I was reading an article recently saying that low mileage cars often bring with them a false sense of security to buyers. Cars can get significant wear and tear from underuse, and apparently its often better to buy a car that has covered something more like an average yearly mileage. Then again yesterday in the Driving section of The Times they had a page on buying Micras, they were very keen to push the fact that you are better off with a car with a decent amount of miles on the clock, apparently under-used cars suffer with condensation build up and all sorts of problems.
I had always generally assumed lower mileage = better condition but after also reading that a car with 80k motorway miles would potentially be a much better buy than a car with 10k that has only really been driven around town (appaently brake pad wear/replacement is a good indicator of this), Ive been a lot more sceptical of low mileage vehicles.