Do people still put eyelashes on their cars? It's been a while since I've been in the accessories aisle to check.

The latest thing seems to be those cat stickers put in rear windows that make the rear wiper look like a little tail (what a shame that the artist formerly known as the Ora Funky Cat doesn't have a rear wiper).

I saw a Volkswagen T4 Transporter van the other day, the back of which looked like a mobile anthology of every bumper sticker yet made. You could barely see that it was a Transporter underneath them all.

"But this," thought I, as I made my way down the A34 the other day, "is the stick-on car mod to rule them all". There it was: a 10-year-old black Seat Ibiza estate and otherwise entirely unremarkable - except that it had devil's horns. Not those little chrome ones that sometimes get stuck around makers' badges, with the little forked tail underneath (cringe).

No, actual 'life-size' plastic ones, plonked high on the roof. It was probably risking eternal damnation just thinking it, and I never imagined I would, but crikey, I miss fluffy dice. And then I thought: who actually has the stranger relationship with their car in this little clash of automotive cultures? Satan the Seat driver? Or me? 

I would say the Seat owner in question was in her mid-twenties, and she looked very pleased with how much attention her modification was attracting. Perhaps she hadn't long grown them. They made for an unusually bold impression, but lots of people like to personalise their cars, so why would a road tester like me be so offended and repelled on seeing evidence that they do? 

It's perhaps the brazen outward evidence of attachment, of forging a personal relationship with a car. Of 'imprinting' upon one, if you like. That's anathema to us.

I've never known a road tester put eyelashes on a car. Plenty I know keep several cars of their own, but they don't give them names, never mind quasi-anthropomorphic cosmetic enhancements. They tend to keep them studiously 'stock' - or close to it-and often don't keep cars all that long. Just like the test cars on their drive, their own cars tend to come and go.

It's a habit. Distance and detachment are pretty vital when you're reviewing cars - or reviewing anything for that matter - and you want to be studiously fair. You have to check your own impressions and be aware of your personal preferences; you depend on a neutral, objective attitude and a constant, repeatable approach.

The same test routes help, broadly the same order of addressing functions and systems, and the same amount of time and effort invested in doing so. Everything has to get the same chance, every time, and marking it down just because 'you don't like it' isn't good enough.

You can't help it when you feel more predisposed to one car than the last, of course. Nor when one just seems to cater to your own expectations or tastes. You're human. But you have to be aware that you're just one particular human-one driver - and that what suits or pleases you won't necessarily please everyone. Every review has to make at least some room for a reader who doesn't share your own point of view.

It isn't normal to have to treat cars like this, to have to think so much about what they're like, what they're doing, why they might be doing it and who they're doing it for. Most people get to just decide whether they like a car or not, and they don't have to rationalise why. After that, I suppose anything goes.

For many, a car is the ultimate extension of self; to us, it has to be kept 'other'. For me - and just for the record - it wasn't always thus. My life before road testing may not have included automotive fancy dress, but it did feature a Triumph Acclaim with "The Silver Bullet' written down its sides in stick-on vinyl. How cringe.