Safety aspect in the rule is ambiguous, and means different thing to different people as we have it after Canada. Leave this out for that reason. It's just as redundant and confusing such as is parent telling his son, the F1 driver, son, drive carefully. Jimbob obviously doesn't agree, but that's OK. Forum is just right tool to discuss it among fans.So how should the rules be re-written or rephrased?
I think rule should merely describe condition when driver can keep his position after he rejoined track (as Vettel and Verstappen have), and when and how quickly they must slot behind. Instruction so clear, that team and driver do not have to ask stewards what they think, and respond appropriately on their own.
With respect to driver being "pushed" off the track, there is need to address this situation separately, because it is happening quite often almost every race with someone. I have no recommendation to make. I would conduct first consultation with many drivers, from Mario Andretti to Vettel today to understand difference between intent, and racing incident. They know better than I do, why it is happening and how to evaluate each case.
In fact, I am unsettled every time when we are second guessing driver's intent, and I rather suspect that we will never write laws, which will avoid ambiguity of some kind, thus I would be inclined not to write them at all. Let drivers to sort it out on the track.
Ask yourself whether Hamilton would have acted differently, had he knew, that Vettel will be not penalized for driving up to curb?
Situation we had in Canada was terrible, permitting some making claims and contradicting Vettel, that he saw (initially in critical moment) where Hamilton was. Second guessing driver's intent is waste of effort IMO. Playing God is dangerous, and there has to be better way how to look at it, without needing for visit driver's mind.