You know, ever since the dawn of mankind, and particularly with the advent of the Industrial Revolution people every where resist or sabotage, (with I should add perfectly sound and logical arguments, ) any change, always with the perceived notion, it's impossible, the country can't afford it, to many obstacles to overcome, etc, etc, and on itt goes. Well, I hear this now in all this correspondence, I know these are only people's opinions, and this is only mine, but history shows us that with hindsight, the bigger picture always occurred. I believe we may be witnessing the start of the decline in the internal combustion engine, and the slow dawning of a new era, some of the choices a number of contributors have made seem illogical to me, they seem to assume there will be a choice, THERE WONT, the products won't be available, and in view of the present and future considerations over pollution and it's detrimental effect on health, change, big time, is inevitable.

Detrimental effect on health? Listen to a BBC podcast from last November where they looked in detail at the 40000 premature deaths always quoted coming from internal combustion engine pollution. They came up with the following conclusions; if someone today had NOT been subject to pollution in the past (i.e. already affecting their longevity) the estimated effects of current pollution would be a staggering 20 days reduction in life. How are we even capable of measuring this?

The first question that needs to be answered is: what is the definition of premature deaths from motor vehicle pollution? In this context, what does premature mean?...

I recently posted about booking in Dublin, have also found £15 cheaper.. £2.99 a day excessinsurance included..

If you book cancellable/refundable at the best price, there is always the possibility of finding it cheaper....

A T100 is not a Bonneville. Our first Prefect, my Mothers first car had to have the passenger door held shut for the whole journey and the gear lever held in second on roundabouts so that she could concentrate on steering. There were bungee cords for solo driving for the door. Also a set of battery cables was mandated. Lost count of the number of requests for help. People were always ready to help. Still suffer with PTSD from that car. I wouldnt touch one with someone elses barge pole.....

re the 2 second rule mentioned above, this is a different but relevant issue. It takes into account that traffic is flowing and the car in front will not normally stop instantly. At 70 mph you cover a little over 200' in 2 seconds.
Reference has been made to the tests that show modern cars can stop in less than this distance. You might assume you could stop in the event of an immediate obstacle in your lane, such as debris, as long as you had 2 seconds clear view. I would suggest that in reality this is beyond many drivers in real life driving (as compared to being specifically prepared for a brake test). Braking in traffic from 70 mph in 200 feet to avoid hitting a pallet in the road is a real brown trouser moment.
Then when you consider that on a busy motorway the real gaps at 70 are likely to be a lot less than 200 feet and its easy to see why many accidents happen. Whatever the Highway Code might say and whatever a modern car can do in test conditions it pays to take a conservative view of the car and driver real life capabilities.

Just thought I'd update those of you kind enough to post a response.

I discussed the points raised with my pal, and he's checked with his insurer and he does indeed need to contact the them prior to any recovery so jolly useful info. In addition, two of the party have since checked and found out their cover doesn't include the costs of recovery from the autoroute at all. At least they know! ...