|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:From a usability standpoint or a technical standpoint? Usability. Can't really blame it from a technical standpoint, since it just follows the HCM. Travel demand models are terrible from a technical standpoint, but I don't have to use those, thank goodness.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
Haifisch posted:Is this one of those things where speeding is just plain easier to prove? And in the case of the passing lane, basically nobody treating it as one anymore? This is what I always assumed. Keep right unless passing doesn't work when you reach a certain point of congestion, so it's harder to make a ticket for that stick, as opposed to speeding where the magical velocity detector just gives an auditable speed. I'd really love it if the police cracked down on people just chilling out in the left lane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:This is what I always assumed. Keep right unless passing doesn't work when you reach a certain point of congestion, so it's harder to make a ticket for that stick, as opposed to speeding where the magical velocity detector just gives an auditable speed. Yeah if people want the left lane to be truly kept as a passing lane, the traffic needs to either be quite low, or there needs to be a middle lane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
What do people think of these proposals? Specially dutchgoons. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/crowded-cycleways-lead-to-new-urban-design-approach/ I made a bit of an effort post on cycling and generally moving away from car-centric design on an urban planning/development related forum for my city, linking actual studies on motor vehicle related deaths/accidents and a bunch of bicyle dutch articles/videos. They called me "Justin Trudeau" and brought up that a dutch person posts on the forum who says he doesn't like Netherlands and loves Canada because of the traffic and pollution so clearly dutch style infrastructure is bad and all my data about health, happiness, and emissions is bullshit because a single dutch expat says so.  Oh also investments in cycling or pedestrians are bad because anything that slows cars down makes their emissions go up so GOTCHA enviro-tards, you're proven hypocrites. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Not sure how that plan is going to help Amsterdam and Utrecht where the problem is worst. Amsterdam has streets where only pedestrians and bicycles are allowed that are already too busy. Where is it going to get the space to accommodate another 4 categories of road users without tearing down half the city? Its medieval street pattern is just not able to support how busy it is. In other cities where there is bicycle congestion it is because the bicycles have to cross the car traffic, like on that intersection at the north bank of the Erasmus bridge i posted earlier. Even in Rotterdam there is no room for a grade seperated crossing, how is adding 4 new different classes of road users that all have to cross each other going to help? Cities are going to be busy. You may be able to fit in more bicycles than cars but it is still going to be (too) busy. For smaller cities and suburbs i don't think this is really a issue other than at spots that are going to be busy no matter what (trainstation during rush hour, schools just before they begin/end and so forth).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
I'm not seeing the advantages. It's not that different from the current system, besides changing the rules from types of vehicles to properties of vehicles. But the classification they propose is quite similar to how things already work. In fact, it might make things worse by allowing any bigger category of vehicle, such as trucks, to be guest in any of the other areas. I'm not sure what good could possibly come of allowing trucks in shopping streets, as long as they behave. In Amsterdam, the only viable solution for the overcrowded roads in the center that I see is more separation of pedestrians and cyclists. Either encouraging them to take different routes, or banning pedestrians from certain cycling routes entirely (though that seems difficult in practice for whatever buildings lie on that route).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
quote:(ANWB is a travelers’ club. With over four million members – in a country of almost 17 million – it is the largest nonprofit association in the Netherlands to support all modes of travel.) Originally, yes. but they've been a car owner's club for decades now. By default I don't trust them. So let's see what their actually good counterpart, the Fietsersbond, has to say. http://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/nieuwe-visie-anwb-goed-begin-maar-ontbeert-keuzes (Dutch) They say it sounds like a good begin and they're pleasantly surprised that the ANWB dares to admit that the car isn't the most important mode of transport anymore. However, they feel that making distinct, complete networks for every listed mode of transport is impossible in limited areas. This could mean that the currently very complete bike and pedestrian networks suffer to give way to the other modes of transport, and of course the Fietsersbond doesn't like that idea, they prefer to prioritize cyclists and pedestrians over every other group. They also worry about the fact that this plan would allow mopeds with their terrible exhaust gases (way worse than cars) back on the cycle roads. Despite their concerns, the Fietsersbond is looking forward to the pilots and would like to discuss their results with ANWB and the other stakeholders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Love the guys responding to the article thinking people are going 25-35km/h.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Yeah, the source being the ANWB made me instantly suspicious. Like reading some potentially good economic ideas out of the Cato or Fraser institutes. Here's some of my fav comments in a collection I'd like to call "why north americans can't have nice things". These are in regard to adding bike lanes to a very busy mostly-pedestrian shopping high-street with the loss of only 8 parking spots. "Since you don't have a vested interest in making payroll and paying taxes then I think the pub owner has more of a voice in this than you. Have you ever owned a business where you have to make payroll? When Government comes along and starts moving goalposts you would be concerned....this guy is concerned. If his business decreases, he still has to pay property taxes, if it increases then he hire more people which is good....but he needs to be assured one way or another. Uncertainty can snowball into a decline in sales. Government doesn't factor that in." -Note, this same pub owner who is leading the anti-bike group of business owners fought hard a few years ago when it was found his pub was bigger than his off-street parking lot allowed per zoning, and he had to campaign saying pub-users don't need parking, we're a walkable village, these parking bylaws are outdated. The city ended up granting a change in his zoning to allow greater capacity without increased parking because him and the community argued local neighbourhood pubs don't need all that parking. "It's not just the parking, but a reduction in road capacity for vehicles that I take issue with. Vancouver St. is a perfect street for a north/south route. It's quieter, safer, and connects the same nodes." -Anti-bike crowd want the lanes moved a very long block over, on a quiet residential street with no shops and no destinations. The bike traffic isn't through traffic, it's to get to the shops in the vllage "So you don't really care if a business feels threatened and peoples jobs are at risk?" -It doesn't matter if the loss of 8 loving parking spots actually hurts business, what about BUSINESS FEELINGS? "And that's what worries me - how much money do we spend in Victoria to chase the Dutch dream? Will we look at our Biketoria network in 10 years and decide we need to spend more on it because cycling numbers just haven't risen to expected levels?" -Spending money on bikes??! Dutch stuff!? Wasteful. PS government please urgently build a bunch of highway overpasses and suburban lane widening to help my commute. "I've maintained all along that I'm a fan of bike lanes along secondary routes, not primary routes. I think they're ultimately a waste of money" -Why the hell do these bike people want bike lanes going to and from places they actually want to go to? Can't we just build the same amount of lanes in the middle of nowhere?? "I truly believe we just need to wait to see what driverless cars bring. It's going to be amazing. Nobody will wanna wait for the next 4-car train when you can order up a car." -Transit? Bike lanes?? Self driving cars will solve everything! "The Ministry of Transportation has the best interests of the public at large in mind, and the public at large has voted to use their personal vehicles for transportation. Rapid transit is unfeasible. It is expensive to build, it is expensive to maintain and it will be underused considering the costs. We know this, and yet we pretend that won't be the case. Remember that the price tag a decade ago was $750 million. If that thing doesn't end up costing $1.2 billion by the time it's done it'll be a miracle. Meanwhile tens of thousands of drivers traverse the TCH every single day, many of them idling senselessly due to severe congestion. Now while true that road infrastructure gets congested over time, we're lucky insofar as we have a very slow growing population and proper highway improvements in our region last a very, very, very long time. Evidence of this is the fact that once you clear McKenzie traffic is completely free flowing until you hit the next traffic light at Langford Parkway. In larger cities traffic becomes congested on the freeway itself but we're likely never, ever to experience that on the south Island. Heck even if we had one million people between Victoria and Nanaimo we'd never experience freeway congestion." -Spending on anything other than cars isn't just undemocratic, it's bad for the environment. Also induced demand can't happen here, it's different. We can just build our way out of congestion. I'm sure any of you who work in the field and have to deal with the general public hear poo poo like this, and worse, every day. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
"The auto industry is one of the most important industries in the United States. It historically has contributed 3.0 – 3.5 percent to the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP)." Every time you ride a bicycle, you are cutting into their bottom line, increasing their chances of being laid off, etc. This is why entrenched capitalism is hosed. http://www.autoalliance.org/files/dmfile/2015-Auto-Industry-Jobs-Report.pdf Cyberpunkey Monkey fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Entropist posted:In Amsterdam, the only viable solution for the overcrowded roads in the center that I see is more separation of pedestrians and cyclists. Either encouraging them to take different routes, or banning pedestrians from certain cycling routes entirely (though that seems difficult in practice for whatever buildings lie on that route).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Cicero posted:From what I understand, transit in the Netherlands isn't that great compared to some other parts of Europe, wouldn't adding separated-grade rail lines help? If you want Amsterdam to be burned to the ground by rioting citizens yes, certainly. There is no space to do such a thing at street level (other than the trams that already exist). And the citizens of Amsterdam have long fiercely opposed the construction of subways. The first attempts in the 70s had to be stopped because of severe riots. Of course technology at the time meant construction the subway meant tearing down historic buildings, digging the subway tunnel from the surface and then covering it with a wide urban highway (that is where the wide road in entropist's picture of Amsterdam came from). The last attempt started in 2003 and will hopefully be completed in 2017. It will (hopefully) be only 100% overbudget. It also caused damage to a number of historic buildings due to construction activities (a lot of buildings in Amsterdam have dodgy foundations).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Entropist posted:In Amsterdam, the only viable solution for the overcrowded roads in the center that I see is more separation of pedestrians and cyclists. Either encouraging them to take different routes, or banning pedestrians from certain cycling routes entirely (though that seems difficult in practice for whatever buildings lie on that route). Separation of pedestrians and cyclists, and removing all motorized traffic, surely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Separation of pedestrians and cyclists, and removing all motorized traffic, surely? Cicero posted:From what I understand, transit in the Netherlands isn't that great compared to some other parts of Europe, wouldn't adding separated-grade rail lines help? In city centers, something like this cannot be done. And outside the cities, our passenger rail infrastructure is already among the densest in the world, as far as I know. The only thing we are lacking a bit is extensive metro systems, but it's quite difficult and expensive to tunnel under the Dutch coastal cities. All this is in addition to increasingly overcrowded trams and buses... Entropist fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
The 'major' cities aren't large enough to sustain all that many subway lines, since it'd A. costs billions in our soupy soil and B. socioeconomic functions & activities seem to have become more and more diffuse over the last couple of decades. Both the first and the last issue stem partly from government policies since WWII btw. We've had an >80% increase in population compared to, say, 30% in Belgium or 17% (I think?) in Germany, and successive different political parties really didn't want the top 4 cities to grow substantially bigger (because cities breed citizens, can't have those now can we).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:I don't get why people think slowly creeping forward in your car is actually doing anything for them. Especially when people stopped at red lights do it ( in anticipation?). I always do it in case the intersection has a traffic light sensor underneath it and I think that I haven't tripped it yet. Usually I'm just wrong or impatient though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:It was a lot more symmetrical 60 years ago. The geometry of interchanges on Route 128 hasn't changed much at all. The I-93 interchange in Woburn looks about exactly what this one was like when it was first built. I believe that the redesign of the 128/3 interchange was nixed as a result of the big dig crowding out the other funding sources in the state in the late 90s/early 2000s era.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:If you want Amsterdam to be burned to the ground by rioting citizens yes, certainly. That sounds highly suspect. There'd been non cut-and-cover subway technology for decades at that point, including in horrible soil compositions. Although I suppose the people originally planning a subway might have been looking to make money somehow by doing the cheaper cut and cover method, and just pretended they had no other option because they stood to make money somehow (maybe in rebuilding contracts? It wouldn't be unheard of).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That sounds highly suspect. There'd been non cut-and-cover subway technology for decades at that point, including in horrible soil compositions. Although I suppose the people originally planning a subway might have been looking to make money somehow by doing the cheaper cut and cover method, and just pretended they had no other option because they stood to make money somehow (maybe in rebuilding contracts? It wouldn't be unheard of). It's not only soil composition, it's also the fact that Amsterdam is built on wooden stakes driven deep into the swampy ground, down to a sand layer. Tunnel through that, and all the buildings will just sink down into the soil in an instant. In addition, if the water table is altered in any way, they rot away and the same thing happens. It was not possible to tunnel in the 70s. Even for the new metro line, which was built during the last 10 years and has not been opened yet, there was some serious damage to the city with parts of centuries-old houses sinking up to 23cm during various screwups. They were close to cancelling the whole project over that. Entropist fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I wonder how well those No Right On Red signs that only light up on yellow/red do for compliance? Lobsterpillar posted:I don't get why people think slowly creeping forward in your car is actually doing anything for them. Especially when people stopped at red lights do it ( in anticipation?).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That sounds highly suspect. There'd been non cut-and-cover subway technology for decades at that point, including in horrible soil compositions. Although I suppose the people originally planning a subway might have been looking to make money somehow by doing the cheaper cut and cover method, and just pretended they had no other option because they stood to make money somehow (maybe in rebuilding contracts? It wouldn't be unheard of). MY DAD worked as a junior engineer on the project and afahk it was pretty much the only option. Also shame on you for implying corruption in this squeaky-clean country of ours. They've been using a ton of pretty advanced techniques for the new line, and it's well reflected in cost overruns, horrid complexity, and novel failure modes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Amsterdam should build a cool turn of the century looking suspended metro like in Wuppertal. Have it straddle the canals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Entropist posted:It's not only soil composition, it's also the fact that Amsterdam is built on wooden stakes driven deep into the swampy ground, down to a sand layer. Tunnel through that, and all the buildings will just sink down into the soil in an instant. In addition, if the water table is altered in any way, they rot away and the same thing happens. Boston's also primarily built on that, due to a ton of the city being landfill thrown together with whatever cheap fill could be gotten in the 1800s, on top of shallow marshes and bays. As it turned out most of the existing rapid transit lines were able to be built cut and cover (primarily back in 1897-1919), but there have been periodic consideration of building a full heavy rail rapid transit line to replace the original 1890s-1950s built streetcar tunnel line. Which in some scenarios involves replacing all of the existing streetcar-quality track in the tunnels with rapid transit suitable track and the necessary high platforms, and other times has been considered as a roughly parallel line which would need to bore through extensive stretches of fill land with the very same style of wooden stakes holding up foundations. Many of the important buildings have had dams built into the ground out of concrete with water pumps running to ensure enough of the pilings stay soaked.  As it turns out, neither project has been followed through on, because both would require scads of money, but they don't really have technical problems as well - the plans under the the section that's all wooden stakes holding up foundations was first proposed in the early 70s, and the appeal would be no need to build a way to transfer the streetcars at one of the branches (there are 4 existing lines that use the tunnels, one branches out early, the rest share a tunnel terminus station that can be operated with streetcars on one set of sides of the island platforms, and full on subway cars meeting high platforms down the middle sides)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
There's a huge regional difference of opinion on tunneling, and I don't think it's all geotechnical conditions. Paris is built in an infilled swamp and they've got tunnels all over the place and are constantly building new ones. My old boss did construction management for some new Métro tunnels and, the way he talked about it, it seemed like it couldn't be easier. Then here in Connecticut, the geotechnical situation is actually more favorable, and it would cost us an extra $7 billion to put less than a mile of I-84 underground. And that's a cut-and-cover tunnel, too, not even using a tunnel boring machine. Look at how painful the 2nd Avenue Subway in NYC has been. And of course, Boston and Seattle are real success stories when it comes to tunnels. I just figured there was a lot more tunneling expertise in Europe in general, but if that's not the case in the Netherlands, I'm really not sure what to think. I don't know anywhere in the US where tunnels are as frequently used as they are in France. Are tunnels just a French thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Boston's also primarily built on that, due to a ton of the city being landfill thrown together with whatever cheap fill could be gotten in the 1800s, on top of shallow marshes and bays. As it turned out most of the existing rapid transit lines were able to be built cut and cover (primarily back in 1897-1919), but there have been periodic consideration of building a full heavy rail rapid transit line to replace the original 1890s-1950s built streetcar tunnel line. Which in some scenarios involves replacing all of the existing streetcar-quality track in the tunnels with rapid transit suitable track and the necessary high platforms, and other times has been considered as a roughly parallel line which would need to bore through extensive stretches of fill land with the very same style of wooden stakes holding up foundations. Many of the important buildings have had dams built into the ground out of concrete with water pumps running to ensure enough of the pilings stay soaked. Global warming is going to solve all of these problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:There's a huge regional difference of opinion on tunneling, and I don't think it's all geotechnical conditions. Paris is built in an infilled swamp and they've got tunnels all over the place and are constantly building new ones. My old boss did construction management for some new Métro tunnels and, the way he talked about it, it seemed like it couldn't be easier. To be fair 70 years of the Second Avenue Subway delay are attributable to the depression, World War II, and then the MTA being pretty broke for a long time. If it started when originally intended in the late 30s,it might have been finished by 1980.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Re: Seattle, Bertha has been a disaster, but the UW light rail extension is coming in under budget and ahead of schedule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:"The auto industry is one of the most important industries in the United States. It historically has contributed 3.0 – 3.5 percent to the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Detroit Detroit is the front of the battle then. Endorsed by David Byrne. The city's in a pretty cool position right now so they can implement a lot of new urbanist stuff and complete streets (With new transit) with pretty much no opposition. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Entropist posted:I was thinking of certain streets in Amsterdam where there is already no motorized traffic, with bikes on the road and peds on the sidewalks but also all over the road (i.e. the Zeedijk, Warmoesstraat, Spui bike path, the bike path at the end of Spuistraat, the Damstraat+Hoogstraat, or the Negen Straatjes area, and let's not even think about cycling in the red light district). It seems to be quite hard to get peds off the bike paths in Amsterdam. But sure, banning cars off the few roads where they are still allowed in the Amsterdam center would make it easier for cyclists and peds to get around and would allow for more alternate routes. Interestingly, just today the local newspaper published an article about how the number of accidents went up after banning cars from the Negen Straatjes (where only peds and bikes are allowed now on the weekends) (http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/4024...utoverbod.dhtml , Dutch). They think it's because people stopped paying attention, especially tourists who are not used to bikes, but know to stay off a road that cars use. Apparently there are no good ideas for solving this besides either brining the cars back, or banning cyclists completely. When there are too many peds and cyclists, they do not get along.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Amsterdam is an edge case isn't it though? I was there a month ago and it was just ridiculously jam-packed. I don't know know how many tourists it actually gets, but it felt like it had the same amount as say Paris or London, only packed in a much smaller touristic district. I'm pretty sure if you had the same density but with people arriving by car rather by bike or foot, there would be a lot more trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
True, cars are already rare in the city center. Despite that they do take up a lot of space considering how few people use them.nm posted:This is because your glorious dutch bicycles struggle to exceed 10mph. Ohh, a challenge! Allright. Dam Square, Amsterdam, 6pm. The finish line is at the end of the Jodenbreestraat. Ten seconds penalty for each dismembered tourist, five seconds for broken bones or drawing blood. No helmet allowed. Good luck! Entropist fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Cars and bikes in some unholy alliance to plow paths through tourists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
 This comes up a lot in my town. You have a rotary, with 2 lanes labeled bourne rotary N on this picture. Then you have main st which has 2 lanes that merges in. The rightmost lane of main st, kind of denoted by red dots here, many people argue that it never enters the rotary, it is separate, and thus people using it to stay right and get on that offramp leaving the top of the frame don't have to yield. I can see their point, but they're still entering a rotary, even if they're staying on the outside, so they should yield to in-rotary traffic, no? Think of someone in the rotary wanting to exit onto bourne bridge approach, they'd have to STOP in the rotary to wait for a space in the red lane which makes absolutely no sense (but happens a lot).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Any traffic entering a rotary has to yield to in-rotary traffic. There is a yield sign on that Main Street entrance as well as a standard Massachusetts "All drivers must yield to rotary traffic" reminder, they must yield regardless if they are in the inner or outer lane. This is true of all multi-lane rotary entrances, which still exist in the state but are slowly being eliminated. The only way to fix that is to reconfigure the store entrances in that area to eliminate Bourne Bridge Approach as an entrance/exit. Knowing that specific area, that will be difficult, but until they do (or narrow down the Main Street entrance to one lane) the problem will continue. Look at the west side of the rotary to see how it should be. We had a similar problem on Park Square in Pittsfield until they finally eliminated the rotary a few years ago. kefkafloyd fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Clearview is dead. In a notice posted in the Federal Register on Monday the FHWA reversed its position on Clearview, a font developed to improve highway-sign legibility on the roads quote:In 2004, the agency embraced Clearview, based on studies that appeared to demonstrate its superiority, especially in nighttime driving tests. Clearview  Highway Gothic  quote:The announcement took Donald Meeker by complete surprise. Meeker is one of the designers responsible for the Clearview font (along with James Montalbano).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I must be blind because they look the same but then again I'm not a fonts guy. That said, I'm going to sneak into our city standards that signs should be in comic sans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:I must be blind because they look the same but then again I'm not a fonts guy. That said, I'm going to sneak into our city standards that signs should be in comic sans. I'll take comic sans over purple or green stop signs any day. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Clearview is dead. gently caress. I wondered why the new signs outside O'Hare were in Highway Gothic, despite everything else in the area being Clearview. So much for modernizing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
This shouldn't have surprised the designer, because this has been coming down the pike for some time. With some DOTs using certain Clearview cuts in unapproved methods (especially negative contrast) and the fact that aside from the early studies which had many flaws no one could conclusively prove that clearview was better, it's been put out of our misery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
It says in that article that jurisdictions have to pay quite the license costs for Clearview. I guess that's considered a rather important reason to not use it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 23:37
|
|