We would like to thank Drs Hull and Rucklidge for their interest in our article. Our study found that the ‘pop’ was not always felt when using a 27G spinal needle in the term pregnant woman. The study did not compare the safety of a continuous push technique with that of incremental advancement of the spinal needle and so we cannot conclude that the incremental technique is safer. Given the result of our study, we can, however, suggest that a technique that could minimise the extent of needle penetration into the intrathecal space would, logically, lead to a reduced risk of impingement upon neurological tissue. As the incidence of neurological damage from spinal anaesthesia is fortunately very low, it would not be feasible to perform a study that could prove this. We would point out that it was Professor Reynolds' case series that recently highlighted the risks of causing severe neurological damage with a spinal needle and so we do have evidence that damage is caused using current techniques of spinal needle insertion [1]. Both cadaveric and radiological studies have found that Tuffier's line crosses the body of L4 or the L4/5 disc space in 78.6% of people [2, 3]. One space above Tuffier's line should be L3/4, one below L4/5 and two above, L2/3. In our study the first position attempted was one space above Tuffier's line, which should be L3/4 and the second position for spinal needle insertion was one space below Tuffier's line, which should be L4/5. Any space below this, in our experience, is often unsuccessful, as this would be L5/S1. This is especially true in the hands of cautious trainees who are often lower than they think. As for two spaces above Tuffier's line being out of bounds – one of the main points of our article is that you cannot reliably predict which intervertebral space you are using and that you will frequently be at the cord level, so an incremental advancement technique may be the safer option. L2/3 is an option if levels below have been unsuccessful. We feel that is better to insert a spinal needle using as safe a technique as possible at a higher level, rather than persisting at lower levels, failing, and needing to subject a woman to a general anaesthetic with its attendant risk. The gauge of the spinal needle is a compromise between the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) and failure to locate the subarachnoid space. In the study quoted by Drs Hull and Rucklidge, use of 25G Whitacre needles caused one severe PDPH necessitating blood patch and three mild cases [4]. There were none in the 27G group. Whilst we accept that the 27G has a higher failure rate, PDPH can be devastating for an otherwise well lady who has to care for a newborn infant. The 27G needle is the standard needle in our unit. In our study of elective patients, adequate spinal anaesthesia was provided within 20 min. The incremental technique added, at most, 1–2 min. No undue discomfort was felt by the women. Whilst we cannot extrapolate our data to the emergency situation, we cannot see any reason for our technique to cause undue delay and concern in terms of time to provide adequate anaesthesia. Again, as in all things medical, an assessment of the balance of risk must be made. For most, if not all, emergency category 2 Caesarean sections, an extra minute would be of no consequence. For a category 1 emergency Caesarean section it is always possible to revert to a continuous push technique, possibly utilising a 25G needle, if a spinal anaesthetic is deemed appropriate for that situation.