Originally Posted by
John Forester
Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, Dude, take the whole paragraph to a teacher of English grammar, or English literature, to see what meaning he or she assigns to the use of the noun "time" in the sentence that you quote. Ask if it refers to a specific point in time or whether it refers to a duration of time. Your argument depends on using that appearance of "time" as a duration, not a specific point in time. Well, go to find out if you are correct or if I am correct. By the way, I have had years of experience as a technical writer; I don't make the kind of mistake that you have made.
John, I'm not a teacher, but I think you are wrong.
"Originally Posted by John Forester
That is correct, but it is irrelevant. The quotation you made referred to
the time of day at which the opposing traffic cleared. I think that nobody is arguing that the cyclist's lateral position changes the time of day at which the opposing traffic arrives and clears. If the sentence you quoted is relevant to this discussion, it would be relevant only if you were making the above argument.
Originally Posted by John Forester
Assuming that the road is insufficiently wide for such overtaking, a motorist wishing to overtake a cyclist must wait until the opposite-direction lane is clear of traffic for a sufficient distance for the overtaking movement to be made safely. He has to wait for
the same length of time whether he intends to make a straddle overtaking or a full lane overtaking; both require that the opposite-direction lane be clear of traffic for a sufficient distance."
The first quote, you say you are referencing the time of day. The second quote you same same length of time. A length of time can never be the time of day as far as I am aware. I am sure you will have something different to say about that.
I have no horse in this race, but you should be willing to back down on something. This is just stupid.