The word "wherein" might be a better preference grammatically but "where", introducing the qualifying clause, makes the gist of the sentence and the consequences of even mild speeding quite unambiguous - unless one is desperately searching for ambiguity, of course.

Speaking of which, Mr Harper's conclusion is that iNt all boils down to something far more benign. It only means that "if you hit something at 65 km/h rather than 60 km/h your small chance of some sort of injury is doubled." Well, personally I'd like to know what your correspondent means by his dismissive "small" chance insofar as my own safety goes. What he calls a "small chance" might be enormous to anyone else, and the petty "some sort of injury" would apparently include anything from an aggravated hangnail to decapitation. His own weasel word "small", for Mr Harper's elucidation, is an excellent example of the "misleading" ambiguity which he criticises in others.

Besides which, as I'm sure Mr Harper would be aware, traffic is chock-a-block with drivers whose competence hovers somewhere between zero and zilch. I don't want those blockheads careening into me any faster because some misguided souls can't see any "science" in fining them whenever they're caught speeding.

I really enjoy a little debate on topics such as climate change and I reckon we are entitled to our own opinions when it comes to hypothetical discussion on topics such as these. If there is evidence either way to suggest that there is or isn't "change" then are we not all wrong until proven otherwise?

Passion is a wonderful attribute to have in an argument, but that doesn't mean that we are right. Faith can assume belief in things that aren't necessarily proven either.

I personally believe in common sense and the power of humanity, like seeing the good in people and respecting the earth we walk upon. Kindness always to all.

READ MORE LETTERS:

Robert T Walker reminds us that the earth has experienced prehistoric climate changes which "had nothing to do with humans". ("'Nothing to do with humans'", June 22)

It is true that "cars and supermarket bags" didn't cause either of the hot earth periods which scientists tell us occurred in the last 100 million years. Nevertheless, both were associated with much higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially CO2. Then it was probably due to widespread volcanic activity. Today we are pumping up levels of GHGs by mining and burning enormous amounts of carbon-rich fossils.

As Walker writes, "this world might have its own ideas about what it's going to do". But when we increase the concentration of CO2 by 35 percent and methane by 150 percent we are definitely giving it a nudge towards warming.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.