>> in a few moments here, we will look at the national transportation safety board recommendation that members say should reduce deaths from alcohol driving. now a discussion on how cautionary programs affect transportation, then after that, a chance to see president obama and governor chris christie touring parts of new jersey. next up on c-span and c-span radio, we are going to take you to a meeting of the national transportation board. two weeks ago, they met and released recommendations on the junk driving in the u.s.. among the recommendations was reducing the threshold of drunk driving from the 50 states and district of columbia from .08 .05.-- to

you will see some of the comments from the chairman, who was at the meeting, obviously. will it -- at 8:30, we hear from you. we will open up our phone lines. we have also posted the question on facebook this .vening, facebook.com/c-span should it be .08, the current level, or .05, the recommended level by the ntsb. . number posting already 47% for changing the law across the country. 22% keeping it -- 47% the current law. to change the recommendations. that is just what they are.

recommendations. they are not a lawmaking body in that regard. they can make recommendations and incentivize states. let's go first up to the comments of the ntsb traffic safety director, who lays out not only the .05 standard that other recommendations by the board. here is a look two weeks ago. >> good morning. before i begin my presentation, i would like to thank staff

for all of their efforts in its last year. staff collaborated with experts and completed a systematic review of countermeasures to identify those actions most likely to result in meaningful reductions of impaired driving injuries and fatalities. this was not an easy task. there were no silver bullets to attack this problem. staff focused on the data and the four sides based solutions. -- and looked for science-based solutions. alcohol impaired driving crashes continue to be one of the country's greatest and most persistent threat to public safety. much more needs to be done. in summarizing this past year's recommendations, the actions needed to reach zero can be grouped into five categories -- laws, enforcement, adjudication, technology, and data. first, we need strong and effective laws that both deter individuals from driving while impaired, and laws to keep them from becoming repeat dwi offenders. staff believes that states should establish a perse bac concentrated limit of .08 -- .05 or lower.

furthermore, staff believes that nitsa provide incentives to states that take action in this area. second, i call it -- ignition locks should be provided to all offenders to increase effectiveness of the programs and improve calotte -- compliance with the law. regarding repeat offenders, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. while staff is not recommending one specific solution to address the problem with thrift -- repeat offenders, we're calling on states to come up with

specific plans to target repeat offenders and have a mechanism in place to regularly evaluate the success of these efforts. for laws to be effective and foster general deterrence, law enforcement is critical. to deter drinking and driving, individuals must be convinced there is a high probability that they -- if they're driving while impaired, they will be caught and the penalty will be swift and certain. research has shown that high- visibility enforcement that incorporates well-publicized media campaigns and enforcement efforts, such as sobriety checkpoints, are extremely effective at reducing impaired driving and the crashes that result. we like to see states continue with such efforts and we like to see law enforcement increase the use of alcohol sensing tools to help more officers deal with drivers who may be impaired. with respect to swift and certain consequences, adjudication must start immediately, from the confiscation of an impaired drivers license at the time of arrest through the license suspension process.

additionally, the staff believes that suspension laws could be improved by requiring individuals arrested for dwi install interlocked as -- as eric ormet for license reinstatement. -- as a requirement for license reinstatement. as states establish more dwi courts, guidance from nitsa will be needed to outline the best practices of the courts. next, technology can help to reduce impaired driving crashes. we believe that future in- vehicle pass about all detection systems such as dadss could one day reduce our call impaired driving. we believe we should work towards other with the development of this technology.

all of the countermeasures we have discussed today are designed to work together to eliminate impaired crashes and fatalities. the largest circle uc year represents approximately 4 million individuals who currently drive impaired each year in the u.s. lower bac laws, high-visibility enforcement, and passive detection systems are designed to have a broad deterrent effect that will keep people from choosing to drive after drinking in the first place. for those who continue to make that choice, revoking or suspending a driver's license at arrest, and requiring the net --

ignition interlock at -- as a condition will make sure that it will not happen again. for the small population that these measures are not effective, targeting these individuals and dwi courts are some of the best ever to use we have to make sure that repeat offenders are rehabilitated. we believe if we implement these efforts, we will see a reduction in the number of people who choose to drink and drive and old alike, we will eliminate all called impaired driving. -- and ultimately, we will eliminate alcohol impaired driving. finally, we believe that states need to improve their collection documentation and reporting of bac results. regarding be drunk driving problem, -- the drug driving problem, staff continues to be concerned and right --

recognizes more needs to be done. this is why in november of last year we call upon nitsa to establish a standard practice for toxicology testing. we are also calling on law enforcement community to require the place of last drink data involved in all crashes. these data also helped hold establishment and social hosts responsible when they serve obviously intoxicated and underage patrons who are then involved in a crash. finally, our ultimate goal is zero deaths, states need to set ambitious and measurable targets

for reducing alcohol impaired driving and injuries and fatalities. more than half of the recommendations made in the state to report go to the states. strong leadership is needed at the state level to address this public threat to safety. this map shows states that have low fatality rates in green, mid range fatality rates in the yellow and high rate fight out high rate fatality rates in red. public safety needs to be a priority for all states. we are hopeful that as states reinvigorate their i call is impaired driving efforts -- alcohol impaired driving efforts, this map will get greener and greener and we will one day reach our goal of zero

>> here on c-span and c- span radio tonight, we are looking at the issue of whether drunk driving laws should be changed. we are showing you part of the meeting from two lisa go. among the recommendations was changing the current state level .o .05 from .08 we will show you more from that meeting in just a moment as well as part of a conversation with the chair. in 20 minutes, we will invite andwith your phone calls facebook comments and tweets .here you can #reachingzero the ntsb is using that as well. we will take you back to the

meeting. whyrt, who asked the staff they decided on the .05 number. a recommendation. one of 20 recommendations or so made to the state. here is part of that conversation. >> you notice if we go from 8.08, a crash rate of .69. percentage wise, it a 48% reduction in crash risk, which is highly significant. ,hat is not just moving it down but moving the crash risk 48%. i could be wrong, but that is actually right.

let's go to slide 19. slide 19, the second bullet point shows lowering it from .082 .0 five in one country, they found an 18% reduction in fatal crashes. if you apply that to the numbers here in this country, that is anywhere from 800 to 1800 lives saved every year. that is highly significant. i am curious

that we, and i am through with that slide. why did we go through .05? i know commercial drivers are .04. as a former pilot, i know the federal aviation regulations call for .04 bac. why do we go with .05 and not .04? >> you are right. commercial drivers are at .04. we would start with our recommendation in remembering that our proposed recommendation included 0.5 or lower. one of the reasons we chose .05 is that is the reduction from research in the number of fatalities. our focus was on how can we reduce the number of fatalities. we have research. when we look at countries around the world that had pay bac below

.08, the most frequent number is .05. we thought we would be very consistent with that. it is one of our pieces of evidence. .05 also represents a clear place where the risk is increased by 38%. that is why we chose it for the numbers that we used for the research supported the .05 and the rest of the world is >> on c-span .05. tonight, the conversation is on whether drunk driving laws should be changed. open upnutes, we will powerful minds and get your thoughts on the issue. after two weeks ago, the national transportation safety board made the recommendation that states in the district of columbia changed their laws from the .08 current level 2.05. -- to .05.

every year, nearly 10,000 people in drunken related incidents on the highway. in 2011, here is a look at the fatalities. compared with accidents in other transportation, marine accidents, 800. 759 in rail accidents. 400 hundred 94 in aviation accidents. from milwaukee county on that region and how they are dealing with the issue of drunk driving. next up, the chairman asked the staff the real world impact if states were to change the law and some cash and some of the other recommendations made by the end tsp. -- by the ntsb. >> i think this is one of the big questions we will face as an

organization, understanding what constitutes current legal leg -- legal limits. have talked about high bac, what that means. we use toterms describe things, but when we try to connect this to actual behavior, what are we talking about? what are we asking people to do >> we are asking people to think ahead when they use alcohol. that is critical. if they go out to drink, that is fine. we want them to think ahead about how to be safe on the roads. .t seems like a simple problem

it is. it takes a change in the way we think about this issue. this is it can affect that change in our culture. >> have not have this campaign that have gone on for decades? -- haven't we have this campaign that can go on for decades that what is different about what we're doing? we look for that for decades. does not been as effective as it should be. we need to do other things. what are in looking at it to have an impact on that behavior? >> the changes that happened in the 80's in the previous reductions did cause a change. they did cause a change in the way we think about this behavior. it is exemplified in the aaa survey. people do think it is inappropriate. some people are still doing it. we need to go further and think harder about what meaning to do to change it even further. with thompson thousand people dying every year the message has not got -- with 10,000 people dying every year the message has not gotten through.

we need to take the next step. if we move toward lowering the bac, we not only will know it will cause reduction in crash risks, it will leave people driving safer. it will also send a message in social circle is -- circles it is not appropriate to do. >> i understand that. we are still asking for a bac.ing of the .0 five, .0 wait, these are numbers on a scale. tot do they mean individuals, to the people who are serving? we talked about educating people at establishments that serve people. what are we asking individuals to be thinking about, if we are telling them, have a plan, that

is true. we want them to have a plan. if you have a drink, wait a couple of hours. part of that is understanding how many drinks can you have and how long do you need to wait. >> one thing we know is the amount of drinks it takes to make a person reach .05 is based on a lot of factors. it varies based on gender, based on weight, based on how quickly they are drinking, and the potency of those drinks. we also know the safest thing is to simply not drive after drinking. we know the risks do begin and there are impairments beginning with the first drink. ,or an average sized person they can still consume a drink before they get to .05. a person of my size, i can go

out and get a glass of wine with dinner. it is safer not to do that, but i know based on looking at information available that i can have one glass of wine. at there looking national transportation safety board recommendations on drunk driving, in particular, the recommendation they made that states in the district of columbia changed their laws, reducing the blood alcohol content, the legally drunk o .05.t, from .08 tw it was one of the recommendations they made. in about 10 minutes, we will give you a chance to weigh in on the issue, your thoughts on that. we will open up our phone lines and take a look at twitter. .reaching zero

we are conducting a poll on facebook.com/c-span, asking you which you prefer, the current level or the ntsb recommended level. so far, the recommendations are 56 in favor of the current level, and 24 for changing it. the chairman, deborah, joined us on washington journal to further explain some of the recommendations. >> how someone is impaired. we look at a .05 blood alcohol level. what do they know about driving safely? >> that is a great question. that is why we made our recommendation. there is a general agreement about impairment. you have delayed response times.

you are not doing so well tracking objects. there are scientific -- there is a scientific basis. and laboratory test that you're 38% more likely to be involved in a crash at .05 than if you're sober. we think that's a really good indicator of where the risk lies and to go from .05 and below. hundred other countries around the world have already done this. gone from .05 or lower. some of them are .0 or .02 or .03. host: let's go to the phones and hear from michael in south carolina, democrats lune. hi michael. caller: my comment is this. in an era where we are fighting and taking over our personal liberties and freedoms, it seems kind of ludicrous that we trying

to take away another freedom on pools and another on the public. wouldn't you think it would be smarter to create some more transportation or some methods of transporting people from one area to another rather than criminalize more americans? it's like we're become criminalizing more americans and we have the immigration war going on now. it seem like americans are losing more. guest: michael raises a question about freedoms i think that there's a very important distinction. americans absolutely have the

right to consume alcohol. what we want to be clear on is the majority of the population, the vast majority of the population believes that impaired driving is a problem. they do not want to be on the road a drunk driver. we investigating a number of wrong-way driving crashes. in december we issued a report, a majority of high speed crashes where drivers going wrong way and hit another car, they involve impaired drivers. those are the risks out there when we face impaired driving. it certainly is anybody's right to have drinks, to have one,

two, three, have 15, just don't drive after you've been doing that. separate the drinking from driving. michael did raise a good point about making sure you have a plan. what we want to do make sure when people go out, if they're planning on drinking, have a plan. have a designate driver in your group. know if there's a free ride program in your community that you can call. be able to take a taxi and many establishments really do want to make sure the patrons get home. host: tony tweets, isn't distracted driving texting and phoning a greater threat than .05 alcohol level? guest: it's interesting tony raises that issue. one of the hot button points has been texting or talking on the phone behind the wheel. the ntsb over a year in a half ago, we came out with recommendations to the 50 states asking them to ban hand held or hands freeportable electronic devices behind the wheel. we now have 40 states who have prohibited texting while driving. we have about a dozen who are at the hands free only. we don't have any states who completely out right followed our recommendation for the ban on all portable electronic devices. it's a huge area of concern. the numbers we have on distracted caused accident doesn't reach the numbers we see on impaired driving. one out of three people killed in highway crashes is involved with an impaired driving crash. host: in 2011 the number of

drunk driving deaths is 9878 -- 9878. let's go to holly in new york. caller: hello. i have a question, i just don't understand the extent of lowering it from .008 to .05 what you would end up gaining from that. also i thought when you change it from .10 to .08, this was all your logic to begin with.

now you're doing it again. guest: one of the things that we know we've seen great improvements in the impaired driving fatality numbers since let's say 1982 where we saw 25,000 people killed every year in impaired driving related crashes. when those original laws began being passed in 1983 and over the next several decades the

rest of the states in the u.s. followed. we also saw the drinking age raised to 21 and a number of these interventions and these measures, the work of different groups like madd, really raised this issue on a public conscious. lot of public campaigns about not drinking and driving. we did see progress. we saw 25,000 fatalities in 1982 and about three decades later we're looking at 10,000 fatalities year. we did have a reduction. we are not comfortable saying we want to wait another 30 years before we see any improvement.

we believe that has happened in the past, if you take these interventions including reducing the blood alcohol limit, you will see a reduction in deaths and fatalities. that's what we saw in the u.s. when we went from .10 to .08. that's what we're seeing in europe and australia when they went from .08 to .05. in 2000 europe established a goal to have their impaired driving fatalities within 10 years. they achieved that goal. they reduced their fatalities by 53% and it went from 6000 per year to about 3000 per year e.u. wide. when you compare the u.s.'s numbers, we both have over 30,000 fatalities total and 10,000 in the u.s. are compared driving related. alcohol consumption is similar. they figured out to separate the drinking and driving. host: the executive summary said the u.s. drunk driving has plateaued. nearly one in three of all highway deaths still involves an alcohol impaired driver. kevin tweets in and ask, how many fatalities occur do the driver and content between .05 and that .08 number? guest: that number is challenging for us. because you're not the legal limit. for the people who has been tested and only about 50% of the people have been tested for the positive test that we've seen between .05 and .08 estimated to be about 500 to 800 lives annually.

caller: is a republican. i have a problem with the government taking over and iontrolling people's lives. don't even drink. however do -- i know if there's an accident, you got to have the blood alcohol content of these accidents. i want to know how many accidents and how many fatal accident have happened with people under the level of .08? that's really all i had to say. you can answer that. host: are you still with us? deborah hersman gave us some of those numbers. tell us more about what you think this will be an infringement. caller: depending on who the person is you can have one drink and be over the limit. let's say you're on your way home and you happen to hit one

of those pit stops. for me it probably wouldn't be a .05 i'm a big guy. for my wife who is only 5'2" and weighs 100 pounds, she may have one drink with me. let's say she's driving and we stop and she blows .06 and she's not drunk. what you end up doing, you take people who are honest law- abiding people and you're turning them into criminals. that is my whole point. guest: i think carl, it's interesting you talk about you actually don't drink. what the statistic show about 25% of the population are alcohol abstainers and they don't drink. about 50% of the u.s. population are considered low risk drinkers. another 10% are alcoholics and

15% are high risk drinkers which they have problems with binge drinking. it is interesting with the break down. we have people that want to address and people who may not able to separate drinking from driving. they need more intervention. we have the other category, of course it's 25% who don't drink at all. this is really not going to be in position on them. the 50% who might be the low risk drinkers who drink occasionally and mountain have problems with -- may not have problems with alcohol, when you go out and it's your wife, alcohol affects different people in different ways. for her one drink may get her to .05. if that's the case, spend a

little time after dinner on either having dessert, having a good conversation together, going to a movie. she won't be at that level. or since you're the one who doesn't drink, since you abstain, you may be always want to be the designated driver and be responsible for that. at the end of the day, yes your wife will be impacted she was caught at the check point but it would be even worse for her to spend the next few decades of her life and your time together in prison because she killed somebody in an impaired driving accident. this will affect your family's life but the other family who was affected by the crash too. we see this 10,000 times a year, 10,000 fatalities year after year. we don't want to see those. as a country, we have to figure out do we want to do more and if so, what do we want to do? cleanse all of that conversation with deborah

herdsman is on c-span.org. we are looking at the issue of changing drunk driving laws in the u.s. base on a meeting a couple of weeks ago. we will open up the phone lines for your thoughts on the issue. here is how we are breaking up the phone lines down this evening -- >> we are also on twitter and andusing the #reachingzero on facebook, facebook.com/c- span. a different question for you. we are asking in a poll what you think the level should be the current level.

the current rate or the recommended level. here is how it stands so far on our physical page. 29say keep it the same and voting to change it. among those recommendations, the ntsb would change the blood alcohol content level from .08 2.5 -- .05 or lower. they would develop and deploy in vehicle detection technology. it calls on states to require ignition interlock for all offenders, improve the use of administrative license action, and target repeated offenders. they reinforce the use and effectiveness of dwi courts in the state and establish measurable goals for reducing drunk driving and track progress toward those goals. our question for you is, in to 105lar, the .08

.hange -- .05 change good evening. go ahead. >> good evening. my name is sandy. i believeng because we are not looking at the right ways of changing the drunk driving. i believe we should look at -- look at this on the level of .mpairment you throw alcoholics into jail rather than treating them as if they have a disease. ,t is a different level of bac different impairments should be really looked at in this country. >> what do you do about people who are caught at .08 or .05?

what is the level where it should be set in connecticut? -- in connecticut, it is .08. if there was an accident or somebody hurt, just a traffic stop, you have to look at it case-by-case in different situations. willestion to you is there be any changes in that? will they look at alcoholism as a disease rather than the rest of somebody's life? >> it is a recommendation body in this regard. they make recommendations for changes and transportation policy. that is what the meeting is all about. mike is in wisconsin and is a bar worker there. good evening. go ahead. caller: i think .08 is ok. my area of wisconsin take strong

driving seriously. . see the same people >> what sort of place do you work in? caller: my parents own a bar and that is the reason i am calling from that aspect of it. of how you are trained to deal with folks who have had a couple more than two or three, what do you do? caller: [indiscernible] i look for signs of people being drunk. there is a free taxi in our community. they are offered to people so they can take a cab home. the college problem is a big problem in the community. at the -- the kids get drunk, fall in the river, get into car accidents. we put in place a free bus ride for the students to get home.

[indiscernible] i think it is pretty much the same everywhere in wisconsin. and get anugh evaluation to see if you are considered an alcoholic. >> we will hear from the sheriff in milwaukee county in a few minutes. mike mentioned college students being drinking. in the new york times today, they took a look at the issue of drunk drivers with this headline -- the chart shows between the ages of 18 and 26, even a small amount of alcohol increases rapidly the probability of a young person between those ages being involved in some sort of fatality, a traffic fatality. st. petersburg, florida, on the line. good evening. caller: my main concern is if you get arrested for drunk driving and you have to get the breathalyzer for your car, i

know alcohol affects different people differently. i wonder why there is not a breathalyzer available to the public to let yourself know exactly what your blood alcohol level is. if i was curious and found out i was illegal, i would definitely call a cab. i do not want to lose my license. there is no way of me knowing that for sure. >> you would like it has a factory-available option, for lack of a better term? caller: not necessarily that you needed to start your car, but that would be nice. just something reliable the government puts out there that is trustworthy. there is different stuff you use. it would be nice to have a meter that monitors and you know you are impaired and you say, i will not drive. >> let's go to delaware. maria, where are you calling for yak -- from? go ahead. son whoas a mother of a

was served alcohol in a local tavern here, and attempted to walk across the highway and was killed, i would like to see the laws making available to the , and over serving adults of age. i look in delaware and there are no laws. they've protect the residence for adults and underage children. there is no liability there. that would be better than lowering a few points in the percentage. >> we are looking at the issue of recommendations on changing drunk driving laws across the country, in particular, the

changing of the blood alcohol .evel from .08 to .05 on twitter -- brian says -- paul is next in louisiana. hello. caller: the question was asked a few callers ago. they made their recommendations. they are incomplete. do you have any to test x-acto -- statistics? how many alcohol-related incidents are in that range and how many stops do they have now between .05 and .08?

any proof good or bad otherwise. is it really too late? the numbers show people are driving at 108 and killing people? will findd, they people are involved in alcohol- related incidents. >> you can take a look at the .ebsite but go to paul in nantucket, massachusetts. caller: i am a waiter. a lot of rich people take the cap. -- cab.

i had to prove i was not over the limit of alcohol. it was put at .15. my effort here is to understand, trying to solve something on paper. they tried to have zero deaths, which they can never really a tribute to anyone, what is in their system, but ideally, it is the vehicle and the actual concentration of the person driving, causing a lot of these deaths. >> to be clear, you said you blew over .15. .13, point tow

-- 0.02 .0 to lower lower. right now, it is impaired driving, everyone throws out the word buzzed driving. there should be different consequences. there should not be drunk driving solutions in the courts because these people happen to be having something in their system. it is not necessarily budgeting them to not being able to handle the vehicle. a lot of the times, especially when police officers are trying to get more control over society, all this will do is increase that. say you had a drink, you are doomed. >> what do they pull you over for? if i can ask you? were you at a traffic stop? a plan thing? did they notice behavior on your part? caller: it was just, i was

driving by. there were two police offers their -- officers there who tailed me and i tried to boogie. i got back in my car and handle the consequences. >> thank you for calling in. we want to get to as many calls as we can. we want to bring you a conversation we had earlier today with the sheriff of milwaukee county about how they are handing things in the milwaukee area. joining us tonight is david clark, who has been on the police force since 1978, sheriff since 2002. how bad is the drunk driving program in milwaukee? >> it is problematic nationwide. it kills over 10,000 people a year. is struggling with it in some way, shape, or form. so far had 610 arrests in 2013, through may, and, to

give you an example, at this time last year, we only had 315. we merely doubled the limit. doubling a lot of people we arrested for impaired driving. >> what do you think is behind the numbers? >> in wisconsin, we have a couple of things working against us. wisconsin the only state in the nation that does not criminalize the first offense of drunk driving. in your first offense, you get arrested, but you get a ticket. you pay a fine and that is the end of it. 49 states, it is a criminal misdemeanor. to drive impaired or to drive drunk. what we are having a problem with in the state of wisconsin, and every state is unique, the problem we are having is with repeat offenders. in 2010, with more stringent laws going into effect for repeat drunk drivers, we

arrested 970 people for the second or more offense drunk driving. eight offense, nine offense, the same driver arrested 8, 9, 10 times. the sentencing policies are pretty lenient when it comes to drunk driving. >> based on the numbers, what was your reaction in the suggestion, the alcohol level .05. from .08 to there are two things i try to go into a problem. are we working smart and are we going to the right thing? we talk about the prohibited two -- content 2.05 --

to .05, it took a lot of states to come with that. i am basing what we do on my opinions and analysis of what the data shows. the average prohibited alcohol content is .16, nearly twice the limit. the average driver we are arresting is nowhere near the .08. most people are drawn to the extent they are basically driving blind. it is easy to notice that when a citizen is behind and i call 911 and say, i think i am following and impaired drunk driver. one of my deputies comes up on someone on the freeway, they are weaving all over the road, they speed up and slow down, it is very obvious. from what i understand of the research at .05, people can

basically function. we are talking about a social drinker, at least with the article i read, a woman of average size, one drink probably liquor, would put them at about somewhere in the area of .05, for an average sized man, two rings would put them at about 0.5. people drink responsibly. what they are suggesting is criminalizing an entirely new class of people we have been telling all along, have one or two or you will be fined, because that is what the research shows, now we will tell them you are a criminal. i find it problematic because it does not hit the sweet spot of where we need to be, at least in wisconsin. andhe person who goes out weigh in villages or over indulges in consuming alcohol and gets behind the wheel, in

,rder to find somebody at 8.05 what the ntsb would be asking law enforcement to do, and i know i have not asked for this, and i would like to speak for my fellow in -- fellow law enforcement, i did not ask for this. what ntsb would be asking law enforcement to do is to basically set up sobriety checkpoints and without any reasonable suspicion, ask them to submit a breath sample into our handheld breathalyzers to give a sample to see if and how much alcohol they consume. that is the only way you will find somebody at a .05. i find that problematic from a civil liberties perspective, but also because it is not where the heart of the problem is as it relates to drunk driving. >> your reaction and the reaction of your colleagues, is it emblematic of how the

proposal is being viewed by other police departments across the country? >> this has been recently proposed. there will be a conference coming up and i'm sure this will be on the agenda. is doing anthe ntsb analysis on this. you are going to arrest people, a social drinker or a responsible consumer of alcohol who may be driving, additional court costs, incarceration fees, tying up law enforcement officers, for a person who, according to the research, one or two drinks. fellownot speak for my law enforcement executives, but i believe many of them would ,ind this problematic because with our arrests, if the average is .16, nearly twice the legal limit, we are not stopping anybody who is at a .06

or 504. that is rare because they do not exhibit the type of behavior somebody does who has really over consumed. >> an update from milwaukee area thank you for joining us this evening. >> you are very welcome. >> we continue with our conversation. the drunk driving law is changed. we stay in wisconsin. mike is a substance abuse counselor. caller: how are you? >> fine, thanks. caller: i did not get to hear the sheriff speak. doing an assessment in the state of wisconsin for the last six years, one of the things we live by our experience. it suggests it is safe. some of the numbers not reported is 315 millions americans travel annually in 200 me -- 200

million vehicles. 65% of the drivers. 17% of the passengers. 18% are non-occupants of the vehicle. -- impairedared driving. 1200 million episodes annually. the number is very small. the national highway of , justortation safety ,ecause i'll call is a factor it is not necessarily a cause. -- alcohol is a factor, it is not necessarily a cause. look at all circumstances of the case, and not just lump people together at say they are criminals. i have yet to deal with somebody programriminal in my assessor. most of the people, other scars, -- other cars, they are invested

in the community. they are good, solid citizens. they just socialize at bars and happen to drink. guys how many times do you see a repeat offender? -- >> how many times do you see a repeat offender? caller: 30%. you are only -- only a first time offender once. there is a difference between repeating the offense and getting caught multiple times. you do it one time and nothing happens and do it another time and nothing happens. the last number was 87 episodes of impaired driving before something happens. >> thank you for sharing your experience. let's get a couple more calls. clyde is in utah. i would like to get on his coattails because i think he has great ideas. a lot of statistics. my pain is this. , iwe truly want to stop it

am coming from the other side of the coin. i am a felony and dui offender. i did not hurt anybody, never killed anybody, never had accidents. i was breathalyzers. my life has been changed am aically because now i criminal. i cannot work for the state, i cannot work for any federal government, i cannot have a handgun, i cannot hunt, etc. >> how many offenses? caller: three in 10 years. i am not sure if it is nationwide. it is similar, in other states. >> thank you for checking in with us this evening. let's go to cape may, new jersey. steve, go ahead. caller: how are you doing? my name is steve and i am calling from cape may. in this day and age, we should have contractions in the newer cars or even the older cars, ,specially for repeat offenders to where they can get into

their car and they have to blow into a contraption and the car just will not start if they are under the influence. >> a number of states do recommend. i am combing through to see new jersey. , some ofave mandatory that mandatory equipment on some level in new jersey. let's get at least one more call. nicole in fort lauderdale. hi. caller: i am a server in a restaurant. i also teach a course to servers called safe alcohol that talks about laws and the the serverity of being personally responsible if we serve someone to the point of intoxication. the thing about lowering the level to .05 is that puts great

responsibility on us as servers and bartenders that if we serve someone who has had one or two drinks and then we have to cut them off, they could still be over the legal limit, and if they do go out and hurt someone, that could come back to us. honestly, serving one or two drinks i feel is not excessive. , as servers, should not be held responsible or criminalized for that if a third party gets hurt. we could be sued. >> imagine a course you went through. what is your responsibility now? you serve somebody two or three drinks. what are you supposed to do? caller: basically, if we are serving someone to the point where we feel they are moving

into intoxication, we are supposed to stop the service immediately -- >> i think i lost you there. let's get a couple more here. gerald is in michigan. gerald is in michigan. caller: there were several points i felt were of interest. the officer in wisconsin had some wonderful things to say as far as the impacts of normal people and how they would go bout trying to enforce this. also, in my own personal belief, i'm a person who drank at one time in my life but i no longer drink.