So, so many incorrect statements.
> we know the accident wasn't caused by texting, but
> the fact remains that he killed someone by dangerous driving!
Try publishing that statement in a newspaper then! I dare you
He texted whilst driving. That was his offence. At a later point, he was involved in an entirely unrelated and (according to the Judge) unavoidable accident. You might disagree with some of the Judges conclusions that but the FACT is he did not kill someone by dangerous driving and stating so leaves you open to all sorts of shit.
> It says, you should be travelling at a speed which you can see to stop in.
> If you're driving along then you should be travelling at a speed such that if
> something out of the blue happens, you have enough time to brake, to bring
> the car to a stop without hitting the object.
Again, complete bollocks. The first line is true, the second bit is some bizare, extreme conclusion you have drawn and, again, are now stating as fact when it is far from it. Owning some book doesn't make you an expert. I'm sure I have a copy of the bible around here somewhere but I'm fairly confident I couldn't construct a universe in 6 days. Get some practical experience from someone who has actually done some advanced driving and stop talking Yoda-esque zen bollocks.
Tell me, if you are driving on the motorway at 70mph, do you ALWAYS leave enough of a gap between you and the car in front for you to stop at that speed? Of course not. But this is what you state SHOULD be done.
In this case (again, as recommended by others, actually reading about the case helps) the Peer was following several other cars at night on an unlit stretch. The first few cars obstructed his view of the accident so he could have been travelling at a speed at which he could stop, but it wouldn't have helped. He couldn't see it. It was unavoidable. READ IT
And the Police DO NOT train you to avoid all accidents under all circumstances. Believe me.