"Road Policing Statistics state that for all fatalities speeding accounts for 34%."

While that might be what the authorities state it isn't what the statistics state. The most generous reading of the statistics says that speeding was a factor (not the sole cause) in 34-40% of fatalities. Police are able to list several reasons for the accident and if the last of those is shown as speed it still gets used in these numbers, even if other factors where much more important.

But speeding doesn't necessarily mean exceeding whatever arbitrary limit the authorities have set. It means exceeding some assessment of the appropriate speed given the conditions at the time. Additionally, in some types of accidents, speed is routinely blamed even when there is no evidence for it being a factor. eg if a car leaves the road on a curve, speed is blamed as one of the factors even though it could just have easily been caused by driver inattention of drowsiness. If a truck jack-knifes, speed is blamed even though the truck was braking. If you slide of an icy road while doing 20kph, speed is blamed.

The best overseas research is that excessive speeding probably accounts for 5 - 10% of accidents.

But if suits government to demonise speeding (as though doing 61 in a 60 zone is inherently dangerous while doing 59 is inherently safe ) because it allows government to raise revenue while appearing to protect the community. They never mention that road conditions are equally culpable as per the stats because there is no revenue from that, only costs

I take on board all the points that have been made to date and cannot argue with the majority of them. However you have all missed the point I was attempting to highlight.

Put simply, why are vehicles produced that are capable of exceeding legal speed limits when there is technology available that will limit speed. Recent developments not only limit maximum speed but have the ability to recognise the change in speed zones. Surely the adoption of this technology would have a positive effect on road fatalities and injuries.

The other point which was a little less obvious is, car manufactures produce cars that have the ability in some cases to exceed maximum legal limits multiple times. As there is technology available that can limit speed, are not car manufactures aiding and abetting speeding drivers, as a consequence have some responsibility for fatalities and injuries? Perhaps some ambulance chasing lawyer needs to do something meaningful and pick this one up.

Producer what I meant was it was not the car that killed.
Some true events from long ago.
The some times night mares and memory,s of police ambos and road workers badly effected remain.
Two couples towing caravans, all in 70,s head on all dead.
During clean up high speed motor bike under semi, driver dead hard and horrible sight/job retrieving him.
See some times it is speed, the ability to correct a silly move, trying to over take in the wrong place, that lets you get back in line.
people kill not cars.

Belly again I take your point and what you say is true, a person must make a decision to move a vehicle before an accident can happen. What I am about to say may sound a bit silly and extreme, but does illustrate my point.

Consider this; if all the vehicles in accidents you describe above where stationary. None of the accidents would have happened. No one would have been killed or hurt! Only when vehicles move does the danger start and the danger increases with speed. If all the vehicles were traveling at 1kmph they would impact at 2kmph. It is highly unlikely anyone would have been hurt never alone killed. As the speed increases, so does the danger as it has an amplifying effect (speed increases the vehicles kinetic energy). Combine this amplifying effect with all the other factors; speed has to be a factor although not the only one, in all accidents. As well as other things, we as society set limits on speed to reduce the risk to acceptable limits in a multitude of different scenarios.

I will say again; as there is technology is available that can limit speed, are not car manufactures aiding and abetting speeding drivers, as a consequence have some responsibility for fatalities and injuries where speeding is a factor?

.....Road Policing Statistics state that for all fatalities speeding accounts for 34%."

So may I suggest you define what is considered as 'speeding', when referred to in the stats as an accident involving a vehicle traveling at 70, in a 60 zone, is technically speeding.

In fact, it would be interesting to know, of all accidents involving speed, what speed was the most common traveled in the highest percentage of such accidents,as accidents involving speed occur in all speed zones, from 40 right through to 130.

Yes Producer, it is silly & extreme, it is the same as saying if no one ever planted a crop, or harvested a beast, the planet would be more pristine. Well I suppose it would be, but it would not make it more attractive in most peoples opinion.

If you really want to reduce accidents, rather than restrict everyone to the lowest common denominator, why not raise the bar. Get rid of the less capable by much more severe licence testing, including the ability to handle a vehicle at speed. Driving should not be a right, but a privilege extended to the competent.

Then introduce a demerit system, not for speed, but for accidents, or behaviour, [drink/drug driving] likely to cause accidents. Once the incompetents were weeded out, the roads would be much safer.

Unlike today, penalties for unlicensed driving would have to be quite extreme, as today, very few disqualified drivers actually stop driving.