Was the lower .08 bac limit imposed on the states in order for them to receive federal transportation funds?

Question

When I ready your answer Arus it just didn't seem right, so I looked it up myself. I found the following on the NYS Attorney General Web Site:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2002/jul/jul03d_02.html


The approval of the .08 BAC threshold legislation is also a condition of receiving additional federal transportation aid. Congress set September 30, 2003 as the deadline for states to make the change, offering a share of $500 million as an incentive for states to adopt the new limit before the deadline. Beginning next year, New York stands to lose two percent of its federal highway dollars ($12 million) if the .08 percent standard is not instituted. The penalty continues to climb in subsequent years to an 8 percent revenue loss by 2007.

Answer 1

While there are studies that show the effect of alcohol on safety; the .08 BAC limit is all about the $$.

My state has had this limit for a while now. The only way a BAC limit improves safety is if it is UNIVERSALLY enforced. No getting off lightly because of your fame, connections, or who your daddy is. Not long ago we had a former Seattle police officer arrested TWICE in 14 hours for drunk driving - the second time it was a state record of .47 BAC.

There is more revenue for the state if it's a catch, fine, and release program. The lower the BAC limit, the more of them you can fine. It does little to nothing toward getting drunk drivers off our roads; if a person drives drunk do you actually think they're going to wonder what their BAC is? BAC is so dependent on the circumstances (heat, your current weight, type of alcohol, food on your stomach, blood sugar level, etc), that it's best just not to drive after drinking to be safe.

Answer 2

No, the BAC content was based on scientific research. Had nothing to do with the transportation funds (that only had to do with raising the AGE of drinking)

http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,4588,00.html
http://www.1800duilaws.com/article/what_is_08_bac.asp
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/13qp/facts/perselaws.html


And studies showed that when they did lower the BAC from .10 to .08 , there were lower crash rates as well:
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/blnhtsa031027.htm

Answer 3

in keeping with my volunteer artwork with the deprived, the possibilities of somebody who gets welfare donating to any campaign are 0. people who're receiving public money have many burdens and a variety of of different issues they're managing, and being politically lively does not make their record of priorities. so some distance as welfare recipients who donate to a candidate being accused of utilising tax money unfairly, i could argue that tax money are used unfairly by anybody who gets them and reform is mandatory all over the board, commencing with our elected officers.