A lot is made of the fallacy that excess speed is the main cause of accidents. Of course if you do a little research you’ll see this simply isn’t true. In fact, the most dangerous driver I’ve ever experienced was also the slowest.
I used to see a large BMW (surprise surprise), a pretty old 7-series I think, tootling around the Tonbridge area. The geriatric numbskulls inside thought they were being really safe by driving at 20mph everywhere. And I mean everywhere. National speed limit, dual carriageways, 50, 40, 30 zones. Everywhere.
This essentially meant that everywhere they went they had a queue of angry and frustrated drivers tailing them. In turn, this meant that people would attempt to overtake them wherever they could. I haven’t seen them in a while thank God, hopefully their license was revoked or they shuffled off their mortal coil. I just hope they didn’t cause an accident, probably a head-on collision, before they went.
I would far rather have drivers doing a decent speed according to road conditions and the speed limit of the road (assuming it’s not artificially low) than those going too slowly. Even those who insist on 40mph on a national speed limit A-road frustrate, or even better the idiots who do 40 everywhere (even 30 zones).
In fact I think there might be a bit of research there. What’s the bets more accidents are caused by those going too slowly than those going too fast? I often see the effects of that on motorways, where a slow lane hogger decides to pull in to the left lane to pick up their exit without checking their mirrors and ends up sandwiched by a lorry who was going faster than them in the inside lane and couldn’t stop in time.