> it would not be until 1904 that driving licences and vehicle registration numbers were introduced
A fun fact is that for many years, to get a driving license you just had to apply at the Post Office. There was no test at all. My grandmother obtained her license this way in the 1930s, and drove on the same license right through til she became too unwell to drive in the 1990s, and never took a test.
This is also how one would obtain a firearm or shotgun certificate - apply at the post office for a few (shillings?). I believe when introduced these certificates weren't even mandatory to purchase or own a firearm, and merely served to evidence your good character if a firearm dealer didn't like the look of you.
> In 1928, a serious accident involving considerable property damage occurred on the main road [...] At the subsequent trial in Klippan, it was said that the Örkelljunga resident, who had caused the accident, received a more lenient sentence because he had been drinking spirits and therefore had difficulty steering.
My grandfather got his driving licence in 1940s Australia without doing a test, because the police sergeant who was supposed to conduct the test couldn't be bothered and was more interested in a ten-shilling note.
I watched this clip several times and don't think it's California, based on a) the southern accents of both interviewees and b) the guy's hat which I /think/ says "Fort Worth". My guess is this is in Texas and is a reaction to the implementation of 0.08% BAC and/or other changes urged by MADD in the 80s/90s.
Oh yeah, definitely Texas. I remember my parents raving during the 2000 election that Bush's DUI was a non-issue because "he didn't kill anyone". I remember when seat belt requirements went into effect, my family members getting several tickets each, so proud to refuse to use safety devices. I remember my parents arguing with cops about their unspecified "medical condition" that prevented them from wearing seat belts, or us their kids as well. Texans are cavemen. So far behind culturally.
I watched some old driver safety films on DVD a while back. The attitudes were way different, the message on drunk driving was "you probably wouldn't be legally drunk for two, maybe three beers, but your reaction time will be terrible and you will live with regret if you hurt or killed someone, so don't do it."
That if your drink a single drink within 8 hours of driving you are a filthy criminal that will have blood drawn and thrown in the drunk tank until monday unless you post bail and will have to go to court and prove your innocence with a lawyer.
Defensive alcoholics are a great accompaniment to yesterday's reflexive hatred of self-driving cars. Human drivers are really showing their whole selves this week.
Horses are very easy to trip if you can get close enough, at least close enough to be able to throw something if nothing else. Lassos help also and is a bit less violent.
Mounting, wedging, steering uphill, forcing the head into a turn, etc. Tripping and especially firearms were used as a last resort, there's plenty of ways to do that without permanently injuring or killing the horse.
> it would not be until 1904 that driving licences and vehicle registration numbers were introduced
A fun fact is that for many years, to get a driving license you just had to apply at the Post Office. There was no test at all. My grandmother obtained her license this way in the 1930s, and drove on the same license right through til she became too unwell to drive in the 1990s, and never took a test.
This is also how one would obtain a firearm or shotgun certificate - apply at the post office for a few (shillings?). I believe when introduced these certificates weren't even mandatory to purchase or own a firearm, and merely served to evidence your good character if a firearm dealer didn't like the look of you.
Back in the day in my country, you could apparently get milder punishment if you were driving while drunk, because it's harder to steer properly then. From https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABilkrock_i_%C3%A5s...:
> In 1928, a serious accident involving considerable property damage occurred on the main road [...] At the subsequent trial in Klippan, it was said that the Örkelljunga resident, who had caused the accident, received a more lenient sentence because he had been drinking spirits and therefore had difficulty steering.
Different times :)
My grandfather got his driving licence in 1940s Australia without doing a test, because the police sergeant who was supposed to conduct the test couldn't be bothered and was more interested in a ten-shilling note.
Reminds me of the old 1980's news clip of people reacting to California's DUI laws - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ
I watched this clip several times and don't think it's California, based on a) the southern accents of both interviewees and b) the guy's hat which I /think/ says "Fort Worth". My guess is this is in Texas and is a reaction to the implementation of 0.08% BAC and/or other changes urged by MADD in the 80s/90s.
Oh yeah, definitely Texas. I remember my parents raving during the 2000 election that Bush's DUI was a non-issue because "he didn't kill anyone". I remember when seat belt requirements went into effect, my family members getting several tickets each, so proud to refuse to use safety devices. I remember my parents arguing with cops about their unspecified "medical condition" that prevented them from wearing seat belts, or us their kids as well. Texans are cavemen. So far behind culturally.
I watched some old driver safety films on DVD a while back. The attitudes were way different, the message on drunk driving was "you probably wouldn't be legally drunk for two, maybe three beers, but your reaction time will be terrible and you will live with regret if you hurt or killed someone, so don't do it."
As an old person, what's the modern attitude?
That if your drink a single drink within 8 hours of driving you are a filthy criminal that will have blood drawn and thrown in the drunk tank until monday unless you post bail and will have to go to court and prove your innocence with a lawyer.
Defensive alcoholics are a great accompaniment to yesterday's reflexive hatred of self-driving cars. Human drivers are really showing their whole selves this week.
Zero alcohol
> Police, he observed, had developed ways of stopping a runaway horse, but stopping a runaway motor car was another matter entirely.
I'm curious about the ways of stopping a horse
Horses are very easy to trip if you can get close enough, at least close enough to be able to throw something if nothing else. Lassos help also and is a bit less violent.
Gun, possibly?
Mounting, wedging, steering uphill, forcing the head into a turn, etc. Tripping and especially firearms were used as a last resort, there's plenty of ways to do that without permanently injuring or killing the horse.
"The following day, he appeared at Marlborough Street Police Court, where he admitted that he had consumed “two or three glasses of beer”."
19th Century version of a few small beers.
"I assure you I'm not, officer. Honestly. I've only had a few ales."
Title is confusing, it should be "The first conviction ever recorded may have happened in London"
Is drink driving where you are drinking something while driving? That seems fine. Drinking alcohol while driving is maybe bad though.
"'Am I drunk' what exactly, officer?" has probably been the basis of some good skits.
As once before said: If they didn't want you to drink, John Deere wouldn't have put a cupholder on it. C'mon, that's entrapment!