OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE
As the times  have changed, has social responsibility been run over on the freeway of progress?
The words rush hour, backed up, and gridlock have become a part of the daily commute to and from the job.  However, this situation has expanded beyond the hour before and after the workday to impact every day, during most of the waking hours.  Often, public leaders use the situation as a platform for getting elected, but when it comes right down to it, changes occur after the fact and not on a large enough scale.  Construction of new highways and freeways and parkways and overpasses and by passes and, and, and, has become a way of life and just another obstacle to circumvent.  This makes me believe that society isn't solving the right problem.

Looking below the surface, what exactly is the problem?  I think there are two major segments to the problem.  First, is a distorted sense of social responsibility. Second, is the belief of vehicle drivers that society owes them a place to drive. 

Driving a vehicle, no matter what everyone wants to think, is not a right, it is a privilege.  Driving a car encompasses three social responsibilities that need to be considered: 1) the vehicle must be maintained is such a way as to be safe for society, 2) the vehicle must be insured to provide for the ability to compensate for any damages caused and, 3) the operator must adhere to specific rules and regulations regarding the vehicle operation.

    1) Vehicle maintenance, over its life, is the most expensive part of vehicle operation and ownership.  From simple maintenance to complete overhauls, from the date of purchase to the eventual abandonment, the cost of maintenance can easily exceed the original cost of the vehicle.  It's no wonder that people don't want to spend the money on upkeep after buying the hardware.  However, social responsibility requires that this cost be incurred.  The components of this responsibility refer to the operation while in motion and the effects of the vehicle on the environment. 
      - Yes, the environment must be taken into account when talking about vehicle operation.  As the world learned from LA, massive vehicle operation can make the air we breathe into a hazard.  In those parts of the country where the annual rainfall washes the particles out the air, air pollution is not the problem as much as the pollution of water sources where the vehicle emissions are washed into the streams and rivers.  Which brings up the first conclusion of public responsibility, the vehicle must be maintained in such a way as to limit the level of emissions being generated.  In Arizona, this has been broached with a vehicle emission-testing program.  Unless your vehicle can pass a test for clean running vehicles, it will fail.  And after failing, the vehicle is turned into a yard ornament, right?  Wrong.  If the driver spends $75 on engine maintenance, then the vehicle is given a waiver.  Exactly what is the purpose of the test?  If the test is to get polluting vehicles off the roads then the program has failed.  If the test is to identify those vehicles that are polluting, then it is necessary that something else be done to the vehicle besides saying, thanks for coming by.  If the test is to frustrate drivers because they must sit in line to be tested for something that has almost no effect, then the test is a success.
      - A vehicle that can be operated safely is a completely different story.  This means good tires, brakes, steering, etc...A vehicle that breaks down on the road is a hazard to other drivers.  A vehicle that can't be controlled is a hazard to just about everyone.  This is the basic concept of a vehicle in which all of the parts operate in the manner intended, which can only occur with maintenance.  Okay, point made.

    2) Vehicle insurance is the method whereby the vehicle operator can compensate injured parties if the operated vehicle causes any damage.  In other words, if you can be absolutely sure that you will never be in an accident that is in any way your fault, then insurance is not needed, however, whatever can happen, will happen.  Requiring the operator of a vehicle to have proper insurance is a means of providing a level of protection for society, and, this falls within the realm of social responsibility.  Over time, the requirement for insurance has gone from a foregone conclusion, i.e. if you could afford to drive, you could afford the insurance, to a part-time scenario.  Today, I not only carry car insurance to protect everyone else, I also carry insurance to protect me from the damages caused by vehicles that are not properly insured.  This tells me that the insurance industry has recognized the attitude shift and proposed alternative protection.  The solution to the problem is reasonably simple, however, liberals don't want to be strict with the law, just kinda, if caught.  Once again, go back to the beginning; if an insurance company wants to sell insurance in Arizona, they must abide by the rules of the Insurance Commission in Arizona (or any other state).  Between the Insurance Commission and the Department of Public Safety, a statewide database is developed.  Now at this point, one must weigh the value of privacy against protection for society and in my mind, there is no argument.  This is not a privacy issue, this is a society safety issue and a privilege to operate a vehicle, not a right.  Utilizing the privilege releases the right to privacy for this issue.  Bear in mind, this isn't how much insurance (wouldn't the trial lawyers love that), only if insured and by which company.  The insurance companies must provide the DPS with a list of those vehicles that have allowed the insurance to expire (and those vehicles that are covered under a new policy).  Between the two, a complete list of all covered vehicles can be maintained.  When a vehicle's insurance lapses, the vehicle plates are confiscated.  A vehicle that is driven with expired insurance will be ticketed the first time and confiscated the second (sold in a public auction).  Yes, this is a strict position.  However, there is not a right to operate a vehicle, there is a privilege.  Violation of the privilege results in termination of the privilege.  Period.  Get more insurance and you can drive again, but not until.

    3) Traffic laws.  This is perhaps the least sensitive of them all.  The laws are very specific, however, the enforcement is dependant on the agency.  In some cases, the laws need to be tightened up.  The primary example is constantly on the front page: driving under the influence.  What possible excuse can someone give for operating a vehicle while under the influence?  Anyone that is caught while in this condition does not possess the common sense needed to operate a vehicle in any other condition, so just stop it all together.  Driving under the Influence is not an excusable offense and will result in the PERMANENT suspension of the license.  Yes, the excuses are rampant with the most common being that a vehicle is needed for the job.  Why would society want someone driving a vehicle daily on the job if they lack the common sense to not drive a vehicle while impaired?  If the ability to operate a vehicle is important, then don't ever operate a vehicle while impaired.

CONCLUSION:
If the following steps are followed, then anywhere from 10% to 45% of the vehicles would be off the road:
- Implement a state wide vehicle safety inspection (carried out by certified garages)
- Implement a state wide vehicle emission standard and failure to meet the standard will result in confiscation of license plates.
- Require vehicle insurance and enforce it.  Pulling someone over with expired insurance is acceptable.  Confiscation of vehicles will result in multiple violations.
- Eliminate the exceptions from the traffic law enforcement.  Driving while intoxicated will result in permanent suspension of driving privileges.  This change would dramatically impact the attitude of drivers.  Random operator tests are accepted.
- Levy an addition tax on fuel ($0.25 per gallon). This tax would be used to support highway construction and subsidize alternative public transportation.

Yes, I know the liberals will say that only the rich will drive.  SO?  As long as the drivers are subsidizing the public transportation, and paying for highway improvements, and maintaining their vehicles, and insuring their vehicles, and operating the vehicles in a safe manner, SO?  The operating of a vehicle is a privilege granted by society not a right and that privilege comes with certain responsibilities and those responsibilities come with a cost.