That list perfectly highlights the difference between 2 very similar phrases;
"Accidents in which speed is a factor" (That's all of them as presumably they would all be avoided if everyone was stationary
)
"Accidents in which SpeedING is a factor".
Assuming those stats are in any way accurate, lowering speed limits will do less to reduce the total number of accidents than to reduce the severity of those accidents which already occur as a result of all the non-speeding related factors.
It's back to the question of what level of risk is deemed acceptable when talking about humans whizzing around in 2 ton hunks of metal. Assuming we all accept that 'zero risk' is not an attainable target.
I'm not suggesting I have an answer btw, other than perhaps targeting these reductions would be a more popular and more easily explained approach than the current, rather poorly communicated, sledgehammers and nuts scenario.