by Albert Pryor

Created on: January 30, 2009

Apart from those souls who feel they actually need such vehicles, whose numbers pale in comparison to those who buy based upon materialistic incentive, comes the reality of need vs. image. Surely those whose need is obvious will keep buying large, durable vehicles as their capabilites are legend. However, the vast majority purchase these motorized behemoths to soothe egos, keep up with the Jones, be the biggest, baddest automotive bully on the road, or just to feel "secure." To those who thought it was simply a trend to follow or possessed a bigger is better attitude, rising fuel costs placed pressure against these "ideals."

We've seen the recent dramatic drop in fuel prices, spawning renewed interest in large trucks and SUVs. I say the need for a more mature response from both the potential buyer as well as the government, is sorely needed. No, I don't mean the government should impose nanny-like oversight which probably cause resentment among buyers, if not outright disrespect for authority. A mature approach could be developed to appease the need for reduction of the vehicles, while not putting off those who have an ongoing need, but causing others pause before commiting their elective income towards purchase.

Suppose we not penalize those who already possess SUVs. Instead, how about a program that realigns ownership to those who need these vehicles but cannot qualify for financing or a lease contract. So as to have those who want out of their gas hogs but don't want to risk bad credit by just turning them in to the leinholders, have them sign onto a registry, arbitrated by a local or regional bank or public authority, who would then match appropiate vehicles to those with a genuine need. A credit for each transaction could be applied towards another vehicle of equal value. Obviously, mileage restrictions and creditworthiness of the parties involved would eliminate some and another barter arrangement would have to be applied.

Regulatory bodies could devise financial and/or environmental conditions that would be required for potential buyers whose interests lean substantially towards asthetics over functional need to consider before commiting themselves the ownership of said vehicles. Perhaps paying a surcharge that would be strictly used to pay for the exchange plan mentioned above could be imposed. Or an additional registration charge for the curb weight, sort of like a road tax placed against these vehicles for the additional wear to the road surface, as is currently assessed to tractor-trailers. An affidavit of eligibility would be required of the potential buyer to offset this surcharge.

While the adoption of the foregoing may seem like a potential bureaucratic nightmare, properly drawn out, it would work if the proper legal machinery and public backing held sway. After several years of this type of public policy, the numbers of these vehicles in the public domain would likely diminish to numbers more appropiate to their designed function, reducing fuel consumption, traffic congestion, and, maybe smaller car driver angst.

Learn more about this author, Albert Pryor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.