I'd argue that fault lies with both in such a situation. I don't think that most people aren't aware that some drivers exceed the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent high speed accidents from occurring every day.
No, it doesn't. But I think my point is clearly illustrated by the anecdotal evidence presented by Electicbees. Skill and attention plays a large part in it.
I'm impressed with your consistent opinion on the matter and can certainly respect that. Unfortunately I can't agree with your viewpoint. I doubt any amount of conversation will ever bring either of us around to the other's point of view on such a matter. In my opinion, society can collectively own a piece of land, and can through law determine uses for that land that they find acceptable. Perhaps it needs to be a majority, or a super majority, or 95%, but at some level, the local community should be able to protect intended use.
But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%? Simply because there are more of them? How does their right to use the land supersede the right of the minority?
Again I respect your opinion, but personally disagree. I feel that it is extreme to say that there are very few ways one person can greatly increase another's risk of death without implicit consent, and even if it is true should I be allowed to choose that level of risk for both of us? Should there be no limit on how much risk I can place you at as long as I'm willing to accept nearly identical risk for myself?
The problem is the fact that the roads, and other public property, are equally owned by everyone. The speeder has just as much right to do whatever he wants on the road as anyone else. All of this is solved by making roads private property. Then you can place whatever restrictions on their use that you want. In the meantime, don't impede the man's right to use his property as he sees fit, unless he harms someone else.