From: Rod Phillips, History, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
[log in to unmask]

RE; DRINKING AND DRIVING

I can't add much substance to this very interesting discussion, but I
have a question and a couple of observations.

My question is whether there were regulations against drinking and riding
a horse or driving a horse-drawn carriage/cart. I don't mean
regulations covering unsafe driving, where being drunk would
contribute to a violation, but I'm wondering about laws that refer
specifically to alcohol.

The reason I ask is that so much of the early automobile culture drew from
what we might call the equine model. I recall from some research I did
long ago on the first introduction of "horseless carriages" to New Zealand
(in, I think, 1897) that the regulations, maximum speeds, and so on, were
based on the prevailing behaviour and experience with horse-drawn vehicles.

If there was no law against being in charge of a horse while under the
influence of alcohol, the introduction of drinking and driving laws would
have been that much more an innovation and, one might expect, would have
taken that much longer to introduce.

My first observation is that attitudes toward drinking and driving have to
be seen not only in terms of attitudes toward alcohol, but also attitudes
toward driving.  Historically there's been a tendency to minimise driver
responsibility for damage, injury, and death.  It's significant that we
use the word "accident" to refer to events that are generally avoidable,
and that penalties for offenses with serious consequences have until
recently been very light in many places.

Second, and to pick up the point made by Ron Roizen, drink-driving laws do
in part depend on the ability to measure alcohol levels. Even so, until
recently many jurisdictions have used impressionistic evidence.  I recall
that when I was a reporter in a small Ontario town in the late 1960s, one
of the least-sought-after assignments was covering Monday's court session,
when the weekend's alcohol offenders appeared before the magistrate.
Apart from the sad procession of regulars who got their weekly homily and
a fine of $25 or three days in jail, there were the Friday and Saturday
night drunk-drivers.  The evidence the police gave never varied: the
accused "had alcohol on his breath, had slurred speech, and was
unsteady on his feet."  That observation was enough for conviction before
the use of breathalyzers.

Rod Phillips

Roderick Phillips
Editor, Journal of Family History/
Professor, Department of History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6
Tel: (613) 520-2600 ext 2824; fax: (613) 520-2819
Email address: [log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------