Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
Why should his understanding differ? He's an intelligent, thinking driver. He will continue to apply his mind to analysing the hazard density of the bit of road he's seeing, regardless of any rule wording.
Absolutely, and that is why I am suggesting that because the rule only is intended to determine a possible maximum speed for stretches of road that are clear (i.e. you have made a judgment what the distance is to the next hazard), it is not necessary to add the clumsy addition 'and will reasonably remains so' because a stretch of road can only be clear between hazards.
In short, the clumsy addition creates more doubt about what the original rule is hoping to achieve (calculating the maximum safe speed possible to the next hazard).