[lutorm]

... those who sought to drive by what the law declared to be the rules of the road were deemed to have done something wrong only if they failed to meet a reasonable standard of care in driving - that is, if they were negligent, careless, inexcusably inattentive, or otherwise failed to exercise a sufficient degree of caution

But the letter of the law seems to indicate otherwise. The California "basic speed law" says: "22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." (my emphasis)

That seems to me to pretty clearly say that if you hit someone you were in fact breaking the law, not just "failing to meet a reasonable standard of care". Do you have any insight in how this plays out?