5 ms·
Not being able to drive for 3 weeks is not an option for a lot of people. It’s not “semantics”
by syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Not being able to drive for 3 weeks is not an option for a lot of people. It’s not “semantics”
- jncfhnb 3y agoOk and not being able to drive for 3 weeks is different from not being able to drive ever.
- vacuity 3y agoBut maybe it is a big deal? You shifted from your previous statement.
- jncfhnb 3y agoCan you give an example where it’s a big deal?
- alexb_ 3y agoJust about everywhere in America requires you to drive to work. If you can't drive for 3 weeks, you can't work for 3 weeks. Do you see why this might be a problem
- jncfhnb 3y agoThat only makes sense as a problem if you previously had a car and then lost it, in which case your grace period should cover you.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoGrace and Insurance really don't belong in the same sentence. They are stingy enough to deal with as is, even when you have photo evidence of no fault in the crash.
- jncfhnb 3y agoCan’t say that holds up to scrutiny personally
- collegeburner 3y agothree weeks of spotty or delayed attendance can lose one a job most of the people with the option to remote work are working decent white-collar jobs, so add this to the long tally of policies that are designed to help but only hurt the poor
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> three weeks of spotty or delayed attendance can lose one a job Under what conditions will a person have a job that they are expected to be at, but not have car insurance to get there? I'm sure this exists (for instance for someone whose policy is revoked for DUI or accident or whatever), but in many cases I assume public transit or a three week wait to start is acceptable.
- BadHumans 3y agoThree week wait to start is not acceptable for my slightly over minimum wage job on the other side of town or in the next city over.
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoThis is a weird hill to die on. best of luck to you