While in principle, I don’t disagree. If you’re impaired, you shouldn’t drive. I lost a parent after they were hit by a drunk driver.

However, there are monstrously different amounts of impairment. You have reaction times and motor skills, decision making and judgement, awareness and attention.

Implying any type of impairment to be an unequivocal “no” to driving is short sighted, in my opinion. It’s the easy argument to point at any mind-altering substance: caffeine, tobacco, or antidepressants could be classified an impaired driver.

It’s also worth pointing out that even different emotions could dramatically alter driving performance. Not that we would ever think about restrictions on crying while driving.

not a typo

puplic

This amuses me

Interesting how insurance companies demand restrictions to “special enrollment” periods or specified times to begin coverage. It’s a tactic to prevent people from beginning coverage before taking on significant healthcare costs and then cancelling after their treatment is finished.

But yet, an insurance company is able to change coverage without following similar practices? Is just about as close to a bait and switch as you can get.

What’s amusing to me is that they referred to the job interviewer having similar reliability, but didn’t say whether it was good or not. Purely let the bias of the article imply that they were highly reliable.

Agreed. For the other side of the Atlantic, it is ground or 1st floor, 2nd floor.