# Survey Ranks Cities According to Civility



## Outsider

I thought this might be an interesting follow-up to the recent thread about cultural differences between East and West.

Reader's Digest civility test for cities.

I suppose a question that might be asked is, for those who have travelled a lot, does their ranking agree with your experience?


----------



## robbie_SWE

It's a horrible survey! I don't think it's true at all! 

The survey seems to generalize very much. Why wasn't Rome even in the survey?? I have been to Stockholm and it's not a "kind" city as it is said to be. Never once did a person hold a door open for somebody and the clerks aren't as nice as it is presumed. The only thing they got right is that it is relatively clean in Stockholm! 

Every city has its charm and a survey will never alter my opinion about that.  

 robbie


----------



## Papalote

Hi, Outsider

One more survey that confirms how useless and a waste of time these things are! I read the results relating to Montreal and Toronto. 

The only thing I agreed on is that customer service in Montreal and surrounding areas stinks.

I still find the study very biased and ethnocentric. Who decided that those 3 tests are admissible proof of politeness *around the globe*? 

The under 40´s are more polite just because *they CAN bend* to retrieve papers on the floor. With 4 back surgeries to my name, believe me, I do not bend to retrieve anything on the floor unless I can sit down to do it. How would I have scored on this one?

I still have to have my door opened/held by any under 30 of either sex. Usually, I am the one who opens it and the person on the other sides tries to push me aside to go through the door first!!!!

And I just cannot see how cashiers/vendors could ever become the sole representatives of the whole human spectrum of behaviours.

Methinks somebody failed their statistic courses in college and still managed to get a job at Reader´s Digest!

To answer your original question (finally ! ) I only agree with sales people being nicer in New York than Montreal and Paris, but not in Mexico or Copenhaguen or Dieppe or London or Halifax or ... 

See ya,

P


----------



## Etcetera

The only thing I tend to agree with is that Moscow isn't even in the Top 10.
I'd like to know more about the criteria used by those who did this survey.


----------



## french4beth

I don't think that the survey is very credible.

Also, there are cultural differences - in the US, people tend to smile a lot, for example, and tend to view people who don't smile a lot as being grumpy.  Also, what would be considered rude in 1 country, isn't necessarily rude everywhere else.

I find people in my home state of Connecticut to be too abrupt on occasion, yet every time I go to New York city, people hold doors open for me, say "thank you", etc.  I've had both good and bad experiences in Montreal and Toronto (mostly good).

From what I understand (never having been there myself), it is considered to be perfectly acceptable in some Japanese cities to cram as many people as possible into subways, elevators, etc.  In the US, most people try to avoid body contact at all costs (except during rush hour!) when on public transportation.


----------



## geve

I find this sentence interesting:


> Katherine Walker, editor in chief of the Digest’s British edition, said: “This was the world’s biggest real-life test of common courtesy; our researchers conducted more than 2,000 separate tests.”


2.000 tests, in 35 different cities = they have met an average of 57 persons in each city. 
I'm not sure that's very representative... 

I would also like to have more information on the conditions of the fieldwork: in what areas of the cities did they go? In what kind of stores? At what time of the day, what time of the year? How old were the researchers, were they male or female, were they good-looking?


----------



## Outsider

geve said:
			
		

> I find this sentence interesting:
> 
> 2.000 tests, in 35 different cities = they have met an average of 57 persons in each city.
> I'm not sure that's very representative...


You are assuming that they observed only one person per "test". It's more likely that they observed many. For example, pick a random building, and sit near the entrance for three hours, counting how many people open doors for others during that time period.


----------



## Etcetera

All the questions are more than just reasonable, Geve.


----------



## geve

Outsider said:
			
		

> You are assuming that they observed only one person per "test". It's more likely that they observed many. For example, pick a random building, and sit near the entrance for three hours, counting how many people open doors for others during that time period.


Yes, you're probably right. I hope you are!

But I still remain with my questions about how homogeneous the fieldwork conditions were... I also agree with Beth that the concept of "civility" itself can vary from country to country; and like Papalote I wonder how they came to choose these three items to evaluate civility worldwide.

That being said, I'm surprised that Paris didn't get a lower score... Is there really more than 1 person out of 2 who is civil here? That doesn't seem to fit the stereotypes!


----------



## Fernando

I am quite surprised to notice that there are cities even more unpolite than Madrid.


----------



## Vanda

Uau! I'm surprised! São Paulo, 4th?! Yeah, I know we are quite nice to people in general, but I thought other factors would influence.... Anyway, it's good to know we are good at something rather than corruption, violence, and the like. 



> In São Paulo, Brazil, even the criminals are civil; the researchers were attempting to buy sunglasses in an illegal market when the police arrived; the stallholder said “thank you” as he fled.


 
But the poor stallholders are not criminals  , they are poor people trying to survive in anyway, as they aren't able to get a job in the "legal" market.


----------



## Pivra

It depends on the individuals, how do you know that everyone in Mumbai or Bucharest is rude, who ever wrote this is indeed, very rude. This is written by an English, so I don´t think they will find Romanian or Indian culture very familiar to them and thus, judge them to be all rude while giving an 80% to New York maybe because of their cultural similarities. 

there is no 16 17 26 27 no the list

I find this pretty disturbing to know that some cultures use their cultural norms to judge the world. Don´t you this, too, very rude?


----------



## robbie_SWE

Pivra said:
			
		

> It depends on the individuals, how do you know that everyone in Mumbai or Bucharest is rude, who ever wrote this is indeed, very rude. This is written by an English, so I don´t think they will find Romanian or Indian culture very familiar to them and thus, judge them to be all rude while giving an 80% of New York maybe because of their cultural similarities.
> 
> there is no 16 17 26 27 no the list
> 
> I find this pretty disturbing to know that some cultures use their cultural norms to judge the world. Don´t you this, too, very rude?


 
EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN!!! Very well put Pivra!


----------



## maxiogee

Pivra said:
			
		

> there is no 16 17 26 27 no the list



They are there, it's just that they are cities wich scored the same and they are ranked equal with each other. The list is scored as follows (I've deleted the cities' names to avoid perpetuating an inanity!) I can't imagine how minimal the marking must have been to not allow for any discrimination across the five cities ranked at joint 15th. Ah well, at least the Reader's Digest head of "research" is an equal opportunity lunatic!)

01......(80%)
02......(77)
03......(70)
04=.....(68) (covers places 04 - 06
04=.....(68)
04=.....(68)
07=.....(67) (covers places 07 & 08)
07=.....(67)
09......(65)
10......(63)
11=.....(60) (covers places 11 - 14)
11=.....(60)
11=.....(60)
11=.....(60)
15=.....(57) (covers places 15 - 19)
15=.....(57)
15=.....(57)
15=.....(57)
15=.....(57)
20......(52)
21=.....(48) (covers places 21 & 22)
21=.....(48)
23=.....(47) (covers places 23 & 24)
23=.....(47)
25=.....(45) (covers places 25 - 27)
25=.....(45)
25=.....(45)
28=.....(43) (covers places 28 & 29)
28=.....(43)
30=.....(42) (covers places 30 & 31)
30=.....(42)
32......(40)
33......(37)
34......(35)
35......(32)

I hope this makes it clear.
It's not rocket science


----------



## Seana

Many thanks Outsider for this link where I  found my capital city as an one of the top of this list. I would never suppose it could be just found in this topic so high. These results pleased me very much.
Yeah however I have a bit different opinion about it I was said "statistics is apparently the queen of the sciences".


----------



## geve

Statistics and surveys are inherantly frustrating. Their aim is to provide significant, self-explanatory figures; but it can't work this way. To fully understand the meaning of these figures, one needs to delve into the methodology and the combination of factors that were compiled to produce these figures. But one is rarely willing to take the time and energy to do that.
The figures supplied in this thread seem debatable as some of us said. But I must admit that I didn't go though the fuss of examining closely (or even looking for) the detailed results and methodology of it...


----------



## ireney

I found the original article  here

It doesn't seem to have what all typical surveys have, like number of people surveyed (so as to show that they did survey the minimum percentage of each cities population necessary), any mentioning of the fact that they did asked the right percentage of people from each 'group' (age group, sex group etc) etc.

Add this to the fact already mentioned that different cultures = different responses and that reader's digest is not your typical scientific reading and you get an 'amusing' survey


----------



## djchak

So basically, becuase the study was not scientific, it HAS to be wrong.

Right?

Maybe there is something (cultural) we can learn from all this. New York City is known as the "city that never sleeps", right?

One of the most intresting aspects of this article was a quote on how NYC had changed since 9/11.

QUOTE:  "A former mayor of the city, told the magazine: “Since 9/11 New Yorkers are more caring. They understand the shortness of life.”


----------



## robbie_SWE

Sorry, just had to write again! 

For the first thing, I would like to agree to the fact that these people who conducted the survey do come from an English speaking country and this fact alters the whole sense of this survey. It is as plain as day that I will understand and have more in common with people who speak my mother tongue, than with those who don't. This survey is completely bias and should have never been published! 

For the second thing, what should you expect of people from former communist states?? Due to the fact that I originally come from Bucharest, I can give a "rough" picture of how it's like there. After 50 years of communist rule, a revolution in 1989 and devastating economical problems would you take the time from your minimum wage job to hold the door open for somebody??!! I would absolutely not! Romania has recently acquired the capitalistic and materialistic way of life, as the old saying goes "time is money" (and by the way, it's not my experience at all of the inhabitants of Bucharest. They are courteous and polite, but apparently not polite enough for the refined taste of Reader's Digest). 

For the third thing, I don't buy all that "NY has changed for the better since 9/11". I know people who have been there many times and they give a darker more paranoid picture of the Big Apple. Just because a mayor said something, doesn't make it right!!! 

/robbie


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem to have what all typical surveys have, like number of people surveyed (so as to show that they did survey the minimum percentage of each cities population necessary), any mentioning of the fact that they did asked the right percentage of people from each 'group' (age group, sex group etc) etc.
> [/URL]



Surveys of this kind rarely, if ever, use a percentage of any population, they either use a minimum number of interviewees which research has shown to be a statistically representative sample, or that do the same limited research in several locations — which is what was done here.
"The routine in New York was similar to the one followed elsewhere: Two reporters -- one woman and one man -- fanned out across the city, homing in on neighborhoods where street life and retail shops thrive. They performed three experiments: "door tests" (would anyone hold one open for them?); "document drops" (who would help them retrieve a pile of "accidentally" dropped papers?); and "service tests" (which salesclerks would thank them for a purchase?). For consistency, the New York tests were conducted at Starbucks coffee shops, by now almost as common in the Big Apple as streetlights. In all, 60 tests (20 of each type) were done."
I see no misuse of statistical methodology here. They did the same things in different cities, and they did them the same number of times. My one quibble is that they didn't use a larger number of times, to allow for discrimination in the results, one cannot justifiably conclude percentages from a base of 60. The "need" to include people from varying age groups, or to maintain gender balance would only hold true if the results were to be analysed on those lines, but they weren't.


----------



## maxiogee

robbie_SWE said:
			
		

> For the first thing, I would like to agree to the fact that these people who conducted the survey do come from an English speaking country and this fact alters the whole sense of this survey.



Who said that they were from an English speaking country? The magazine is published in these cities, and in the local languages. The description of the methodology says…
Reader's Digest decided to find out if courtesy truly is kaput. RD sent reporters to major cities in 35 countries where the magazine is published -- from Auckland, New Zealand, to Zagreb, Croatia. In the United States, that meant targeting New York, where looking out for No. 1 -- the heck with the other guy -- has always been a basic survival skill.
… no mention there of what language they spoke.



			
				robbie_SWE said:
			
		

> For the second thing, what should you expect of people from former communist states?? Due to the fact that I originally come from Bucharest, I can give a "rough" picture of how it's like there. After 50 years of communist rule, a revolution in 1989 and devastating economical problems would you take the time from your minimum wage job to hold the door open for somebody??!! I would absolutely not!



Nowhere does it state that the people were interrupting anyone in the course of their job - these could have been people entering or leaving a building - it doesn't take long to hold a door open! Nor does it take long to assist someone who appears to have accidentally dropped some papers.


Bearing in mind that this is part research and part promotional material for the Readers' Digest I feel compelled to quote Michael Winner here *"Calm down dear, it's only a commercial!"*


----------



## djchak

robbie_SWE said:
			
		

> For the third thing, I don't buy all that "NY has changed for the better since 9/11". I know people who have been there many times and they give a darker more paranoid picture of the Big Apple. Just because a mayor said something, doesn't make it right!!!
> 
> /robbie



Care to elaborate?

How has NYC become "darker" and more "paranoid"?

More security?


----------



## Poetic Device

Wow, I'm sorry, but I am in NYC on a weekly basis, and I can tell you that they are as crappy as ever.  No one does any of that.  What were those people smooking?!


----------



## Seana

Etcetera said:
			
		

> The only thing I tend to agree with is that Moscow isn't even in the Top 10.
> I'd like to know more about the criteria used by those who did this survey.


 
Hi, Etcetera probably you was right, but look what I have found in our Polish press.
"Yuriy Łużkow, ambitious mayor of Moscow, is allotting 700 milions roubles for improving the international image of the capital city of Russia, rated among the most loutish cities of world." 
The decision-makers of Moscow have got the conclusions of "Reader's Digest" statistics.
Rating Moscow among the most loutish cities of world very much hurt Russians. After all in their capital city theatres and concert halls are always full. In bookshops even a crowd is a night. In the underground what second is reading something. And here suddenly he is turning out, that Russians talking to the pride about oneself are "the most with reading nation of world", in terms of the propriety very much are no match for Yanks which after all universally they are regarding as boors. Yuriy Łużkow thinks, that "Reader's Digest" hurt his city, and will be generous with money to it in order to convince world that Moscow isn't so loutish. 
Anyway the article probably did a good job.


----------



## djchak

Seana said:
			
		

> in terms of the propriety very much are no match for Yanks which after all universally they are regarding as boors.



Boor:   a crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement

The funny thing about this statement is New Yorkers... Americans ...
come at the top of the Readers Digest list.

So while I can see that the survey might be biased, as Readers Digest is based in the US.... wouldn't it be better to just deny the survey outright, and take no action? Does it make ANY sense to heed the opinion of "boors" in this case?


----------



## Seana

Hi djchak,
If you feel bit insulted I am very very sorry but it is not my own opinion it is only translation perhaps unfortunate.
Maybe my dictionary is guilty. I have translated an article where was used very common word in Polish language - "*prostak*" it means really not very sophisticated person.
My dict I used gave me as a synonym an English word 'boor'. 
Would you have a look. Here is Polish excerpt of the genuine Polish text 
"A tu raptem okazuje się, że Rosjanie z dumą mówiący o sobie, że są "najbardziej czytającym narodem świata", pod względem kultury osobistej bardzo ustępują jankesom, których przecież powszechnie uważają za *prostaków*" 
here is my translation:
"And here suddenly he is turning out, that Russians talking to the pride about oneself are "the most with reading nation of world", in terms of the propriety very much are no match for Yanks which after all universally they are regarding as boors
Once again I am very sorry but Americans are in theTOP of RD list, it is obvious.


----------



## djchak

Seana said:
			
		

> Hi djchak,
> If you feel bit insulted I am very very sorry but it is not my own opinion it is only translation perhaps unfortunate.



No, i'm not insulted...my post was more questioning the logic of trying to appear less rude (of Mayor Yuri of Moscow), when they then infer that "Yanks" are boors. It doesn't make sense. (the theory)

I acknowledge that you did not say that, and even if you did.... well, that's your opinion.


----------



## Seana

Some stereotypes and prejudice are unfortunately very painful. I do know something about it. Former situation of  Poland - separated and poor for almost of 50 post-war years was the reason of increasing many myths and unfair opinions about us. It will be hard and maybe never able to eradicate from general word opinion.
 As a matter of fact it was unnecessarily I have quoted it, maybe a Polish journalist could something overinterpret, it is often happening in nowadays medias but actually I wanted only to prove, that in spite of some foreas of this thread said we should not be upset by these results and this rank however people of these cities are moved a lot and decided to do something with it. I think it is good isn't it?


----------



## Etcetera

Seana said:
			
		

> Hi, Etcetera probably you was right, but look what I have found in our Polish press.
> "Yuriy Łużkow, ambitious mayor of Moscow, is allotting 700 milions roubles for improving the international image of the capital city of Russia, rated among the most loutish cities of world."
> The decision-makers of Moscow have got the conclusions of "Reader's Digest" statistics.
> Rating Moscow among the most loutish cities of world very much hurt Russians. After all in their capital city theatres and concert halls are always full. In bookshops even a crowd is a night. In the underground what second is reading something. And here suddenly he is turning out, that Russians talking to the pride about oneself are "the most with reading nation of world", in terms of the propriety very much are no match for Yanks which after all universally they are regarding as boors. Yuriy Łużkow thinks, that "Reader's Digest" hurt his city, and will be generous with money to it in order to convince world that Moscow isn't so loutish.
> Anyway the article probably did a good job.


It sounds so funny! 
To say the truth, I agree with the original article in Reader's Digest. 
The sad thing about Moscow is that a large part of its present inhabitants aren't Muscovites as such - they just moved to the city several years ago. So, you shouldn't try to make any observations on the Muscovites from what you can see in the underground, for example. 
BTW, people do read in Moscow underground. But it's mostly cheap literature like Dan Brown, detectives, love stories, and all that stuff.


----------



## Poetic Device

Seana said:
			
		

> Hi djchak,
> If you feel bit insulted I am very very sorry but it is not my own opinion it is only translation perhaps unfortunate.
> Maybe my dictionary is guilty. I have translated an article where was used very common word in Polish language - "*prostak*" it means really not very sophisticated person.
> My dict I used gave me as a synonym an English word 'boor'.
> Would you have a look. Here is Polish excerpt of the genuine Polish text
> "A tu raptem okazuje się, że Rosjanie z dumą mówiący o sobie, że są "najbardziej czytającym narodem świata", pod względem kultury osobistej bardzo ustępują jankesom, których przecież powszechnie uważają za *prostaków*"
> here is my translation:
> "And here suddenly he is turning out, that Russians talking to the pride about oneself are "the most with reading nation of world", in terms of the propriety very much are no match for Yanks which after all universally they are regarding as boors
> Once again I am very sorry but Americans are in theTOP of RD list, it is obvious.


 
I don't know anything about Polish, but I took a whack at it and this is what I got:
"But suddenly as it happens here, that russians with pride (duma) about it speaking < say >, that there is " most reading nation world ", personal cultures recede yank in respect very, they consider which (who) villagers generally yet."

The last bit I find to be fairly different from yours, what am I doing wrong?


----------



## justjukka

When I was in London, I did not see anything special about their mannerisms.  I don't know about rudeness, but "good English manners" is emtpy flattery.  It's a busy city, just like anywhere else.


----------



## Seana

I have only referred to the article which inhabitants of Moscow were little cross with Readers Digest research. They just have  given the argument that after all they are a community which is reading the most especially in the underground, they are more sophisticated than inhabitants rest of cities on the top this list.

In my opinion Reader's Digest being a leader in field in the direct marketing not too much expensive books is popularizing 'the reading activity' a bit forgotten in today's world.
Any way I am sure that the reading is closely involve around propriety and culture.


----------



## Seana

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> "But suddenly as it happens here, that russians with pride (duma) about it speaking < say >, that there is " most reading nation world ", personal cultures recede yank in respect very, they consider which (who) villagers generally yet."
> The last bit I find to be fairly different from yours, what am I doing wrong?


I am sorry Poetic, but I have noticed your post just now. I am going to translate this sentence once again to be more understood by you .

"And suddenly it has just turned out, that Russians talking with such pride that are "the most reading nation of the world", they don't match Yanks in terms of the propriety (personal culture). After all in general they are regarding them as not too much...*"
*_sophisticated people_ - not villager because it means an oaf or boor from the village or other small place but it is not the same as not sophisticad or not erudite person in general ( who can live in the big or biggest city as well).

I hope it is bit better now.


----------



## Poetic Device

Seana said:
			
		

> I am sorry Poetic, but I have noticed your post just now. I am going to translate this sentence once again to be more understood by you .
> 
> "And suddenly it has just turned out, that Russians talking with such pride that are "the most reading nation of the world", they don't match Yanks in terms of the propriety (personal culture). After all in general they are regarding them as not too much...*"
> *_sophisticated people_ - not villager because it means an oaf or boor from the village or other small place but it is not the same as not sophisticad or not erudite person in general ( who can live in the big or biggest city as well).
> 
> I hope it is bit better now.


 
Okay.  So, I have to ask a dumb question.  Who are the "yanks"?  Are they speaking about Americans?  If so, I didn't know that people still call us that.  Isn't that an offensive term?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Who are the "yanks"?  *Guess*
> Are they speaking about Americans? *See above*
> If so, I didn't know that people still call us that. *People do all sorts of things*
> Isn't that an offensive term? *Offence, like beauty, is in the perception*


----------



## Seana

Hi Poetic Device,

I am sorry Poetic but searching for ethymology of this word in Polish dictionary I didn't find anything offended in it - just simple historical name for inhabitant of north states of America, unlike the southerner. In English Ethymology I found that it came into existence as a bit disparaging word for all American native during the American Revolution.
But to be honest I don't undertand it. aczenie 
quote: _"In English a term of contempt (1750s) before its use as a general term for "native of New England" (1765);(...) Shortened form Yank in reference to "an American" first recorded 1778."_

In fact I hear this epithet a long time ago. Tłumaczenie 
But come on Poetic don't be offended I think that  petty-minded reflexes in the case when somebody used bit offensive word or gesture applied only for weak, uncertain people whose are too much oversensitive about their country, position etc. I can see Americans rather as great confidence people then some with inferiority complexand. Your country is biggest and strongest gathering wonderful clever people so you shoudn't bother such things. I have read here on WR a few really offended opinions but most people dream about living in your country and most of them envy you it. Believe me.


----------



## Poetic Device

Seana said:
			
		

> Hi Poetic Device,
> 
> I am sorry Poetic but searching for ethymology of this word in Polish dictionary I didn't find anything offended in it - just simple historical name for inhabitant of north states of America, unlike the southerner. In English Ethymology I found that it came into existence as a bit disparaging word for all American native during the American Revolution.
> But to be honest I don't undertand it. aczenie
> quote: _"In English a term of contempt (1750s) before its use as a general term for "native of New England" (1765);(...) Shortened form Yank in reference to "an American" first recorded 1778."_
> 
> In fact I hear this epithet a long time ago. Tłumaczenie
> But come on Poetic don't be offended I think that petty-minded reflexes in the case when somebody used bit offensive word or gesture applied only for weak, uncertain people whose are too much oversensitive about their country, position etc. I can see Americans rather as great confidence people then some with inferiority complexand. Your country is biggest and strongest gathering wonderful clever people so you shoudn't bother such things. I have read here on WR a few really offended opinions but most people dream about living in your country and most of them envy you it. Believe me.


 
Oh, no.  I personally don't find it offensive.  I was just surprised to see someone use it.  I thought "Yankee" or "yank" went out to window years ago.  The word was used during the Revolutionary War, but it started to become a derogative word, in my opinion, during the Civil War.  That is what the confederates called the union, and that is why (I think) the term "Yankee" is mainly known for a northern American.  In any event, I'm not insulted by any means; it rather amused me a bit.


----------



## mytwolangs

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Wow, I'm sorry, but I am in NYC on a weekly basis, and I can tell you that they are as crappy as ever. No one does any of that. What were those people smooking?!


 
The higher the score, the more rude the city, (opposite of what you would think) The paragraph 3rd from the bottom where the ranking system is...
Here is the paragraph that states that in a round-about way - 
"Overall, the tests found that the under-40s were the most courteous, and the over-60s, particularly the men, the least. Some claimed that they were concerned about patronising modern independent females, and were particularly unwilling to hold a door open for a woman. Grumpy old men are clearly not a purely British phenomenon."

So with NYC scoring 80, that means there are a lot of rude folks there. 
THAT is what we learn when skimming that long, winded article.


----------



## geve

mytwolangs said:
			
		

> The higher the score, the more rude the city, (opposite of what you would think) The paragraph 3rd from the bottom where the ranking system is...
> Here is the paragraph that states that in a round-about way -
> "Overall, the tests found that the under-40s were the most courteous, and the over-60s, particularly the men, the least. Some claimed that they were concerned about patronising modern independent females, and were particularly unwilling to hold a door open for a woman. Grumpy old men are clearly not a purely British phenomenon."
> 
> So with NYC scoring 80, that means there are a lot of rude folks there.
> THAT is what we learn when skimming that long, winded article.


Erm, I don't think so... I believe that _under-40s_ and _over-60s_ refer to the age of the persons "tested" (which would be consistent with the last phrase "Grumpy old men are clearly not a purely British phenomenon")

"The rudest city in the world, according to the survey, is Bombay" - Bombay's score: 32. "They’re more polite [than the londonians] even in Zagreb" - Zagreb 68 vs. London 57. The higher the score, the more civil the city is.


----------

