shape, and many aren't marked
"men's" or "women's", that wasn't even my main point. Makers do silly
things. My son's last non-adult bike was marked "girls" for no other
apparent reason than being purple.
My actual point was about the (adult) cyclists I see every day.
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal
top bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image. These days, that's
so common that it's almost unremarkable. If I had to comment on it at
all, I'd just say that she's serious about cycling. There is in
practice little correlation between the apparent gender of riders and
frame shapes.

The first bike I got hold of was a loan from a friend's older brother,
a former paratrooper. It came apart into two sections for easier
transport on the way down, and it had no crossbar. That was a good
thing, because my feet would not have reached the pedals if I had had to
sit up so high. The prestige more than made up for the inconvenience,
and I learned to ride standing on the pedals and reaching up a bit for
the handlebars.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Quinn C
[...]
My actual point was about the (adult) cyclists I see every day.
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image. These days, that's so
common that it's almost unremarkable. If I had to comment on it at all,
I'd just say that she's serious about cycling. There is in practice
little correlation between the apparent gender of riders and frame
shapes.

I'll have to disagree with you there: The classical girl's bike frame
has two parallel bars slanting downwards from handlebars. These are
still sold and used, but you *never*[1] see male riders on them.

[1] As ever, the real world treats generalizations with contempt.

/Anders, Denmark.

[charles]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Quinn C
[...]
My actual point was about the (adult) cyclists I see every day.
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image. These days, that's so
common that it's almost unremarkable. If I had to comment on it at all,
I'd just say that she's serious about cycling. There is in practice
little correlation between the apparent gender of riders and frame
shapes.

I'll have to disagree with you there: The classical girl's bike frame
has two parallel bars slanting downwards from handlebars. These are
still sold and used, but you *never*[1] see male riders on them.

The "standard" crossbar made it difficult for someone in a long skirt to
ride such a bicycle. One both sexes started wearing jeans, there was no
need for a separate womens' bike.

[Quinn C]

Post by charles

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Quinn C
[...]
My actual point was about the (adult) cyclists I see every day.
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image. These days, that's so
common that it's almost unremarkable. If I had to comment on it at all,
I'd just say that she's serious about cycling. There is in practice
little correlation between the apparent gender of riders and frame
shapes.

I'll have to disagree with you there: The classical girl's bike frame
has two parallel bars slanting downwards from handlebars. These are
still sold and used, but you *never*[1] see male riders on them.

The "standard" crossbar made it difficult for someone in a long skirt to
ride such a bicycle. One both sexes started wearing jeans, there was no
need for a separate womens' bike.

When I was young, women were wearing jeans some of the time and (long)
skirts some of the time, reason enough to want a lower bar (and a skirt
protector on the rear wheel.) But over time, occasions to wear a
skirt/dress and occasions to go by bicycle became almost disjoint sets.

And now we have the medium-height bar. Why didn't anyone think of that
earlier? Entrenched habit of gendering, I can only surmise.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C
When I was young, women were wearing jeans some of the time and (long)
skirts some of the time, reason enough to want a lower bar (and a skirt
protector on the rear wheel.) But over time, occasions to wear a
skirt/dress and occasions to go by bicycle became almost disjoint sets.
And now we have the medium-height bar. Why didn't anyone think of that
earlier? Entrenched habit of gendering, I can only surmise.

Maybe engineering? It seems like it would be harder to make a sturdy bike
without the horizontal at the top, and a compromise such as "medium-height"
would simply have the same problem of bracing.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
When I was young, women were wearing jeans some of the time and (long)
skirts some of the time, reason enough to want a lower bar (and a skirt
protector on the rear wheel.) But over time, occasions to wear a
skirt/dress and occasions to go by bicycle became almost disjoint sets.
And now we have the medium-height bar. Why didn't anyone think of that
earlier? Entrenched habit of gendering, I can only surmise.

Maybe engineering? It seems like it would be harder to make a sturdy bike
without the horizontal at the top, and a compromise such as "medium-height"
would simply have the same problem of bracing.

The traitional bike frame has two triangles, with one side shared by the
two triangles.
Loading Image...

This article says:
http://datagenetics.com/blog/november12014/index.html

Have you ever noticed that many engineering structures (bridges,
beams, buildings, towers, trusses …) are constructed using
triangles. Why is this?

The simple answer is that triangles are stable. A triangle has three
sides and, if these are fixed in length, there is only one
configuration they can be in. There is no flexibility or freedom.
(Another way to think of this is that the angle of each corner is
held rigidly in place by the side opposite it).

A quadrilateral (or higher sided shape) has more degrees of freedom.
Without changing any of the lengths of the sides the shape can be
skewed/squashed or deformed.

Triangles help keep structures rigid.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
When I was young, women were wearing jeans some of the time and (long)
skirts some of the time, reason enough to want a lower bar (and a skirt
protector on the rear wheel.) But over time, occasions to wear a
skirt/dress and occasions to go by bicycle became almost disjoint sets.
And now we have the medium-height bar. Why didn't anyone think of that
earlier? Entrenched habit of gendering, I can only surmise.

Maybe engineering? It seems like it would be harder to make a sturdy bike
without the horizontal at the top, and a compromise such as "medium-height"
would simply have the same problem of bracing.

The traitional bike frame has two triangles, with one side shared by the
two triangles.
https://www.steel-vintage.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/C/o/Colnago_12122013-1.JPG
http://datagenetics.com/blog/november12014/index.html
Have you ever noticed that many engineering structures (bridges,
beams, buildings, towers, trusses …) are constructed using
triangles. Why is this?
The simple answer is that triangles are stable.

The question wasn't about replacing the high-bar frame with a mid-high
bar one, but about offering a mid-high bar one as a better alternative
to a low, often even curved traditional "women's" frame.

[Quinn C]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Quinn C
[...]
My actual point was about the (adult) cyclists I see every day.
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image. These days, that's so
common that it's almost unremarkable. If I had to comment on it at all,
I'd just say that she's serious about cycling. There is in practice
little correlation between the apparent gender of riders and frame
shapes.

I'll have to disagree with you there: The classical girl's bike frame
has two parallel bars slanting downwards from handlebars. These are
still sold and used, but you *never*[1] see male riders on them.
[1] As ever, the real world treats generalizations with contempt.

- My grandfather always used a "women's" bike.

- My first adult bike was such a thing, and in the 1970s, when gender
roles were more enforced than now. I don't remember clearly, but it was
probably a hand-me-down from my sister, who wanted a cooler bike, not a
conservative, standard one in boring blue. Not only was it cheap * for
me to use this, but I wasn't quite ready yet to swing my foot over the
top bar.

* While gender roles were stronger, maybe poor-shaming wasn't as bad in
those days, so it was more normal to use a hand-me-down or shared
family bike. My first "men's" model I had to buy from my allowance.

- Those bikes may be mostly used by women, but they now represent a
minority of bikes used by women - not just below 50%, but probably
below 30% *. Maybe I go count a sample one of these days.

* and that's my intuition in my crowd, urban cyclists. I would expect
racing or long-haul cyclists to use them even less.

- Apparently, it's all good when you hide the two bars and make it look
like our shared bikes, which are considered unisex:

<Loading Image...>

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride "boy's"
bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride "boy's"
bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame is
more robust than any other option.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:18:55 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride "boy's"
bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame is
more robust than any other option.

Yes. I assume that is the reason for the original design.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame is
more robust than any other option.

I think there is a slight problem with the geometry there.

[Peter Moylan]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:08:12 GMT, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the
horizontal top bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride
"boy's" bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame
is more robust than any other option.

I don't know whether it's changed now, but when I was a boy there was a
big difference between the way boys and girls got onto a bike. Boys put
the left foot onto the pedal and then swung the right foot over the back
wheel. (I never noticed whether left-handers did it differently.) Girls
just stepped through, which of course depended on having no top bar.

Girls and boys mounted horses the same way, so the girls must have had
the muscles and the agility to swing a leg over the bike; but tradition
said that they didn't do it that way, so the difference between girls'
and boys' bikes had to persist.

Skirts would have been the original reason for the difference, but these
days, and even in my childhood, few girls or women wear a skirt while
riding a bike.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 11:45:24 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:08:12 GMT, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the
horizontal top bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride
"boy's" bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame
is more robust than any other option.

I don't know whether it's changed now, but when I was a boy there was a
big difference between the way boys and girls got onto a bike. Boys put
the left foot onto the pedal and then swung the right foot over the back
wheel. (I never noticed whether left-handers did it differently.) Girls
just stepped through, which of course depended on having no top bar.

I cannot speak for all left-handers, but I cannot determine how
handedness determines which leg swings. I actually went to my bike,
just before writing this, and experimented. I am an ambidextrous
swinger. It depends entirely on which side I approach the bike from.
There was no inclination to move to the left side if I approached from
the right side.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:08:12 GMT, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the
horizontal top bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride
"boy's" bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame
is more robust than any other option.

I don't know whether it's changed now, but when I was a boy there was a
big difference between the way boys and girls got onto a bike. Boys put
the left foot onto the pedal and then swung the right foot over the back
wheel. (I never noticed whether left-handers did it differently.) Girls
just stepped through, which of course depended on having no top bar.
Girls and boys mounted horses the same way, so the girls must have had
the muscles and the agility to swing a leg over the bike; but tradition
said that they didn't do it that way, so the difference between girls'
and boys' bikes had to persist.
Skirts would have been the original reason for the difference, but these
days, and even in my childhood, few girls or women wear a skirt while
riding a bike.

These days, many bikes are constructed in the "girls bike" fashion with
either no cross bar or a very low one.

<https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/15381137_Alt01?wid=488&hei=488&fmt=pjpeg>

<Loading Image...

And I believe the term now is "step-through bike". Most of the ebikes
that I've seen, and perhaps all, are step-throughs.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter Moylan

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:08:12 GMT, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the
horizontal top bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride
"boy's" bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame
is more robust than any other option.

I don't know whether it's changed now, but when I was a boy there was a
big difference between the way boys and girls got onto a bike. Boys put
the left foot onto the pedal and then swung the right foot over the back
wheel. (I never noticed whether left-handers did it differently.) Girls
just stepped through, which of course depended on having no top bar.
Girls and boys mounted horses the same way, so the girls must have had
the muscles and the agility to swing a leg over the bike; but tradition
said that they didn't do it that way, so the difference between girls'
and boys' bikes had to persist.
Skirts would have been the original reason for the difference, but these
days, and even in my childhood, few girls or women wear a skirt while
riding a bike.

I never bothered to master the technique of starting to roll with your
whole body on one side and then swing the other leg over. If a bicycle
has the top bar, I swing my right leg over while the left one is firmly
on the ground, then start, usually by pushing the pedal with the right
foot, then lift my left foot as the bicycle starts rolling.

My former girlfriend, on the other hand, did the start rolling while
standing on the left pedal, then pull your right leg to the other side
thing, with her "girl's" bikes.

[Quinn C]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter Moylan

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:08:12 GMT, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the
horizontal top bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride
"boy's" bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame
is more robust than any other option.

I don't know whether it's changed now, but when I was a boy there was a
big difference between the way boys and girls got onto a bike. Boys put
the left foot onto the pedal and then swung the right foot over the back
wheel. (I never noticed whether left-handers did it differently.) Girls
just stepped through, which of course depended on having no top bar.
Girls and boys mounted horses the same way, so the girls must have had
the muscles and the agility to swing a leg over the bike; but tradition
said that they didn't do it that way, so the difference between girls'
and boys' bikes had to persist.
Skirts would have been the original reason for the difference, but these
days, and even in my childhood, few girls or women wear a skirt while
riding a bike.

I never bothered to master the technique of starting to roll with your
whole body on one side and then swing the other leg over. If a bicycle
has the top bar, I swing my right leg over while the left one is firmly
on the ground, then start, usually by pushing the pedal with the right
foot, then lift my left foot as the bicycle starts rolling.
My former girlfriend, on the other hand, did the start rolling while
standing on the left pedal, then pull your right leg to the other side
thing, with her "girl's" bikes.

Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then pull the
other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by pulling the
leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle. I don't remember
clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on girl's bikes. Looks
like a feat of balance to me.

[Tak To]

Post by Quinn C
[...]
Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then pull the
other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by pulling the
leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle. I don't remember
clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on girl's bikes. Looks
like a feat of balance to me.

Anyone having the need to carry something large on the
back rack (e.g., a child) would probably need to mount
the bike that way.

Note that unless one's "crotch clearance" is high enough,
one would have to tilt a (non-moving) bike in order to
straddle over its middle bar. This it is not always
feasible for a loaded bike. (And if one straddles the
bike first one would not be able to load the back rack.)

In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike
rolling first with one foot on the paddle, then swing
the opposite leg over as the bike becomes steady.

Most adults in China could do that when I was kid.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tak To
In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike
rolling first with one foot on the paddle, then swing
the opposite leg over as the bike becomes steady.

ObEnglish: the word is pedal, not paddle.

[Peter Moylan]

[...] Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then
pull the other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by
pulling the leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle.
I don't remember clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on
girl's bikes. Looks like a feat of balance to me.

Anyone having the need to carry something large on the back rack
(e.g., a child) would probably need to mount the bike that way.
Note that unless one's "crotch clearance" is high enough, one would
have to tilt a (non-moving) bike in order to straddle over its middle
bar. This it is not always feasible for a loaded bike. (And if one
straddles the bike first one would not be able to load the back
rack.)
In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike rolling first
with one foot on the paddle, then swing the opposite leg over as the
bike becomes steady.
Most adults in China could do that when I was kid.

Do you mean that Chinese bike riders kick forward to get the second leg
over? I've always moved my right leg backwards to get over the seat and
rear wheel, but as you say that might not work if there's a load on the
back.

[Tak To]

Post by Peter Moylan

[...] Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then
pull the other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by
pulling the leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle.
I don't remember clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on
girl's bikes. Looks like a feat of balance to me.

Anyone having the need to carry something large on the back rack
(e.g., a child) would probably need to mount the bike that way.
Note that unless one's "crotch clearance" is high enough, one would
have to tilt a (non-moving) bike in order to straddle over its middle
bar. This it is not always feasible for a loaded bike. (And if one
straddles the bike first one would not be able to load the back
rack.)
In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike rolling first
with one foot on the paddle, then swing the opposite leg over as the
bike becomes steady.
Most adults in China could do that when I was kid.

Do you mean that Chinese bike riders kick forward to get the second leg
over?

Yes, when they have a load in the back.

Post by Peter Moylan
I've always moved my right leg backwards to get over the seat and
rear wheel, but as you say that might not work if there's a load on the
back.

----- -----

Actually, I didn't really know that about most adults. I
just saw a lot of bicycles carrying loads in the back so
I assumed that most people could do it.

[Richard Yates]

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter Moylan

[...] Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then
pull the other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by
pulling the leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle.
I don't remember clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on
girl's bikes. Looks like a feat of balance to me.

Anyone having the need to carry something large on the back rack
(e.g., a child) would probably need to mount the bike that way.
Note that unless one's "crotch clearance" is high enough, one would
have to tilt a (non-moving) bike in order to straddle over its middle
bar. This it is not always feasible for a loaded bike. (And if one
straddles the bike first one would not be able to load the back
rack.)
In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike rolling first
with one foot on the paddle, then swing the opposite leg over as the
bike becomes steady.
Most adults in China could do that when I was kid.

Do you mean that Chinese bike riders kick forward to get the second leg
over?

Yes, when they have a load in the back.

Post by Peter Moylan
I've always moved my right leg backwards to get over the seat and
rear wheel, but as you say that might not work if there's a load on the
back.

Case in point:
https://tinyurl.com/y7zwav9x

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 05:14:54 -0700, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter Moylan

[...] Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then
pull the other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by
pulling the leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle.
I don't remember clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on
girl's bikes. Looks like a feat of balance to me.

Anyone having the need to carry something large on the back rack
(e.g., a child) would probably need to mount the bike that way.
Note that unless one's "crotch clearance" is high enough, one would
have to tilt a (non-moving) bike in order to straddle over its middle
bar. This it is not always feasible for a loaded bike. (And if one
straddles the bike first one would not be able to load the back
rack.)
In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike rolling first
with one foot on the paddle, then swing the opposite leg over as the
bike becomes steady.
Most adults in China could do that when I was kid.

Do you mean that Chinese bike riders kick forward to get the second leg
over?

Yes, when they have a load in the back.

Post by Peter Moylan
I've always moved my right leg backwards to get over the seat and
rear wheel, but as you say that might not work if there's a load on the
back.

https://tinyurl.com/y7zwav9x

Fortunately that is a tricycle. The rider don't have to hold it upright
at the same time as climbing aboard.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Tak To

Post by Quinn C
[...]
Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then pull the
other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by pulling the
leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle. I don't remember
clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on girl's bikes. Looks
like a feat of balance to me.

Anyone having the need to carry something large on the
back rack (e.g., a child) would probably need to mount
the bike that way.
Note that unless one's "crotch clearance" is high enough,
one would have to tilt a (non-moving) bike in order to
straddle over its middle bar. This it is not always
feasible for a loaded bike. (And if one straddles the
bike first one would not be able to load the back rack.)
In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike
rolling first with one foot on the paddle, then swing
the opposite leg over as the bike becomes steady.
Most adults in China could do that when I was kid.

When I was a bit younger I had a paper route. That was in the day
when newspapers had some volume and heft. I had twin saddlebags over
the rear fender and a basket in front with newspapers folded for
throwing.

Thursday was the heavy day. The Thursday newspapers were fatter
because of the grocery store advertisements.

Getting up and moving was quite a trick.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
When I was a bit younger I had a paper route. That was in the day
when newspapers had some volume and heft. I had twin saddlebags over
the rear fender and a basket in front with newspapers folded for
throwing.
Thursday was the heavy day. The Thursday newspapers were fatter
because of the grocery store advertisements.
Getting up and moving was quite a trick.

I had several paper rounds back then. I remember the fat days. I
remember the streets with the little dogs that went up and down as they
retained a grip on my ankle. I remember the old bloke who held me up for
half an hour while he complained about the delivery being late. I
remember the "roll ups" that I had to throw on to the verandah, but
which I sometimes threw onto the roof instead.

But I also remember the summer when I worked for the post office. Post
Office bikes were about two generations older than anyone else's bikes.
They were heavy and hard to steer. When the front basket was filled with
phone box money, at four pennies a call, the only way to steer them was
to jump off and lift the back end in a different direction; and the only
way to stop them was to run into a wall.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
When I was a bit younger I had a paper route. That was in the day
when newspapers had some volume and heft. I had twin saddlebags over
the rear fender and a basket in front with newspapers folded for
throwing.
Thursday was the heavy day. The Thursday newspapers were fatter
because of the grocery store advertisements.
Getting up and moving was quite a trick.

I had several paper rounds back then. I remember the fat days. I
remember the streets with the little dogs that went up and down as they
retained a grip on my ankle. I remember the old bloke who held me up for
half an hour while he complained about the delivery being late. I
remember the "roll ups" that I had to throw on to the verandah, but
which I sometimes threw onto the roof instead.
But I also remember the summer when I worked for the post office. Post
Office bikes were about two generations older than anyone else's bikes.
They were heavy and hard to steer. When the front basket was filled with
phone box money, at four pennies a call, the only way to steer them was
to jump off and lift the back end in a different direction; and the only
way to stop them was to run into a wall.

I'm inclined to doubt your methods. Lifting the back end of the bike won't
change the direction you're cycling in. The front wheel is still on the same
line. And surely cycling up hill (a very short distance would be required)
is a whole lot safer than hitting a wall? I suspect your instructor of pranking
you somewhat rotten!

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
When I was a bit younger I had a paper route. That was in the day
when newspapers had some volume and heft. I had twin saddlebags over
the rear fender and a basket in front with newspapers folded for
throwing.
Thursday was the heavy day. The Thursday newspapers were fatter
because of the grocery store advertisements.
Getting up and moving was quite a trick.

I had several paper rounds back then. I remember the fat days. I
remember the streets with the little dogs that went up and down as they
retained a grip on my ankle. I remember the old bloke who held me up for
half an hour while he complained about the delivery being late. I
remember the "roll ups" that I had to throw on to the verandah, but
which I sometimes threw onto the roof instead.
But I also remember the summer when I worked for the post office. Post
Office bikes were about two generations older than anyone else's bikes.
They were heavy and hard to steer. When the front basket was filled with
phone box money, at four pennies a call, the only way to steer them was
to jump off and lift the back end in a different direction; and the only
way to stop them was to run into a wall.

I'm inclined to doubt your methods. Lifting the back end of the bike won't
change the direction you're cycling in. The front wheel is still on the same
line.

Arrgh! You hold one side of the handlebars and lift the back. The
front wheel drags to the new direction, and this re-routes the
direction of the bike.

I no longer ride a bicycle, but I have a four-wheeled garden cart with
a long handle that turns the front wheels. To change direction when
the change is more abrupt than just turning the wheels would
accomplish, I employ that same maneuver. Hold the handle steady and
lift and move the back.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
And surely cycling up hill (a very short distance would be required)
is a whole lot safer than hitting a wall? I suspect your instructor of pranking
you somewhat rotten!

The "wall" is metaphorical. It could be a curb or any other
stationary impediment to forward movement. A sleeping dog or small
child would work.

[LFS]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
When I was a bit younger I had a paper route. That was in the day
when newspapers had some volume and heft. I had twin saddlebags over
the rear fender and a basket in front with newspapers folded for
throwing.
Thursday was the heavy day. The Thursday newspapers were fatter
because of the grocery store advertisements.
Getting up and moving was quite a trick.

I had several paper rounds back then. I remember the fat days. I
remember the streets with the little dogs that went up and down as they
retained a grip on my ankle. I remember the old bloke who held me up for
half an hour while he complained about the delivery being late. I
remember the "roll ups" that I had to throw on to the verandah, but
which I sometimes threw onto the roof instead.
But I also remember the summer when I worked for the post office. Post
Office bikes were about two generations older than anyone else's bikes.
They were heavy and hard to steer. When the front basket was filled with
phone box money, at four pennies a call, the only way to steer them was
to jump off and lift the back end in a different direction; and the only
way to stop them was to run into a wall.

I'm inclined to doubt your methods. Lifting the back end of the bike won't
change the direction you're cycling in. The front wheel is still on the same
line.

Arrgh! You hold one side of the handlebars and lift the back. The
front wheel drags to the new direction, and this re-routes the
direction of the bike.
I no longer ride a bicycle, but I have a four-wheeled garden cart with
a long handle that turns the front wheels. To change direction when
the change is more abrupt than just turning the wheels would
accomplish, I employ that same maneuver. Hold the handle steady and
lift and move the back.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
And surely cycling up hill (a very short distance would be required)
is a whole lot safer than hitting a wall? I suspect your instructor of pranking
you somewhat rotten!

The "wall" is metaphorical. It could be a curb or any other
stationary impediment to forward movement. A sleeping dog or small
child would work.

Does the small child have to be asleep?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I'm inclined to doubt your methods. Lifting the back end of the bike
won't change the direction you're cycling in. The front wheel is
still on the same line. And surely cycling up hill (a very short
distance would be required) is a whole lot safer than hitting a
wall? I suspect your instructor of pranking you somewhat rotten!

Tony has explained how to change direction by lifting the back wheel. It
works. Lifting the front wheel wouldn't have been feasible when the
front basket was holding hundreds of pennies in public phone coin boxes.
A filled coin box is seriously heavy.

As for the hill: should I have towed an artificial hill behind me, or
gone to a hill a couple of miles away and then walked back?

[Quinn C]

Post by Tak To

Post by Quinn C
[...]
Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then pull the
other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by pulling the
leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle. I don't remember
clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on girl's bikes. Looks
like a feat of balance to me.

Anyone having the need to carry something large on the
back rack (e.g., a child) would probably need to mount
the bike that way.
Note that unless one's "crotch clearance" is high enough,
one would have to tilt a (non-moving) bike in order to
straddle over its middle bar. This it is not always
feasible for a loaded bike. (And if one straddles the
bike first one would not be able to load the back rack.)
In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike
rolling first with one foot on the paddle, then swing
the opposite leg over as the bike becomes steady.
Most adults in China could do that when I was kid.

Good point.

Now that you mention it, I think when I was younger, I occasionally did
the tilting the bicycle thing to get my foot over the bar when I came
from the supermarket with two full saddlebags and a cardboard box
strapped on top, but it was scary - not for fear of injuring myself,
but of losing the goods, and a little more weight especially on top
would have made it impossible.

So people in poorer countries who use bicycles for commercial transport
need to have a solution, and they better use bicycles with a top bar
for stability, even if others are available.

Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

[bill van]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

Variations on the Dutch "bakfiets" have been showing up in North
America in recent years. A bakfiets has three wheels,
two under a bin ("bak") that can hold cargo, dogs, children, whatever,
and the third under the pedaller. The bin
is in the front so the person riding the bike can keep an eye on the
cargo and on traffic at the same time.

bill

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

Variations on the Dutch "bakfiets" have been showing up in North
America in recent years. A bakfiets has three wheels,
two under a bin ("bak") that can hold cargo, dogs, children, whatever,
and the third under the pedaller. The bin
is in the front so the person riding the bike can keep an eye on the
cargo and on traffic at the same time.

But what does Q mean by "hanger"?

[bill van]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

Variations on the Dutch "bakfiets" have been showing up in North
America in recent years. A bakfiets has three wheels,
two under a bin ("bak") that can hold cargo, dogs, children, whatever,
and the third under the pedaller. The bin
is in the front so the person riding the bike can keep an eye on the
cargo and on traffic at the same time.

But what does Q mean by "hanger"?

No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

bill

[Tony Cooper]

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

Variations on the Dutch "bakfiets" have been showing up in North
America in recent years. A bakfiets has three wheels,
two under a bin ("bak") that can hold cargo, dogs, children, whatever,
and the third under the pedaller. The bin
is in the front so the person riding the bike can keep an eye on the
cargo and on traffic at the same time.

But what does Q mean by "hanger"?

No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
strapped in and quite safe. It's similar to this one:

https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsNu9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

http://tinyurl.com/y9bfjfpd

They're fairly common down here.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:53:58 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

Variations on the Dutch "bakfiets" have been showing up in North
America in recent years. A bakfiets has three wheels,
two under a bin ("bak") that can hold cargo, dogs, children, whatever,
and the third under the pedaller. The bin
is in the front so the person riding the bike can keep an eye on the
cargo and on traffic at the same time.

But what does Q mean by "hanger"?

No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsNu9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
http://tinyurl.com/y9bfjfpd
They're fairly common down here.

They exist in the UK also, although I haven't seen one recently.

Wikip has this special example (location not stated):
Loading Image...
from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_trailer

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels
But what does Q mean by "hanger"?

No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsNu9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Everything after the first '?' is unnecessary, and the '?' should go, too.

Post by Tony Cooper
http://tinyurl.com/y9bfjfpd
They're fairly common down here.

They've been around long enough out here for the homeless to be salvaging them.

/dps

[Quinn C]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Tony Cooper

[...] I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsNu9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Everything after the first '?' is unnecessary, and the '?' should go, too.

But either way, it redirects me to the international site and announces
"Now shipping to Canada". I'm not getting shown the specific article.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Quinn C

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Tony Cooper

[...] I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsNu9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Everything after the first '?' is unnecessary, and the '?' should go, too.

But either way, it redirects me to the international site and announces
"Now shipping to Canada". I'm not getting shown the specific article.

Works for me ...

<https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620>
https://tinyurl.com/y8qahne9

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Quinn C

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Tony Cooper

[...] I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsNu9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Everything after the first '?' is unnecessary, and the '?' should go, too.

But either way, it redirects me to the international site and announces
"Now shipping to Canada". I'm not getting shown the specific article.

Works for me ...
<https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620>
https://tinyurl.com/y8qahne9

These days, England and US are closer than US and Canada.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Quinn C

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Tony Cooper

[...] I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsNu9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Everything after the first '?' is unnecessary, and the '?' should go, too.

But either way, it redirects me to the international site and announces
"Now shipping to Canada". I'm not getting shown the specific article.

Works for me ...
<https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620>
https://tinyurl.com/y8qahne9

These days, England and US are closer than US and Canada.

When it comes to the availability of new products that come out first
in the US, the UK, Germany, Japan or China often follow before Canada.
They go by the importance of the market.

In this case, though, the difference is probably that you can't buy
from target from the UK anyway, so they just show you the US site FYI,
whereas Canada gets its own site with prices in CAD.

If I exchange www for intl in the address, it works. The Canadian price
is CAD 144.80.

[Tak To]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

Variations on the Dutch "bakfiets" have been showing up in North
America in recent years. A bakfiets has three wheels,
two under a bin ("bak") that can hold cargo, dogs, children, whatever,
and the third under the pedaller. The bin
is in the front so the person riding the bike can keep an eye on the
cargo and on traffic at the same time.

But what does Q mean by "hanger"?

No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-double/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsNu9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
http://tinyurl.com/y9bfjfpd
They're fairly common down here.

I had one like that when my daughters were really small. I used
it for only a couple of times, mainly because my daughters were
soon bored with just sitting in it and doing nothing. And man,
wasn't the whole thing heavy!

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van
No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
strapped in and quite safe.

I've been in a car where the driver remarked "and they put little flags
on them, and I'm supposed to see that? I think they should be
forbidden!"

I didn't have the heart to say that if the trailers are dangerous, it's
only because of inattentive drivers like her, and I'd rather get those
drivers off the street than the trailers. It felt a bit hypocritical
while I was getting a lift.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:51:10 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van
No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
strapped in and quite safe.

I've been in a car where the driver remarked "and they put little flags
on them, and I'm supposed to see that? I think they should be
forbidden!"

One of the reasons that they are popular around here seems to be that
they allow the mother to exercise. Pushing a baby around in a pram
isn't as exerting as towing the trailer.

However, there's a somewhat-elderly man that I often see who has a dog
in the trailer. He's getting his exercise, but the dog isn't.

As to the person who made the comment you report, the trailer is much
wider than the bicycle, and makes the rider and trailer *easier* to
see than just a bicycle.

[Tak To]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:51:10 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van
No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
strapped in and quite safe.

I've been in a car where the driver remarked "and they put little flags
on them, and I'm supposed to see that? I think they should be
forbidden!"

One of the reasons that they are popular around here seems to be that
they allow the mother to exercise. Pushing a baby around in a pram
isn't as exerting as towing the trailer.

Well, there are jogging prams, as well as jogging prams
that can double as trailers.

[Janet]

Post by Tak To

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:51:10 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van
No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
strapped in and quite safe.

I've been in a car where the driver remarked "and they put little flags
on them, and I'm supposed to see that? I think they should be
forbidden!"

One of the reasons that they are popular around here seems to be that
they allow the mother to exercise. Pushing a baby around in a pram
isn't as exerting as towing the trailer.

Well, there are jogging prams, as well as jogging prams
that can double as trailers.

My son and DIL used a two-seat child trailer for their bikes, which
also had a cross-country ski attachment.

With two children on board it was hard work to tow (on roads and snow)
and probably explains why the infants learned to ski and ride a bike at
a very early age.

Janet.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

Variations on the Dutch "bakfiets" have been showing up in North
America in recent years. A bakfiets has three wheels,
two under a bin ("bak") that can hold cargo, dogs, children, whatever,
and the third under the pedaller. The bin
is in the front so the person riding the bike can keep an eye on the
cargo and on traffic at the same time.

But what does Q mean by "hanger"?

No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-dou

ble/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports
+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&lo
cation=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsN
u9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Post by Tony Cooper
http://tinyurl.com/y9bfjfpd
They're fairly common down here.

Quite oldfashioned, and rarely seen nowadays
in these parts of the world.
Too dangerous, too clumsy, no visual contact.

The modern way is a revival of the 'bakfiets'.
<Loading Image...>
(short link selected for Athel)
Takes some getting used to.

AFAIK no good tranlation of 'bakfiets' exists.
Closest is 'carrier bicycle' or 'delivery bicycle'
but these cover a lot of other things,

Jan

[Quinn C]

* J. J. Lodder:

[bicycle trailer for transporting children]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Quite oldfashioned, and rarely seen nowadays
in these parts of the world.
Too dangerous, too clumsy, no visual contact.
The modern way is a revival of the 'bakfiets'.
<https://www.bakfiets.nl/images/foto-usp.jpg>
(short link selected for Athel)
Takes some getting used to.

I would have found it helpful if you had explained the word. The "bak"
part doesn't mean "back", as its false friendliness suggests, but "box"
(French "bac").

Post by J. J. Lodder
AFAIK no good tranlation of 'bakfiets' exists.
Closest is 'carrier bicycle' or 'delivery bicycle'
but these cover a lot of other things,

And are those called by different names in Dutch? The main photo at
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakfiets> shows one clearly meant for
cargo, not people.

I would say the one you linked looks as clumsy as a trailer, but I
agree with the security considerations.

The solution for transporting two children that was most common in my
parts growing up was this:
<Loading Image...>
(one child seat in front, one in the back.)

[J. J. Lodder]

[false attribution corrected]
[bicycle trailer for transporting children]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Quite oldfashioned, and rarely seen nowadays
in these parts of the world.
Too dangerous, too clumsy, no visual contact.
The modern way is a revival of the 'bakfiets'.
<https://www.bakfiets.nl/images/foto-usp.jpg>
(short link selected for Athel)
Takes some getting used to.

I would have found it helpful if you had explained the word. The "bak"
part doesn't mean "back", as its false friendliness suggests, but "box"
(French "bac").

A translation site gives for 'bak'
barrel ; bucket ; vat ; vessel ; tub ; cask ; drum ; pan ; pail ; butt ; hold ;
food bowl ; trough ; feed box ; container ; reservoir ; holder ; tank,
enough to get the idea.
(the other translations refer to 'bak' meaning jail)
NL 'in de back zitten' -> E. 'doing time'
Also fig., in 'een bak hagel' E. 'a bucket of hail'.
Anyway the 'bak' in a 'bakfiets' is always in front of the rider.

Post by J. J. Lodder
AFAIK no good tranlation of 'bakfiets' exists.
Closest is 'carrier bicycle' or 'delivery bicycle'
but these cover a lot of other things,

And are those called by different names in Dutch? The main photo at
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakfiets> shows one clearly meant for
cargo, not people.

Right, that's the classic, perhaps pre-WWII 'bakfiets'.
It was a general purpose transport vehicle
replacing much horse drawn transport.
(employment for strong young men in the crisis years)

You can still use one, even for for your ultimate needs.
<Loading Image...>

I would say the one you linked looks as clumsy as a trailer, but I
agree with the security considerations.

They are quite manouvrable, typically have grip-shift gearing,
and if needed electrical drive assist.

The solution for transporting two children that was most common in my
<https://cupofjo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/best-bike-seats-for-kids-nyc.j

pg>

(one child seat in front, one in the back.)

Also, but limited to small children in front.
The retro one for in the back is this one
<https://img.2dehands.be/f/normal/399518948_1-rieten-kinderzitje-voor-je-retro-f
iets-of-bromfiets.jpg>

Quite practical, but no longer acceptable in our security-concious age,

Jan

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

Is that something like a trailer? In Chicago I saw cyclists towing a
toddler in a cart-seat attached behind. Chicago, being flat, is
bicycle-friendly.

Variations on the Dutch "bakfiets" have been showing up in North
America in recent years. A bakfiets has three wheels,
two under a bin ("bak") that can hold cargo, dogs, children, whatever,
and the third under the pedaller. The bin
is in the front so the person riding the bike can keep an eye on the
cargo and on traffic at the same time.

But what does Q mean by "hanger"?

No reply yet to another query along those lines, but I'm guessing
he means a trailer. I wouldn't want to carry a child in a trailer,
which I can't see without turning around.

Our youngest grandson rides in one behind his mother. The boy is
https://www.target.com/p/instep-quick-and-eazy-bicycle-trailer-orange-gray-dou

ble/-/A-12326620?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Sports
+Shopping&adgroup=SC_Sports&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&lo
cation=9011775&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof3cBRD9ARIsAP8x70P-1eHx0sipHPTBEXIo9iqPvsN
u9gO9_GUGWW2gEh3pc58b5xaLkZsaAn4HEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Post by Tony Cooper
http://tinyurl.com/y9bfjfpd
They're fairly common down here.

Quite oldfashioned, and rarely seen nowadays
in these parts of the world.
Too dangerous, too clumsy, no visual contact.

Good Lord! What a monster of an over-engineered solution!

First of all, it's dedicated baby transport vehicle (or,
alternatively, transport vehicle for a barge-load of tulip bulbs) that
takes up more space than a transit van. You could put that thing in a
harbor and use it to shuttle cargo from a ship to the dock.

The "oldfashioned" version my d-i-l uses quickly and easily attaches
to, and is detachable from, her bicycle. It takes a small space in
the garage, and allows the bicycle to be used when the infant isn't
being transported.

Your version has the turning radius of a locomotive. You'd need
outriggers to stop it from flipping over on a tight turn. And you
don't consider it dangerous or clumsy?

Visual contact? The bicycle rider would be able to see the top of the
infant's head if she'd prop the baby up sufficiently. Unlike my
d-i-l's version, the bicycle rider can't see the baby's face and know
the child is in the process of eating a sock or something. You think
mothers don't constantly look back and check on their child?

The biggest advantage to the "bakfiets" is that in bad weather it can
be turned over and both mother and child can huddle under it. The
mother in your photo seems to have two children, but they'd all fit.

Post by Tony Cooper
The modern way is a revival of the 'bakfiets'.
<https://www.bakfiets.nl/images/foto-usp.jpg>
(short link selected for Athel)
Takes some getting used to.
AFAIK no good tranlation of 'bakfiets' exists.
Closest is 'carrier bicycle' or 'delivery bicycle'
but these cover a lot of other things,
Jan

[Tak To]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tak To

Post by Quinn C
[...]
Also, I remember now that I've seen people do the roll, then pull the
other leg over thing on bikes with a top bar, but still by pulling the
leg over the bar in front, instead of over the saddle. I don't remember
clearly, but I'd guess it was women who learned on girl's bikes. Looks
like a feat of balance to me.

Anyone having the need to carry something large on the
back rack (e.g., a child) would probably need to mount
the bike that way.
Note that unless one's "crotch clearance" is high enough,
one would have to tilt a (non-moving) bike in order to
straddle over its middle bar. This it is not always
feasible for a loaded bike. (And if one straddles the
bike first one would not be able to load the back rack.)
In this case, one would have to start the loaded bike
rolling first with one foot on the paddle, then swing
the opposite leg over as the bike becomes steady.
Most adults in China could do that when I was kid.

Good point.
Now that you mention it, I think when I was younger, I occasionally did
the tilting the bicycle thing to get my foot over the bar when I came
from the supermarket with two full saddlebags and a cardboard box
strapped on top, but it was scary - not for fear of injuring myself,
but of losing the goods, and a little more weight especially on top
would have made it impossible.
So people in poorer countries who use bicycles for commercial transport
need to have a solution, and they better use bicycles with a top bar
for stability, even if others are available.

In fact, some bicycles had *two* top horizontal bars.

Post by Quinn C
Come to think of it, people who want to do serious transporting by
bicycle in Western countries would use a hanger (e.g. we have a moving
service in Montreal that does as much as possible by bicycle). I don't
remember any pictures from poorer countries showing bicycles with a
hanger. I understand that not everyone would have access to them, but I
wonder, were they not available at all?

I assume that a hanger means a (two-wheel) trailer.

There was no bicycle trailers back then in China. It
was probably due mainly to the limitation in the overall
manufacturing capacity, but a planned economy certain
did not make designing and testing new products any
easier. A feasible bicycle trailer had to be
collapsible, light weight, and relatively inexpensive.
It is still a tall order today.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Peter Moylan

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:08:12 GMT, Joy Beeson

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the
horizontal top bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride
"boy's" bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

Clearly (in raw engineering terms) a triangle (or two=diamond) frame
is more robust than any other option.

I don't know whether it's changed now, but when I was a boy there was a
big difference between the way boys and girls got onto a bike. Boys put
the left foot onto the pedal and then swung the right foot over the back
wheel. (I never noticed whether left-handers did it differently.)

You don't have to be left-handed to do it differently. I am thoroughly
right-handed, and have for the past 50 years mounted a bike
by standing on the right side of the bike with both hands on the
handles, then putting the right foot on the right pedal, pushing
myself and the bike into forwards motion, and then swinging the left leg
over the back wheel.
It has always annoyed me that the chain is on the side I use for mounting.

Post by Peter Moylan
Girls
just stepped through, which of course depended on having no top bar.
Girls and boys mounted horses the same way, so the girls must have had
the muscles and the agility to swing a leg over the bike; but tradition
said that they didn't do it that way, so the difference between girls'
and boys' bikes had to persist.
Skirts would have been the original reason for the difference, but these
days, and even in my childhood, few girls or women wear a skirt while
riding a bike.

/Anders, Denmark.

[Tak To]

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride "boy's"
bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

I have a female relative who, as a kid, learned to ride a
men's bike by having one of her legs going _under_ the
horizontal bar. (She was not sitting on the saddle.) She
claimed that it was common for kids of her age at that
time (60's, Beijing) to learn that way because there were
simply no children's bike around.

She has good biking skills and can fetch a second bike
while riding one. I don't know how common is that level
of ability these days.

[Tak To]

Post by Tak To

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:42:34 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
When I was a kid, some of the girls rode bikes with the horizontal top
bar. It gave them a cool and rebellious image.

When I was a kid, my father insisted that his daughters ride "boy's"
bikes because girl's bikes didn't hold up in use.

I have a female relative who, as a kid, learned to ride a
men's bike by having one of her legs going _under_ the
horizontal bar. (She was not sitting on the saddle.) She
claimed that it was common for kids of her age at that
time (60's, Beijing) to learn that way because there were
simply no children's bike around.

I managed to find the following picture to illustrate this
Loading Image...

Post by Tak To
She has good biking skills and can fetch a second bike
while riding one. I don't know how common is that level
of ability these days.

[RHDraney]

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.

I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

The phone-thing seems similar to the bike-thing to me, and
"anthropomorphizing" doesn't fit the phone-thing.

[Tak To]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Post by Rich Ulrich
The phone-thing seems similar to the bike-thing to me, and
"anthropomorphizing" doesn't fit the phone-thing.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up? It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

Both Luise Rainer and Liza Minnelli got their first Oscar nominations for
their acting in telephone scenes (The Great Ziegfeld and The Sterile
Cuckoo, respectively). (Rainer won; Minnelli was up against Jane Fonda,
and the winner, Maggie Smith.)

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
The phone-thing seems similar to the bike-thing to me, and
"anthropomorphizing" doesn't fit the phone-thing.

[Tak To]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
[...]
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
[...]
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."

The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true, and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.

It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

[charles]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
[...]
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true, and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

I've, on more than one occasion, wired up a stage phone, so I am at the
other end of the call. Confuses the actor nomend.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by charles
I've, on more than one occasion, wired up a stage phone, so I am at the
other end of the call. Confuses the actor nomend.

Would there ever be someone there having the actual conversation with the
on-stage actor, so that they can get their timing and reactions right
without trying?

[charles]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles
I've, on more than one occasion, wired up a stage phone, so I am at the
other end of the call. Confuses the actor nomend.

Would there ever be someone there having the actual conversation with the
on-stage actor, so that they can get their timing and reactions right
without trying?

not normally.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles
I've, on more than one occasion, wired up a stage phone, so I am at the
other end of the call. Confuses the actor nomend.

Would there ever be someone there having the actual conversation with the
on-stage actor, so that they can get their timing and reactions right
without trying?

not normally.

I'm reminded of the supposed event when a stagehand mistakenly caused a
phone to ring at the wrong moment, and some big-name actor -- Jessica
Tandy? Katharine Hepburn? etc.? -- picked it up, "listened" for a moment,
and handed it to her scene partner saying, "It's for you."

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles
I've, on more than one occasion, wired up a stage phone, so I am at the
other end of the call. Confuses the actor nomend.

Would there ever be someone there having the actual conversation with the
on-stage actor, so that they can get their timing and reactions right
without trying?

not normally.

I'm reminded of the supposed event when a stagehand mistakenly caused a
phone to ring at the wrong moment, and some big-name actor -- Jessica
Tandy? Katharine Hepburn? etc.? -- picked it up, "listened" for a moment,
and handed it to her scene partner saying, "It's for you."

A possibly apocryphal tale which has, by now, been attributed to
every big name that ever trod the boards (post telephone, of course).

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
[...]
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true,

The telephone?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.
It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

That's highly improbable, as one must of needs look at the handset when
hanging up, whether they do it subconsciously or not, if only to place it properly on the hook or base.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
[...]
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true,

The telephone?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.
It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

That's highly improbable, as one must of needs look at the handset when
hanging up, whether they do it subconsciously or not, if only to place it properly on the hook or base.

So what's _your_ interpretation of why the actor schooled the director
in that particular subconscious behavior?

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
[...]
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true,

The telephone?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.
It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

That's highly improbable, as one must of needs look at the handset when
hanging up, whether they do it subconsciously or not, if only to place it properly on the hook or base.

So what's _your_ interpretation of why the actor schooled the director
in that particular subconscious behavior?

Overzealousness by the actor, who failed to see the obvious.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true,

The telephone?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.
It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

That's highly improbable, as one must of needs look at the handset when
hanging up, whether they do it subconsciously or not, if only to place it properly on the hook or base.

So what's _your_ interpretation of why the actor schooled the director
in that particular subconscious behavior?

Overzealousness by the actor, who failed to see the obvious.

What obvious thing did the actor fail to see?

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true,

The telephone?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.
It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

That's highly improbable, as one must of needs look at the handset when
hanging up, whether they do it subconsciously or not, if only to place it properly on the hook or base.

So what's _your_ interpretation of why the actor schooled the director
in that particular subconscious behavior?

Overzealousness by the actor, who failed to see the obvious.

What obvious thing did the actor fail to see?

That a handset has to be looked at before one hangs up and de facto
always is.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true,

The telephone?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.
It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

That's highly improbable, as one must of needs look at the handset when
hanging up, whether they do it subconsciously or not, if only to place it properly on the hook or base.

So what's _your_ interpretation of why the actor schooled the director
in that particular subconscious behavior?

Overzealousness by the actor, who failed to see the obvious.

What obvious thing did the actor fail to see?

That a handset has to be looked at before one hangs up and de facto
always is.

Except that in the story, it was the actor who pointed out that fact to
the director. (I missed that upon first reading but then saw what the
text actually said.)

[Tak To]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
[...]
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true,

The telephone?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.
It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

That's highly improbable, as one must of needs look at the handset when
hanging up, whether they do it subconsciously or not, if only to place it properly on the hook or base.

While I did not agree with PTD, I do not agree with you
either. As I have pointed out in another post, one
looks at the nail, not the hammer. One looks at the
basket, not the ball. Thus, when hanging up, one looks
at the hook/cradle, not the handset. And of course
the handset will come into one's focus when it is
near the hook.

[Richard Yates]

Post by Tak To

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
[...]
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?

How do you get "stared at" from "looked at"?

Because of the italicizing?

You'll have to check with Rich, but to me it looks like an emphasis
italic, not an intensifier italic. If he'd wanted to say "stared,"
he's have said "stared."
The point of the anecdote is still that an actor pretending to make a
phone call will probably fail to do the things that anyone does automati-
cally without thinking about it when actually making a phone call, so it
has to be pointed out to the actor that a certain sequence of events
almost always occurs, whether one is aware of them or not -- if the actor
doesn't do them, then there will be _something_ about the scene that
doesn't ring true,

The telephone?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and most people will feel it without any idea of what
it was that wasn't right.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

Seems like a pretty normal, standard practice.

What seems normal and standard, the alleged action or the
alleged lack of action?

It's highly unlikely that you have any conscious awareness of what you
do when talking on a traditional telephone, so that the "alleged action"
is normal and standard and probably done by you.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

Hunh? Some movie somewhere -- or several -- have made a point of pointing
out that it's pretty standard for people to look at the handset before
hanging it up?

Is that a question?

Yes. "Are you making the assertion that I spelled out? If not, what did
you mean by 'movie stories'?"

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It doesn't seem natural that when you're about to perform
some routine act, you verify that all the components of that act are in
good order, and you do that subconsciously? Which is why an actor has to
have it pointed out when he's doing the unnatural act of pretending to
hang up a phone after pretending to have had a phone conversation?

If you put it that way -- the most likely scenario is
probably that the whole story about the actor teaching the
director is untrue. Really, the actor expected the script
writer to put in an explicit direction of a totally
inconsequential action/gesture that "almost everyone"
would do automatically anyways? (E.g., "walk and swing
arms naturally")

Now you're not making sense.
It seems there would have been a director who wanted the scene speeded up
by omitting the split-second moment when the actor looked at the phone
while hanging up, and the actor was doing what came naturally.

That's highly improbable, as one must of needs look at the handset when
hanging up, whether they do it subconsciously or not, if only to place it properly on the hook or base.

While I did not agree with PTD, I do not agree with you
either. As I have pointed out in another post, one
looks at the nail, not the hammer. One looks at the
basket, not the ball. Thus, when hanging up, one looks
at the hook/cradle, not the handset. And of course
the handset will come into one's focus when it is
near the hook.

I think it could depend on one's familiarity with the particular
phone. I would probably look at the handset of this one:
https://tinyurl.com/y8xjcyel

or this: https://tinyurl.com/y8m3qn9g

There is another reason that looking at the handset at the end of a
call would be natural gesture and a skillful piece of acting craft. A
thoughtful gaze at it could convey any number of
emotions/thoughts/reactions that the person was having about the
conversation that just ended.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)

I can believe it. I've never noticed that I've done it, or noticed
others doing it, but there are a lot instinctual moves that people do
that we don't pay any attention to. The actor did.

That's why gamblers look for "tells" in other card players, and
football players look for "tells" on the opposing players. A "tell"
is something that is done that the person isn't aware they're doing.
Most people don't pick them up in others.

[John Varela]

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

It's been decades since I've seen a pay phone much less used one,
but I can think of a reason why the user would look at the handset
(not necessarily the "mouthpiece") before hanging up. It's an
unfamiliar handset. The user has to hang it up. The hook, cradle
or whatever, is also unfamiliar. So the user looks at the handset,
looks at the wall unit, sees how the parts go together, and hangs
up.

Search Google Images for "pay phone" to see the variety of
configurations that existed.

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
The phone-thing seems similar to the bike-thing to me, and
"anthropomorphizing" doesn't fit the phone-thing.

[Tak To]

Post by John Varela

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

It's been decades since I've seen a pay phone much less used one,
but I can think of a reason why the user would look at the handset
(not necessarily the "mouthpiece") before hanging up. It's an
unfamiliar handset. The user has to hang it up. The hook, cradle
or whatever, is also unfamiliar. So the user looks at the handset,
looks at the wall unit, sees how the parts go together, and hangs
up.

I doubt that many would think, "Hm, I am unfamiliar with
this phone, let me look at the shape of the handset first".
It is more likely that one would first instinctively
put the handset back to where (one thinks) one took it from
a very short while ago, and pay closer attention only if
the hook somehow does not catch, or if the handset cannot
reach the hook because of an issue with the cable, etc.

And just as one looks at the nail rather than the hammer,
one is more likely to look at the hook rather than the
handset when trying to place it.

Post by John Varela
Search Google Images for "pay phone" to see the variety of
configurations that existed.

In all the pictures it is the speaker end of the handset that
rests on the hook. The shape of the all the handsets are
remarkably similar. It is the hook that has different shapes
and positions -- one more reason that people would look at
the hook rather than the handset.

In any case, it is very far-fetched to say that *almost everyone*
would look at the handset. Many people are familiar with payphones
-- drug dealers, traveling salesmen, reporters, anyone who has
to move around or otherwise don't have access to a normal phone.

[John Ritson]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm

otherwise)....r

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.

Really? The actor thought that "almost every person" in
real life stared at the mouthpiece before hanging up?
And was that only for pay-phones or applicable to other
phones as well?
I have never done that myself, and have never noticed
people doing it in real life. (I am talking about phones
in general, since I have had very few occasions to
observe how others behave inside a phone booth.)
I think the actor was confusing movie stories with reality.

It's been decades since I've seen a pay phone much less used one,

In London, they seem to be making a comeback, not that anyone is really
expected to use them to make a call.
Before mobile phones came along, pay phones were seen as socially
useful, and so were not subject to much in the way of planning
permission.
Nowadays, our streets are cluttered with phone booths, not because the
operators are seriously hoping for any call revenue, but because the
back of the booth is used for advertising.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:16:02 +0100, John Ritson

Post by John Ritson
In London, they seem to be making a comeback, not that anyone is really
expected to use them to make a call.
Before mobile phones came along, pay phones were seen as socially
useful, and so were not subject to much in the way of planning
permission.
Nowadays, our streets are cluttered with phone booths, not because the
operators are seriously hoping for any call revenue, but because the
back of the booth is used for advertising.

Sure, you need someplace for the toms to put up their business card.

[charles]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:16:02 +0100, John Ritson

Post by John Ritson
In London, they seem to be making a comeback, not that anyone is really
expected to use them to make a call.
Before mobile phones came along, pay phones were seen as socially
useful, and so were not subject to much in the way of planning
permission.
Nowadays, our streets are cluttered with phone booths, not because the
operators are seriously hoping for any call revenue, but because the
back of the booth is used for advertising.

Sure, you need someplace for the toms to put up their business card.

how did you guess?

[Adam Funk]

Post by John Ritson

Post by John Varela
It's been decades since I've seen a pay phone much less used one,

In London, they seem to be making a comeback, not that anyone is really
expected to use them to make a call.
Before mobile phones came along, pay phones were seen as socially
useful, and so were not subject to much in the way of planning
permission.
Nowadays, our streets are cluttered with phone booths, not because the
operators are seriously hoping for any call revenue, but because the
back of the booth is used for advertising.

I came across this odd news recently:

Police and local authorities have stalled an attempt by British
Telecom to build a national network of 5G internet phone booths
after finding drug addicts were using them to score a fix.

BT was pushing for permits to install 1000 of the futuristic
‘InLink’ phone kiosks, and had already erected about 200 in 20
cities across the UK, in partnership with a company backed by
Alphabet, parent of Silicon valley search giant Google.
...

Tower Hamlets is in talks with BT, to get it to stop InLinks making
free calls to mobile phones, said a spokeswoman for the council. BT
has refused.

“People get 30 seconds of free calls – it allows people to phone
their dealer and say, ‘two browns and one white, please’,” she said,
using slang terms for crack and heroin.

[Quinn C]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.
The phone-thing seems similar to the bike-thing to me, and
"anthropomorphizing" doesn't fit the phone-thing.

I agree. The function of the pat is probably the ritual confirmation
that I'm all done - the bike is in a good place, safely locked, I
haven't left a bag on it, and whatever else seems important.

But that's a slightly different question from my original, which was
more about why it's a pat, and why on the saddle.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:31:13 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.
The phone-thing seems similar to the bike-thing to me, and
"anthropomorphizing" doesn't fit the phone-thing.

I agree. The function of the pat is probably the ritual confirmation
that I'm all done - the bike is in a good place, safely locked, I
haven't left a bag on it, and whatever else seems important.
But that's a slightly different question from my original, which was
more about why it's a pat, and why on the saddle.

In reverse order -
The saddle is the most pattable part of the bike.

Patting it as a "goodbye" gesture is similar to giving a handshake or,
occasionally, touching a person on the upper-arm/shoulder when leaving
them.
It is simliar to stroking a pet (cat or dog) when lwaving it.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:31:13 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.
The phone-thing seems similar to the bike-thing to me, and
"anthropomorphizing" doesn't fit the phone-thing.

I agree. The function of the pat is probably the ritual confirmation
that I'm all done - the bike is in a good place, safely locked, I
haven't left a bag on it, and whatever else seems important.
But that's a slightly different question from my original, which was
more about why it's a pat, and why on the saddle.

In reverse order -
The saddle is the most pattable part of the bike.
Patting it as a "goodbye" gesture is similar to giving a handshake or,
occasionally, touching a person on the upper-arm/shoulder when leaving
them.
It is simliar to stroking a pet (cat or dog) when lwaving it.

Would someone who came to bicycling from riding horses be more or less
likely to "Zoomorph" their bike?

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:08:19 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:31:13 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by RHDraney

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I wonder if it's something I've seen parrots do, when they're
demonstrating their skills at human language beyond mere mimicry...after
telling the handler the object is "green" or "wood" or whatever, the
bird always insists on picking it up or at least touching it with its
beak before continuing, as if to assure itself that the object is
real...(I've discussed this behavior with a bird-fancier and concluded
that it's connected with the bird's lack of 3D binocular vision, which
makes even flat photographs appear "real" until they confirm otherwise)....r

I wonder if it is -
Affirming that something is done/over, to seal the memory.
I remember reading of an actor teaching a director about
the reality of hanging up a pay-phone at the end of the call
(back in the day). Almost every person would take the phone
away from their ear, /look/ at the mouthpiece, then hang
up the phone. That was a sequence the director had not put
in the script until the actor ad-libbed it. And explained it.
The phone-thing seems similar to the bike-thing to me, and
"anthropomorphizing" doesn't fit the phone-thing.

I agree. The function of the pat is probably the ritual confirmation
that I'm all done - the bike is in a good place, safely locked, I
haven't left a bag on it, and whatever else seems important.
But that's a slightly different question from my original, which was
more about why it's a pat, and why on the saddle.

In reverse order -
The saddle is the most pattable part of the bike.
Patting it as a "goodbye" gesture is similar to giving a handshake or,
occasionally, touching a person on the upper-arm/shoulder when leaving
them.

"Don't touch me again, man!"
- Marco Rubio to Alex Jones yesterday after Jones patted his shoulder.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It is simliar to stroking a pet (cat or dog) when lwaving it.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:08:19 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It is simliar to stroking a pet (cat or dog) when lwaving it.

Perhaps I should claim that "lwaving" was not a typo but a deliberate
coining meaning to wave when leaving.

Perhaps not.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual?

Go figure.

Post by Quinn C
Is it anthropomorphizing?

No, as the bicycle would have sued you for harassment.

Post by Quinn C
I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.
So animalomorphizing? That doesn't sound right. Anthropo- is Greek, so
zoomorphizing? M-W actually has that (but no other of the onelook
dictionaries does), but it defines it as depicting deities or
supernatural forces as animals. Theriomorphizing, pretty much the same.
Is there a better word for what I'm looking for? I'm surprised that
this was so difficult, given that we have animated movies, in which
sometimes, things come to life and move around, without showing signs
of strict anthropomorphization, like speaking.
--
The bee must not pass judgment on the hive. (Voxish proverb)
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.125

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 21:49:03 GMT, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
I recently became aware that when I park my bicycle, before I step away
from it, I often give it a pat on the saddle.
So I stopped to wonder what that is. Is ist sexual? Is it
anthropomorphizing? I decided, no, it's closest to treating the bicycle
as if it was a horse or similar animal to ride on.

I tell mine to "stay".

Post by Quinn C
So animalomorphizing? That doesn't sound right. Anthropo- is Greek, so
zoomorphizing? M-W actually has that (but no other of the onelook
dictionaries does), but it defines it as depicting deities or
supernatural forces as animals. Theriomorphizing, pretty much the same.
Is there a better word for what I'm looking for? I'm surprised that
this was so difficult, given that we have animated movies, in which
sometimes, things come to life and move around, without showing signs
of strict anthropomorphization, like speaking.