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] ----------------------------------------------------------------------