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

>>> I think we've had this disagreement before (or certainly I have with
>>> someone here), in that someone reckoned that so long as you don't
>>> crash, the speed wasn't excessive. Was that you?

>>No. In fact, I specifically denied that claim when you made it earlier
>>in this thread.

> Specifically? You replied with "Did I say that?", and then "The answer
> is self-evident", in my attempts to crowbar an opinion out of you!

I also said...
"Whether somebody crashes or not is not directly relevant to whether the
speed is appropriate or not. The fact that you don't seem to be able to
understand that is not my problem. "

> You can't be upset now if I'm not sure what your actual opinion is!

Don't flatter yourself. I'm not upset, but if you bothered to actually 
read the posts you were replying to it might just help a bit. If there's 
*any* emotion coming to the fore, it's amusement.

>>>> As soon as other factors come into play, it ceases to be "speeding".

>>> What factors?

>>Excessive speed for the conditions

> Which, legal definitions aside, is surely concisely described as
> "speeding".

No.

>> unsafe driving.

> By way of "Excessive speed for the conditions"/speeding.

Which are two different things.

Unless, of course, you believe that any speed below the posted limit is 
inherently appropriate and any above is inherently inappropriate?