That was a ******** wall of words (not you, I don't make personal insults, just post 56), Helmet Head.

RH can argue his own intent if he likes.

However, to make a point, take the quote you made from his book:

The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding lawfully will still remain quite vulnerable to the mistakes of others.

Now let's (just to see what happens) take out the words "riding lawfully" and in their stead put "riding in accord with the 5 principles that are the cornerstone of VC".

The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding in accord with the 5 principles that are the cornerstone of VC will still remain quite vulnerable to the mistakes of others.

Wow, it still makes perfect sense. One would be well advised to add the defensive driving principle of "vigilance" to VC in order to be safer. Hey, that's one of the big points of RH's book... YAY!

----

Helmet Head, did you know that Freud didn't believe in the existence of a literate William Shakespeare. He was obsessed by, and resentful of, Shakespeare's writings, and it has been very well argued that the reason was because deep down he realized that his own observations on pyschology were derivative of the characters in Shakespeare's plays.

Maybe you resent Robert Hurst because your ideas are so similar to his (the idea of adding defensive driving principles to generally following the rotr - whatever they may be right now).

The fact that your ideas are similar - and derivative - makes you push to try to be different, new, and original. You criticize Hurst for not getting it "just right", charitably commend him for a good effort, and lay out your new idea, which is similar, but tweaked just a bit so as to be individual.

However, your tweaks are wonky. And everybody sees them. Get over it.