Skip to content
HomeVideos
AllLongsCategoriesPlaylists
BooksBlogsPodcasts
HistoryListsWatch laterLiked videosFollowing

The videos, books, blogs and podcasts Hacker News keeps recommending, all in one place.

VideosBooksBlogsPodcastsAboutPrivacySettings

Data from Hacker News, HackerTube, HackerBooks, HackerBlogs and Open Library. Credits · Not affiliated with Y Combinator.

HomeVideosBooksBlogsPodcasts
Ctrl K

    Legal Drunk Drivers from the 1960s

    Robert Exley

    3 HN mentions · mentioned in 3 months, 2023–2025

    YouTube

    5:30 · 1.7M views · May 31, 2022

    A 1967 current-affairs segment interviews habitual drunk drivers just before the UK introduced the breathalyser. They insist they drive fine after drinking.

    Used as a historical analogy for public resistance to new safety rules, and as an amusing vox pop.

    Politics, History & SocietyLaw, policing & justiceWorld history
    1. 0:27
      People React To DUI Laws(1980s News Report)Cut The Shorts1.7M views • 3 years ago
    2. 3:25
      The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime (Adam Ruins Everything)Dropout8.7M views • 11 years ago
    3. 9:31
      Around The Corner - How Differential Steering Works (1937)US Auto Industry22M views • 17 years ago
    4. 14:52
      Modern Times Streetwise - part 1/4 - 1996 BBC Documentary how become a London cabbie.TaxiWarrior54K views • 15 years ago
    5. 24:57
      The Man Who Accidentally Killed The Most People In HistoryVeritasium44M views • 4 years ago
    6. 56:25
      Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last CenturyPEACE REBEL449K views • 12 years ago
    7. 35:07
      These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing UsNot Just Bikes7.3M views • 3 years ago
    8. 45:23
      BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police EncountersFlex Your Rights4.1M views • 19 years ago
    9. 18:58
      How The Auto Industry Carjacked The American Dream | Climate TownClimate Town923K views • 5 years ago
    10. 1:50
      "Turbo Encabulator" the OriginalDave Rondot3.5M views • 16 years ago
    11. 59:23
      Quick Start, Episode 7: Crimes... And Felonies.Cathode Ray Dude - CRD236K views • 2 years ago
    12. 11:11
      The Agricultural Revolution: Crash Course World History #1CrashCourse18M views • 14 years ago
    13. 1:25
      Hazard perception test 2026: official DVSA guideDriver and Vehicle Standards Agency2.7M views • 11 years ago
    14. 2:40:29
      HyperNormalisation 2016crisalist2.3M views • 10 years ago
    15. 58:46
      The Century of the Self - Part 1: "Happiness Machines"JustAdamCurtis2.9M views • 10 years ago
    16. 1:16:56
      The Part of History You've Always Skipped | NeoslaveryKnowing Better6.2M views • 4 years ago
    17. 25:21
      Old car headlights were all the same — which was a fairly bright ideaTechnology Connections2.5M views • 4 years ago
    18. 2:47
      Ernst Dickmanns’ VaMoRs Mercedes Van, 1986-2003Computer History Museum38K views • 10 years ago
    19. 17:08
      Cities Aren't Loud: Cars Are LoudNot Just Bikes2.3M views • 5 years ago
    20. 12:07
      Why We Can't Have Small Trucks Anymore - Blame the EPAAll Cars with Jon2M views • 3 years ago

    3 comments from Hacker News

    1. @SevreneDec 2025· in “Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban”

      >I feel like you haven't really been listening to the arguments against these types of age-verification-for-websites laws. Or maybe I just have a different conclusion to you? Because I do care, I do try to listen to the arguments. I'm no stranger to advocacy for civil liberties, they are important to me. I think all else being equal, freedom should be valued more over harm prevention. So if I'm for these laws, consider that a sign of how bad these sites have become, not how uninformed I am. > I mean, there's some similarities, of course. But I think there are some very stark differences. Yep of course it's not a 1:1, I agree. I don't mean to imply that people saying the same arguments today are wrong simply because people in the past were, but it does make me think more about it when I spot the same rhetoric. Often both sides have very reasonable concerns, as an example, the question isn't "should we have all or no freedom" Either extreme creates issues, yet both sides have valid arguments worth our time considering. We settle somewhere in the middle. Here's one vox pop with the introduction of breathalizers in UK (1967): this video

      CitesView on HN
    2. @richbellJan 2023· in “Study Finds That Buttons in Cars Are Safer and Quicker to Use Than Touchscreens”

      > The point is your opinion is concordant with every other poster in this thread, aka hivemind By this logic isn't everyone who is pro-touchscreens also a hivemind? > Nobody is asking whether some people are fine with touchscreens in cars and why that might be the case. Many people are demonstrably bad drivers who are over-confident in their ability and down-play the risk of distractions. When drunk driving was made illegal, people were furious and insisted they were fine to drive drunk and that it was perfectly safe: this video Touchscreens, while convenient and extensible, are demonstrably inferior to static physical controls for saftey-critical contexts.

      CitesView on HN
    3. @LevitzMar 2023· in “OpenAI CEO warns that GPT-4 could be misused for nefarious purposes”

      The rise of the automobile did cause a whole lot of legal and social ramifications that ought to be a good warning. Drunk driving was legal for years, I think it's a good thing to be wary of how things can change and to be ready, as a society, to deal with unintended consequences of this new technology, even if we assume it to be a worthwhile net good. As an amusing tidbit: a reporter asking people about making drunk driving illegal, a little before that came to be a reality: this video

      CitesView on HN