Leather, Price, And All Things Nice.

As I was cursing the peak-hour traffic I was so unfortunately stuck in the other day, my eye was drawn to a BMW E87 116i, glistening black in the afternoon winter sun. And it got me thinking: what defines a luxury car?

While I pondered this question, I realised that it’s far harder to demarcate than I had originally assumed.

There are cars we automatically pigeon-hole as being from a luxury automaker, and those that we assume are simply transport. In the past, it was easy. Luxury meant leather and technology. Today, both are easily accessible, available from even the entry-level Korean offerings.

Take, for example, the Hyundai i30cw. This is a small-to-mid-sized wagon that comes with leather, an optional diesel engine, along with a host of other features, all together in a well-built package that is actually a lot of fun to drive. Combined with an unparalleled warranty, and here you have what is undeniably a great car. But despite being a better vehicle than BMWs 116i, it’s not a luxury car. And the BMW is.



Forgetting the physical experience of luxury, the rest of it is defined by marketing and public relations. How you feel about Apple or Virgin or Lexus is sculpted by their PR departments over many, many years. The fact that Americans see the Infinity G37 as a luxury coupe, rather than a humble Nissan Skyline, is because of modified perception.

In Australia, Lexus is the perfect example. Perpetuated as the thinking man’s crumpet, Toyota has positioned the L badge as a genuine competitor to the Europeans. We all know that the ES300 was a Camry in a tuxedo, but to golfing grandfathers everywhere it’s a luxury sedan without the ostentatious statement of a German saloon.

Without the high quality of their engineering and craftsmanship, I suspect Lexus would have failed as a brand. They don’t have the history to back themselves up and I think only now are they starting to forge their own character.

At a recent design forum by BMW, artist Thomas Demand said that nowadays luxury is more inwardly focussed, rather than outwardly expressed. Modesty was the overriding message. This makes me think of the rise in popularity of apartments converted from warehouses all over the world as an example.

Even without being able to clearly define it, we all know what luxury is. We know it when we are immersed in it, and we know when it’s being faked. It is not just the material, but the quality of the material being used. The fit and finish of our surroundings. The character; the modesty; the heritage. And, of course, the price.

Training Wheels, Part Two

Two years ago the Monash University Accident Research Centre invited me to the launch of Going Solo, a booklet for parents of young people about to embark on independent driving. After enjoying a coffee and some pastries I went down stairs, jumped in the X-Trail, and drove through torrential rain to Mount Buller.

It is absurd, I thought, that young drivers are allowed to drive in these same conditions, on these same roads, without any formal training. The only practical driving test they must be complete is proving to someone they can correctly parallel park. Not confidence inspiring stuff.

The Going Solo booklet was designed to help convince parents to hand the keys to their kids, thus giving them more time and experience on the road. Addressing the problem of overprotective parents was certainly needed. But it’s an indirect solution to the real problem: a fantastic lack of experience in new drivers.

In 2001 the Monash University Accident Research Centre conducted a study on the impact of driver training on young people. Many people incorrectly cite this study as proof that driver training actually increases the likelihood of being involved in a collision due to the confidence that is instilled in the participants. These were not the findings of the study. In fact, the paper found that many people had stopped speeding and tailgating after participating in the training. The study recommended that driver training be considered by road safety experts in the future.

But even as recently as 2007, when I spoke to a senior researcher at MUARC, she held the position that driver training is detrimental to young drivers.


Two months ago a good friend of mine called to tell me that she’d almost had an accident. Driving in heavy rain, Georgia had read the road ahead and prepared herself for someone to do something stupid. Sure enough, a car pulled in front of her, causing her to jump on the anchors, the ABS shuddering through the pedal of her Yaris, and she successfully steered her way around the moron.

For Christmas a friend had bought Georgia a place at the BMW Driver Training day at Phillip Island. She says were it not for that, she would have ploughed into that dickhead; with possibly dire results.

It’s no secret that insurance companies are the safest gamblers you’ll ever find. They base everything they do on well-funded, well-founded research. Know this: many insurance companies lower your premiums if you’ve completed a driver training course. This means that they think you’re less likely to have a crash. If it makes you safer on the road, why isn’t driver training compulsory for new drivers?

The answer is logistics.

Can you imagine – every fresh-faced 18 year old that gets their licence, every day, hundreds of them throughout Australia… How could every one of them possibly take part in a day-long course? It would be a nightmare. I don’t know many driver training companies there are in Australia, but my guess would be not enough.

So the government continues to cite incorrect “evidence” that is also completely out of date, because it sounds better than saying ‘It’s too hard.’


My solution? Introduce driver training as a compulsory subject in senior school.

We have subjects that teach cooking, money management, law, art, computer skillz, sports, media… hell, even English is compulsory. But if you want to be a tradie, not knowing how to correctly insert quotation marks isn’t going to kill you. Not knowing how to brake correctly just might.

Yes, this raises a host of issues and would be hard for schools in remote areas – I’m not saying it won’t present problems – but really, this is about reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries suffered by thousands every year. I’m sure we could work through the hurdles with that promise. I would happily teach kids how to drive, and I know a lot of others that feel the same.

Give me one term with a classroom of year 12 students, and I’ll scare the shit out of them. And not just with my body odour, but with pictures, videos, real-life accounts of car accidents. Have them talk to someone with acquired brain damage. As I said in Part One, there could be excursions out where kids get to see how much damage is caused at 50kph. We could incorporate it with the proposed buy-back scheme for older cars (designed to encourage the sales of newer, safer vehicles) and kill two birds with one stone.

I know this seems like a long shot, but to me, it’s insanity to ignore this issue any longer. At some point we need to stop relying on technology to save us, and start taking responsibility for what is going on.