> terrible rear visibility According to the weighs of some perspective, very little can be an excuse to turn all areas of anthropic presence into a gigantic co

> terrible rear visibility According to the weighs of some perspective, very little can be an excuse to turn all areas of anthropic presence into a gigantic constructions site. Because it makes it unlivable. > off-road vehicle with terrible rear visibility Save for the actually changed proportions, I know off-road vehicles with outstanding visibility, "normal roaders" with almost no rear visibility, and many vans have no rear windows at all (they only use side mirrors) since forever and still not having posed a problem. Is it possible that some measures follow the trend of "do something stupid to justify your salary by showing you have done something", in the intersection with "preserve life at all cost irregardless of the destruction of its quality"? > Any idiot can tell Although, an analysis cannot stop at "Points: pro" of the branch "case A", and a decisor (but not regulator) will only take guesses on the details unknown in the Cost/Risk/Benefit - he would be an idiot if he thought that from "A shows advantages" followed that A would be preferable. And the Issue is that there is an epidemic of unrestrained lack of good sense.