Here's a concept: How about we start with facts?

"Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey"

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

If we jump to table #2 we can learn about driver-related causes for accidents:

Recognition Error 41%
inattention
internal and external distractions
inadequate surveillance

Decision Error 33%
Driving too fast for conditions
Too fast for the curve
False assumption of others’ actions
Illegal maneuver
Misjudgment of gap or others’ speed

Performance Error 11%
Overcompensation, poor directional control, etc.

Non-Performance Error 7%
Sleep was the most critical reason

Other 8%

Note that just over 2/3 the critical driver-related reasons had nothing whatsoever to do with speed. If we just add-up the categories that do not include speeding we get 41 + 11 + 7 + 8 = 67%.

Even worse, the 33% group in "Decision Error" does not include speed as an absolute isolated critical reason. Speed always requires context. In this case, the definition only lists road conditions, turns or the proverbial freeway stops and a car plows into the car in front of them.

BTW, not sure where blood alcohol level might be on this table. My guess is that it is a factor in all categories. Again, absolute speed, in isolation, isn't a root cause.

People have been killed by someone driving the posted speed limit while intoxicated.

The point isn't to dismiss speed as a contributor but rather to make an attempt to use facts rather than incorrectly focusing on speed as a the most important contributor or a root cause.

Speed is, by far, not the most serious issue on the road. This is empirically evident to almost anyone with reasonable driving experience and the ability to think critically. If that fails, watch a few of these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=idiots+driving+...

From my perspective, driver training and horribly bad/lowest-common-denominator licensing requirements are a huge part of the root cause.

For those outside the US who might not be familiar with this, here's the basics:

In California a 16 year old kid can drive after completing six hours of training with a licensed instructor plus six months and at least fifty hours of practice with any licensed adult (older brother, grandpa, parent, the neighbor, anyone). After this they can take a very simple driving test and obtain a license.

What do I mean by "very simple"?

It does not include any accident avoidance or car control tests at all. Something as simple as driving towards a cone and quickly changing lanes when commanded tells you a lot about the degree of control someone might have. Hard braking and hard acceleration. Driving figure-8's around a set of cones. Driving figure-8's in reverse. Braking and lane changing on wet pavement. Etc.

Not one of these skill tests is included at all. And yet, some of these are absolutely critical for accident avoidance. My family and I almost had a horrific accident on the highway about a year ago. A pickup truck engaged in highway maintenance suddenly drove into the fast lane --where I was driving-- from the construction zone to the left (between the north and south-bound lanes). Where it not for my performance driving training and vehicle control skills this would have been a horrific t-bone accident with our SUV plowing into a pickup truck entering the highway at almost a 90 degree angle and zero speed. An SUV hitting a wall at full speed. Thanks to may awareness, constant strategic positioning in traffic and ability to execute a rapid lane change at speed while maintaining control this became a "holy shit! what was that idiot thinking!" event rather than a trip to the hospital.

As a side note, that's when my wife made the most interesting comment: Now I understand why you insist on taking the kids to race driving school at the track.

This license, after 50 house of substandard training, allows a 16 year old to get on the road, by themselves, driving anything from a 76 HP Mitsubishi Mirage to a 500 HP 200 MPH Corvette and even a 1000+ HP monster if mommy and daddy can afford it.

What could go wrong? Useless training and a 500 HP monster? Heck, even a 150 HP car is dangerous given that starting point. Regulating speed isn't going to do a damn thing to mitigate what could (and usually does) happen with such inadequate training and licensing thresholds. Seriously, why do we allow any driver to get into a 500 HP monster without requiring serious training? The cars are not cheap, which means that requiring they spend $3000 in training and certification should not be an issue.

In terms of skills, licensed instructors are pretty bad. They are the result of the same substandard training. What they teach does not help make better drivers. It's just enough to pass the test, and nothing more.

I can get into how I teach kids to drive during those 50 hours after the certified instructor. It's a bit long, so I'll leave it for a follow-up comment if anyone is interested.