that keeps me from getting lost and so does my blackberry, how long will we allowed to keep using these things? >> these devices can cause accidents. >> you take your eyes off the road for one second. >> politicians demand more laws against them. >> you need laws to remind society of common sense. >> we have laws against drunken driving. >> but my guests say we should abolish drunk driving laws? how would that work? and what about cars what they do to the environment. >> this rollercoaster is headed for a crash and we're in the front car. >> the central planners say cars must get better mileage. >> everyone wins. they pay less for fuel, the economy runs more efficiently. >> it sounds good. >> to provide us with good stuff but with we rely on government to guide innovation, this is what we get. >> this is what a government planned car really looks like. they want more control? >> we have to accept the fact that is the way we have done things. >> no, it's no the. >> what is government doing in our car? that is our show tonight. >> john: i would like the government get out of my car. from air bags, another safety devices to the miles per gallon we get. government calls the shots. the politicians say, it's for your own good. to create a cleaner and safer world. president obama says the law that requires fleets of cars to average at least 35 miles per gallon will help break dependence on oil, reduce harmful pollution and begin the transition to clean energy. wow! he hasn't mentioned the downside. it costs more to make cars that get more than 35 miles per gallon. newest proposal would increase 35 to 54 miles per gallon. that will increase the price of cars by about $7,000 says a research group. that is not the worst of it. the new rules will actually kill people. an auto regulation specialist at competitive enterprise institute. >> it has been killing people for the last 30 years. >> john: kill people how? >> it kills people because it forces cars to be downsized, to be smaller and lighter. smaller and lighter cars get higher miles per gallon, but compared to similarly designed larger and heavier cars they are worse in every time of auto collision. >> john: they say smaller cars need another 2,000 people die each year. think about the minute risks that the epa goes in a tizzy about. if any private product had a death toll one fraction of what the miles per gallon rule caused that would have been yank had off the market years ago. it's pitched to us that we are all better off. >> john: it does lead to using less gas, that saves people money. >> it's not clear that it saves money. there is a huge upfront cost. but if these technologies save money you don't need a law to force them down people's throats. >> john: we would save money on our own? >> that's right. if you have a government law forcing this down people's throats that is a tip-off they are not going to save you money. >> john: it does reduce our depend ens on foreign oil. [ applause ] >> remember, these laws have been in effect for more than 30 years. since the time they were enacted our imports of foreign oil have doubled. it's really hard to tell but there is no clear connection between this. interesting thing the laws are pushed by folks that attack our military ventures in the middle east as being blood for oil wars. we are spilling blood of american soldiers in order to alive access to foreign oil. at least when we get into those military affairs we admit we are putting lives at risk. the folks the miles per gallon rule, the cafe rule, i never met a single one of them that is putting civilian lives at risk. >> john: let's talk about other governmental requirements. air bags. save lives? >> they have an interesting history. when they were first mandated by the federal government in the mid 1970s, the claim was they have been fully tested. you don't have to buckle your seat belt. there was brochure that told you that. the auto industry opposed the standard. it claimed to require those air bags and put occupants at risk. small kids in the front seat will be at risk. their views why were crossed off by bureau kratsd, especially joan clay brook. >> john: now they are better and saving lives? >> we would have had them if we didn't have the mandate. automakers want safety. and other countries did not require air bags to be a substitute for seat belts, countries like australia, you had gentler deploying air bags but because our bureaucrats were fixated on taking all responsibility off of the occupants to buckle themselves, they wanted to replace the seat belt and they got a system that killed over 150 kids. >> john: you in plans require cars to make more noise, hybrid cars because they are more quiet they kill pedestrians, bicyclists. >> that is theory. that has not been confirmed. >> john: this has been signed into law did. >> that's right. this is actually looking for technologies that might detect the presence of a child that has been left in the rear seat. it somehow picks up a pulse rate. >> john: one or two people forget their child and leave them in their sun. >> they have to put them in the bag seat because of the air bag mandate. my shuwlg within two years you will see a push to require that as well. >> john: let's hear from the other side. let me bring in bob beam from one of the biggest environmental groups. you say the complaints are ridiculous? >> we take safety seriously, john. as the father of three teenagers i take autosafety seriously i suppose as a 6,000 pound navigator runs into a 3500 pound malibu, its tragic on moment for the chevy. but detroit is becoming cars that are -- is building cars that is safe. the ford focus, top marks on safety. they are safer cards and they are not coming at expense of fuel efficiencies and increasing gas mileage we can cut our oil consumption by four million barrels a day by 2030. that would wipe out our opec purchases. we need to do that. >> john: we use oil for lots of things. if we cut our use by a third for cars, it reduces 7%. >> four million barrels makes a lot of difference. we are using 19 million barrels a day. opec is about 5 of that. we could take a bite out of that >> john: mr. dean says one of the proponents it refuses to put anyone at risk. >> john: let mee him ask directly. the cars are smaller. 2,000 deaths a year. is that proof? >> not necessarily a smaller car that we're talking about. you look at the chevrolet ri malibu, that is 3500 pound car. getting 33 miles to the gallon. we believe detroit can do this. we have faith in them. we can build in this country a day.... >> this is not a question of faith. the point is if you put technologies in a large heavier car that car will be safer still. the auto insurance industry of all the players in this game have the most direct stake in accurately noting how crashworthy they are because they insure them. if you look at brochure how to buy a safer vehicle, the first two factors are size and weight. >> i read the report just like you did. [ applause ] >> it cites a lot of cars that out there. chevrolet ri cruz is a safe car. >> it's one of those cars that model is not going to have spare tire because gm had to save another 26 pounds in order to meet the mile per gallon standard. the biggest thing we're loseing is the fact none of the proponents of these standards, it's always win, win, win. >> what it's about is building a car in this country to safe to drive. it's economical to keep and it will get an honest 60 miles a gallon gasoline. we need to do it. >> john: i would want to save money at the pump but why does government have to force it? can't one car company, say i get 60 miles to the gallon and the other gets 10 and it's my choice. >> but our market is held hostage to oil control. last time it happened we almost lost general motors and chrysler. only the american taxpayers saved it from happening. guess what, detroit is stronger. they have come back with a chevy volt and focus. we can save money at the pump. that is what we need to be doing. >> john: i'm curious to see how much the volt is going to make us. [ laughter ] thank you. coming up... traffic congestion to avoid speeding tickets. [ male announcer ] 95% of all americans aren't getting enough whole grain. but actually, it's never been easier to get the whole grain you want from your favorite big g cereals. from cheerios to lucky charms, there's whole grain in every box. make sure to look for the white check. lies are at stake. we can't passively address the issue. we have to fight this dangerous trend aggressively. >> john: when he is talking about is people texting while driving. that is dangerous. so politicians are going to protect us. pass laws and ban stuff. what would they do without them? the technology writer says politicians are in a group of a techno panic. what do you mean a techno panic? >> it happens when there is new media on the scene. jane use tin is high literature and college classes of krupgt the minds of children and same thing with rock and roll and radio and television, telegraph and books. it's well documented. technology is coming on the scene and a small segment of people like senator schumer. they propose widely disproportionate solutions that results in banning something that is new. >> john: if i am in my car and texting i'm not looking at the road? >> safety is a concern. texting bans don't work. they don't work precisely the laws are not as powerful as they think they are. banning something doesn't mean people stop doing it. in this case you take the phone from here where maybe i can see it and people hide it. >> john: we have data on that. the highway institute and found states that ban this, crash rates rose. that was the theory you are hiding it from the cop so you are further away from the road. >> there is a legitimate concern about digs tracked driving and it's not to ban new technologies. specifically things like having an auditory interface with your phone. i can now use for free on android and variety of other platforms and navigation devices voice commands. those tools will speak to me. to make sure my eyes stay on the road. >> john: chuck schumer would say let me get on tv. [ laughter ] >> no, he would say it's my law. >> the tools have been developed and are in the marketplace and readily acceptable and distracted driving is a problem whether you are eating a ham sandwich or drying your hair. >> john: see what comes and i've seen people and women putting makeup on. we taped drivers. >> the dancing queen, do i have anything stuck in my teeth. brushing their hair, eating an ice cream cone or an apple. not illegal but how about driving one handed while eating pizza or taking big bites out of a sloppy sandwich. would you steer with your elbows while doing paperwork. >> they are doing bad things behind the wheel. >> maybe if a cop saw you eating a sandwich and every passing more laws world they would be banned. >> we have laws against distracted driving. if you are veering out of your lane. >> it's the same as distracted driving? >> we need tech neutral laws. if you are driving in a way that is dangerous, that is clearly evidence you should be held responsible for that. >> john: one company sells a device slightly different subject called phantom alert that warns you. >> what is a good samaritan that would like to share that would benefit your time on the road. pass that information while driving. you will receive up to the minute information on speed traps, red light cameras, speed cameras. >> john: so that seems dangerous. you are selling people something that subverts speed limit laws which are supposedly saving lives? >> its balancing test. the government has to weigh the interests but it doesn't mean that government can censure people. i have a right that i can share it and that is what these do. [ applause ] >> john: so politicians have decided they can't ban them. my senator, chuck schumer was lean on companies like apple and google to not offer the apps. >> i think if they pass a law it would not pass constitutional muster. so they used the same strong arm techniques, senator lieberman got amazon to stop donations to wikileaks. he could make a nasty call and get the company to stop doing something he didn't like that. is very disturbing to me. >> john: in virginia and washington, d.c. they do ban radar detectors. i'm not bothered from that. >> people in the open 70s when detectors came out. people will be speeding left and right but we haven't seen that be the case. >> john: this will continue. thank you barry sloka. [ applause ] >> john: we know that drunk drivers kill people so laws save lives right. the next guest says no they don't and we should abolish these laws. he'll explain why. [ applause ] while energy developement comes with some risk, north america's natural gas producers are committed to safely and responsibly providing decades of cleaner burning energy for our country, drilling thousands of feet below fresh water sources within self contained well systems and using state of the art monitoring technologies, rigorous practices help ensure our operations are safe and clean for our communities and the environment we are america's natural gas. there is no way to hide it. if you drive drunk, we will find you. cops are cracking down like never before. make no mistake, we will be tough and you will be arrested over the limit, you are arrested. >> that is public service announcements about drunk driving. the number of deaths per mile driven has steadily dropped. some say it's because of our tough drunk driving laws. how many of you think these laws are a good thing and we should have drunk driving laws. everybody in this free libertarian audience. i've always thought that. one says no. if we really care about road safety we should abolish drunk driving laws. abolish them? >> the problem was drunk driving is reckless driving. a threat to our safety. my point is that focusing just on alcohol is not or doesn't make the roads safer. let me give you two scenarios. you are driving home one night. it's 11:30 at night. you've had a few drinks. you roll through a stop sign. nobody else is on the road. you don't see the police officer. he pulls you over. you blow.081, you are legally drunk, you will lose your license and pay thousand dollars more in fines. attend classes. >> john: teach me a lesson. >> second scenario, i fall asleep at the wheel. my car barrels through a red light and injury a couple of people. >> john: and lack of sleep kills a lot of people on the highway. >> exactly. i'm actually much greater threat to other people on the road than you are by with sleep deprivation. people who are sleep deprived of much more distracted. my point i had should be the reckless driving. the thread to roadway safety, that is what we should be punishing. '. [ applause ] >> john: you voted the other way. you have been convinced. >> when you make the condition how much alcohol in your blood the crime you get to be a surd situations, in a lost states, the legislature and courts can do this, they can forcibly draw wnrood you even if it's minor traffic violation. >> john: a cop can cop up to me. >> take blood out of your arm if they suspect you are drunk. you have rod blocks when local governments set them up. they will stop 2,000 cars and write seven or eight citations. the rest is like a improperly fixed decal. i think it's driven like hysteria over drunk driving laws. i'm not supporting drunk driving. the pr campaign we've had on g.i. laws have been successful. >> john: they are not coercive? >> they are not. we laugh at the guy that stumbled out of the bar. now that guy is pariah but i think it's social pressure that has done that. >> john: the slaw if you have a blood alcohol of .officer 8%, you are in, did .08%, but traffic fatalities have dropped. >> the fatalities dropped significantly to about 1980 to 1989. this law took effect into 2000. >> this graph shows when the tougher law passed and deaths went up slightly. they were going down before as people got smarter and more careful. >> it actually increased when congress lowered the blood-alcohol level to .08. people are between .08 and .10 are not significantly impaired. you have to set up roadblocks. they take ten, 12 police officers in order to run the cars through the system. those are cars not on the road catching the actual drunk people and seeing who is reckless. >> john: mothers against drunk driving we told them about segment, if are why kids, in less than a third of a second, if i'm impaired i am drunk the entire time. >> that is true. when you have kids in the car your kids or a distraction. if you are sleep deprived that is certainly going to be a distraction. if you are prescription medication, painkillers, for example, that will be a distraction. none of these have the same sorts of penalties as we do for alcohol impairment. if your goal is to make drinking alcohol while driving a sort of worst thing you can possibly do, the laws we have are fine. the goal is to actually make the highway safer, we need to concentrate on the reckless driving and not whatever it is that is causing it. >> john: this opens my brain a bit. we'll see if you convinced the audience. they are applauding, but next what should america do about all that traffic? i'm told communist china might have a solution. really? that is next. you could save a bundle with geico's multi-policy discount. geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance. ♪ geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance. at exxon and mobil, we engineer smart gasoline that works at the molecular level to help your engine run more smoothly by helping remove deposits and cleaning up intake valves. so when you fill up at an exxon or mobil station, you can rest assured we help your engine run more smoothly while leaving behind cleaner emissions. it's how we make gasoline work harder for you. exxon and mobil. [ female announcer ] sweet honey taste. 80 calories per serving. 40% daily value of fiber. i'm here in the downtown area where the crowd is growing. [ female announcer ] watching calories at breakfast never tasted this sweet... i'll go get my bowl. [ female announcer ] ...or this huge. new fiber one 80 calories. yes, you can actually love breakfast. [ applause ] >> john: we all hate traffic jams but what can be done about them? the number of cars keep rising, up by four million every year. people want the own cars and drive places. what do we do about traffic? liberal politicians and green activists say we need to pressure people to drive less, to get rid of their cars, move to public transportation. they push higher gas taxes and fund mass transit. but so far it hasn't worked very well. people didn't rush to mass transit. we still prefer our cars and have traffic jams. one says we could learn from communist china of all places. what do you mean, communist china? >> china is an interesting place. its communist country but they have with staying the communist party in charge. it's such a big country they do so many things they get some things right. it's ironic that the u.s. has a far more socialist transportation system than communist china or more socialist france. >> john: what do you mean? >> we have an entirely government owned and operated transportation system in the united states for which we pay through very indirect means. we have no idea what we're getting for what we pay. in china they have toll roads. not all the roads are toll but cline has more toll roads than the entire world combine. they believe the people that use the transportation system should pay for it. it shouldn't be free and shouldn't be taxing people that don't use the system to pay for it. >> john: you have to pay for it in gas tax. >> you pay for it indirect gas taxes but pay through little indirect fees and taxes. >> john: china has a real problem. certain cities are adding a thousand cars per day? >> yes. it's amazing in the united states and amazing in europe but in china, they are adopting cars there like you can't believe. the amount of infrastructure to accommodate that is staggering. >> john: one city is building an underground -- you got us in the video. >> it's an underground ring that is connecting underneath the downtown. that connects all the underground parking structures in that whole central part of downtown. so all that traffic can go under ground and find a parking structure and free the streets up. >> john: this sounds hugely expensive but because it's paid for with tolls, it doesn't happen unless a entrepreneur. >> people will pay to get out of traffic. a similar highway exists in france. not totally socialist. they, too, hire private companies to build toll roads. >> they built this road to paris. >> it will take ten minutes that used to take 45 minutes. >> private operators have an incentive to keep cars moving. so they clear accidents quickly and find them quickly thanks to 350 cameras they installed inside the tunnel. >> any incident is detected in less than ten seconds. >> they rush to tow it away. traffic keeps moving. >> john: government could do that? >> government could. it was the private sector, we bet people would be willing to pay for having that tunnel and turn a 40 minutes into a ten-minute trip. it was a huge success. >> john: this is another example from your state. >> in california, instead of building a brand-new road, a private company added two lanes in the middle of highway 91. drivers can use them or not, but if you pay you get to go this fast. you don't have to slow down for tolls because they installed and improved electronic toll collectors. >> i hear people say, that is not fair. rich people get to go fast. it's a choice. before you had the choice of being stuck in traffic or being staying at home. now you have the choice pay a toll and get home on time. in fact, the data from that road show that very few people pay every day to use that road. even rich people are not in had in a are your. even poor people, it's worth $6 to get to the kid's soccer game on time or wherever they need to bay. they have a choice they didn't have before. [ applause ] >> john: one more example. in my town, my mayor got publicity announcing his central planners were going to speed traffic by adjusting the traffic lights. >> we can make it better. >> video cameras and other hardware will measure traffic conditions in midtown and relay that information to engineers who will then change traffic signal feerns clear up a congested area. >> we have the ability to see directly where a hot spot would be. >> yipee, government can do it. we'll see how it works. >> we'll have to see how it works. idea is fundamentally a good one. they take a bunch of vehicles that voluntarily have a transponder on them, that gives enough probes out there on the road to get the computers to figure out where the roads are slowing and the cameras work on intersections and tell you when they are gummed up. you can see the signal lights and change the signs to steer people to other alternatives. even better your phone or your gps device in your car and give you a red, yellow or green on all the streets in manhattan. >> john: so that is government allowing it to happen? >> in this case. you got the technology is privately developed. the service is going to privately provided. it's going to be government created. they should let the private sector develop it and not let the government get in. >> john: thank you so much. my take on government in our car but first the audience has questions for my guests about things like solving traffic jams and abolishing drunk driving laws. that is next. [ applause ] also get a free flight. you know that comes with a private island. really? no. it comes with a hat. you see, airline credit cards promise flights for 25,00miles, but... [ man ] there's never any seats for ,000 miles. frustrating, isn't it? but that won't happen with the capital one venture card. you can book any airline anytime. hey, i just said that. after all, isn't traveling hard enough? ow. [ male announcer ] to get the flights you want, sign up for a venture card at capitalone.com. what's in your wallet? uh, it's okay. i've played a pilot before. [ applause ] >> john: we're back with three of our guests. journalists say abolish drunk driving laws. adrian moore has been studying traffic and sam kasman spent years researching intersection of government and cars. >> i was just wondering, most of the country is illogical morons isn't it the government's job to keep us safe. >> john: who wants the illogical morons question? >> it's to keep them safe from morons. if you run a hotel you want to keep one moronic guest from burning down the units of other guests if you are operating highways, you want to keep damage occurring to third parties. to the extent it involves semifinal protection it's a much the new yes, sir issue. >> i think the laws need to be rational and enforceable and address the problems they are claiming to address. [ applause ] >> john: are you okay with speed limit laws? >> they are going up in a lot of states, they realize it doesn't have a lot to do with safety. it has a throat do with federal government, we won't give your transportation dollars you don't lower the speed limit. the common denominator in accidents is bad judgment. bad judgment in how much you drank and having an argument with your wife. it's bad judgment. we should outlaw bad judgment. [ laughter ] >> or punish bad judgment that harms others. let's punish people for causing accidents. >> john: that is after the person's dead? >> you are going to jail. it's a good incentive not to have bad judgment. >> i would disagree. i think you need speed limits. i think higher speed limits generally result in some increase in fatalities. i suspect that often exaggerated but think i there is some increase because cars colliding at higher velocities are more dangerous. i do not think that safety should necessarily be overriding standards in setting speed limits. otherwise you might as well have a 15 miles per hour speed limit. that is going to save lives. >> here is the problem. when the governments become dependent on the fines. and red light cameras studies show that if you link yellow lights you can have a much better impact than installing red light cameras because people don't slam on the brakes. there actually have been several local governments caught shortening yellow lights, causing more fatalities in order to generate more revenue for the government. >> seems like a common theme in the show that the government makes a law and is unintended consequences. >> john: common theme in all of my shows. >> is there any methodology or something you can predict unintended consequences, rather than after the fact that people die and come to conclusions based on body counts. >> john: i don't think you can. they are unintended. >> more complex the law is, more likely there is going to be unintended consequences. that is the real rule of thumb. the way you get rid of that is you have less laws. narrow the scope of what you are trying to regulate and get it right more often and wrong less. >> in germany people use public transportation because of high gas prices. the result of such a system be here in america? >> a lot of people advocate higher gas prices to get people out of cars. gas in germany cost about $7 a gallon. that is how they fund their general funds. if you want to force people out of cars, the best way to do it. $15 that will really get people out of their cars. >> john: earlier when i asked you, should there be drunk driving laws, everybody else said yes. did he convince anybody? how many think there shouldn't shouldn't be drunk driving laws? not a lot. not many. and people on facebook, they say you are a hack. only an idiot that is a smart idea. >> i don't know to respond to that. you have seen how it crept from the drunk guy stumbling into his car after the bar closes the laws are creeping in on social drinking. very subtlety the government's message don't drive drunk, don't drink and drive now. it used to be don't drive drunk. to me it suggests more about stopping drinking as opposed to actually stopping drinking and driving. >> john: that is not going to happen. thank you panel. next senate majority leader harry reid says government knows best. my take on that when we return. [ applause ] 0, i switched to a complete multivitamin with more. only one a day women's 50+ advantage has ginkgo for memory and concentration, plus support for bone and breast health. a great addition to my routine. [ female announcer ] one a day women's. [ female announcer ] somhing unexpected to the world of multigrain... taste. ♪ delicious pringles multigrain. with a variety of flavors, multigrain pops with pringles. >> john: we americans like our cars. we have always liked and loved our cars but central planners tell us, our cars are bad. driving is bad. it's wasteful and harmful. this are convinced if we car lovers broader our horizons take mass transit and trains and buses are so efficient if we try them we would love them. i take mass transit. i take the subway to work. of course, i luf in america's most populated city and subway goes from my apartment building to my office. mass transit is lets less vented for most of you. [ laughter ] >> john: central planners say we'll build more mass transit. we'll tax cars to the hilt to pay for it. we'll subsidize it will be so much more cost-effective for cars and then we'll switch but we don't. we don't like giving them up. in 1980 fewer than 3% of americans took mass transit. sin then, government spent all those billions of dollars, 10-20% of gas taxes to not improve the highways but expand mass transit. lure us out of our cars. the result? nothing. plenty of tax money was spent but after you contributed that money, how much did the share of mass transit increase? it dropped. less than 2%. some subsidize mass transit is so under used the train cars are empty. here a passenger on portland, oregon mass transit car. coyote knows where to go where there is no people. is that good use for tax money? >> our world faces a true planetary emergency. >> john: we have to stop using our smart phones in the cars because these are too distracting to use and something dangerous in a speeding car. >> it is a two ton bomb you are on. >> john: so get mor ready for more rules. they govern what kind of fuel you can use and safety devices you can have and they want more rules? you bet says the senate majority leader, tea party people calling for less government but they don't understand how many good things come from big government. >> even something like the telegraph. that came about as a result of government investment. >> john: give me a break. he is right about the telegraph. samuel morse did receive a grant to build a experimental telegraph line. that is the rare exception. usually when the government is involved. i'll show you. when government runs things, this is what we get. we're shifting gears. >> it was the pride of east germany. it was the best car the government could produce. it was awful. once there was free market competition because the law went down, the trevant disappeared, it couldn't begin to compete with what the free market produced. what markets offer was always so much better. harry reids of the world don't get that. i'm glad you do. that is our show for tonight. thanks for watching. good night. [ applause ] naturals from delicious, real ingredients with no artificial flavors or preservatives. naturals from purina cat chow. share a better life. at exxon and mobil, we engineer smart gasoline that works at the molecular level to help your engine run more smoothly by helping remove deposits and cleaning up intake valves. so when you fill up at an exxon or mobil station, you can rest assured we help your engine run more smoothly while leaving behind cleaner emissions. it's how we make gasoline work harder for you. exxon and mobil. ♪ let me make you smile ♪ let me do a few tricks ♪ some old and then some new tricks ♪ ♪ i'm very verstile ♪ so let me entertain you ♪ and we'll have a real good time ♪ [ male announcer ] the new hp touchpad. get it now for $100 off, starting at $399.99. ♪