Ed Chilada  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> Don't be obsessed with the legal aspect. This is a guy who crashed
> because he was driving too fast. Full stop.

I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

> I'm not discussing the legal aspects.

So why claim it was due to one specific legal offence?

Nobody's arguing that the bloke was a complete twat with a lead right 
foot. Just that to call it "speeding" is disingenuous.

> The 40mph bit largely only serves to show us broadly what type of road 
> it is. The fact that there was a lampost, a bus stop and residential 
> housing also paints a picture. 85mph down such a street is *wrong* 
> regardless of whether the speed limit for it is 40mph or 315mph.

Is it? ALWAYS? That describes quite a few major trunk routes - for 
example, the three-lane stretch of dual-carriageway A1 north of the North 
Circular.