Jim. You seem to be defending captain Smith to the point he did no wrong. If that is the case why did his ship hit a iceberg? Or was it his officers where at fault!
I am not 'defending' Captain Smith, Mike, but judging him against the normal practice of the day. I cannot find a reason to declare him guilty of anything.
If you read the findings of the Courts of Inquiry, you will see that the US Court Report made no comment as to blame. The UK Final Report, concluded
" It was shown that for many years past, indeed, for a quarter of a century or more, the practice of liners using this track when in the vicinity of ice at night had been in clear weather to keep the course, to maintain the speed and to trust to a sharp look-out to enable them to avoid the danger. But unfortunately experience appeared to justify it. In these circumstances I am not able to blame Captain Smith." Both these Courts had the benefit of expert Assessors who weighed the evidence against the practices of the day and particulars of the situation, then advised them accordingly.
Going too fast was a sure winner because it is always combined with other factors such as timing, sighting distance of danger, and maneuverability. In other words - the reason why they hit the iceberg.
You could argue that they should have reduced speed, and you would be correct...but only if they expected to meet with an iceberg - they obviously did not expect to do so, or they would have reduced speed in good time.