Originally Posted by chipcom
I take the text you quoted from Robert as a warning that you cannot depend upon other's to look out for your interests and that blame, after the fact, is pointless.
That's how I take it too. And that's the meaning I've always meant to convey whenever i wrote about responsibility, blame and fault.
But, unlike you, and perhaps Robert too, I understand that all too often our best laid plans are not enough and nobody is to blame.
What makes you think I and even maybe Robert don't understand that?
More importantly, do you understand the potential harm in believing that to be true, even if it is true (which, again, of course it is)?
Let's try this, when Hurst says, "Blame is dangerous", what do you think he means by that?
Why is blame dangerous?
I believe the reason blame is dangerous is because blame - which essentially is blaming others for not being responsible -- is the opposite of hoarding responsibility (to use Hurst's language again). That "thinking in terms of blame while out on the road is a perfect example of self-fulling prophecy. " That "the urban cyclist's best chance is to gather all the responsibilty that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. " Blame is the opposite of that.
Now consider your point: "best laid plans are not enough and nobody is to blame."
Do you see how it follows to say that thinking in terms of "best laid plans are sometimes not enough and nobody is to blame" while out on the road is a perfect example of self-fulfilling prophecy?