Yes, however people who willingly violate laws are more reckless. Insurance is heavily regulated and the rates are set by actuarial data. In other words, insurance companies can only charge high rates for speeders if they can prove their past payouts were higher for speeders than non speeders.
Also the 20mph policy is about reducing the risk of pedestrian death, not accident rates.
> people who willingly violate laws are more reckless
That's a blanket assertion - surely it would depend on the law being violated and how it is violated. What if a law was unjust? What if a law was designed to be violated? Are free speech activists in authoritarian countries reckless?
> insurance companies can only charge high rates for speeders if they can prove their past payouts were higher for speeders than non speeders.
Untrue, there's little regulation on how insurance companies determine and charge for risk and there's next to no transparency.
> Also the 20mph policy is about reducing the risk of pedestrian death, not accident rates.
The referenced article looks at 'outcomes' - `road traffic collisions, casualties, or driver speed`. Not just accident rates.
The blanket assertion doesn’t have to be true in every case, it just has to be true on average. Because insurance companies operate on the statistics of all people. Sure, even though Dave has 173 speeding tickets in the past, he may not speed again, but on average he will.
> Untrue, there’s little regulation…
But this is not true. Not only are there large regulatory bodies whose main purpose is to audit the spending and calculations of insurance firms, but there are also laws on what companies can consider in actuarial calculations (e.g. not race).
Also the 20mph policy is about reducing the risk of pedestrian death, not accident rates.