Five Reasons We Bike Riders Should Stop at Stop Signs

 

By Sandie Pendleton

The Shorewood Village manager recently received this email from a Shorewood resident:

I was wondering if you could put an article in the [Village Manager's] newsletter about stopping at stop signs.  I don’t mean cars. But skateboarders, bicyclist, and especially bikers do not stop – some don’t even slow down. I know the police department does their best to instruct non-motorized transportation vehicles to stop. For us walkers and also drivers, it is very frustrating to have to watch for them in addition to the usual traffic.

The manager’s office asked me to write such an article for the Village Manager's Memo. While I was skeptical that anything I would write would change behavior any appreciable amount, I wrote a short article for the Village Manager's newsletter on the topic. 

In writing that article, I endeavored to take the resident's request and concern seriously, and (while I've never had the pleasure of meeting the resident in question) I tried to put myself in her shoes, and consider what she and I might say, that might actually have an effect on a bike rider (one of good will), who might be willing to change his or her behavior or philosophy regarding stop sign compliance (especially when there are drivers or pedestrians at an intersection).

I well know that if I am trying to convince riders to stop at a stop sign when no one else is around, I'm probably going to be about as effective as King Cnut the Great commanding the tide not to advance. 

And I am well familiar with "Idaho Stop Laws" (and their reported safety benefits). I'd personally like to see such a law adopted/enacted in Wisconsin. But such is highly unlikely to occur anytime soon. 

So we have the stop sign laws we have, and they apply to both car drivers and bike riders; and as a general rule, it is not unreasonable for members of society to expect that other members of society will comply with the laws.

A Brief History of the Brief History of the Stop Sign      

Stop signs never existed before cars. See A Brief History of the Stop Sign. 

According the above article and Wikipedia, the first traffic sign that said "STOP" on it was placed on a street in Detroit in 1915. And the octagon-shaped stop sign didn’t come into existence until 1923. 

As to the sign's color, it was first recommended to be yellow (I can remember seeing some of those when I was a kid), and it wasn’t until the 1954 version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (the "MUTCD), that the recommended color became red.

So stop signs have been added to our streets because of cars, and they really only have been around in their current form since 1954. They are not being placed on corners for the convenience or safety of bike riders. As I mention below, it is the very rare intersection-and-situation where a stop sign is actually convenient for a bike rider, or contributes to a rider's safety; hence the overwhelming support amongst riders for the adoption of Idaho Stop Laws.   

My Five Reasons

With the above disclaimers and history in mind, here are five reasons why I suggest it would be a good idea for all my fellow bike riders (including me) to stop at stop signs (especially when others are around): 

1. If you don’t stop, there is a chance you could collide with a pedestrian, resulting in an injury (maybe to you, but more likely to the pedestrian, especially if that person is a kid, or an older person). In the U.S., fatalities that result from bike-pedestrian collisions are extremely rare. The last data I saw on the issue indicated less than ten such fatalities per year, and most of those are in New York, Florida and California (and the data did not indicate whether the collision was due to the negligence of the rider, or the pedestrian, or some combination of both of them, or what the ages of the individuals involved in the incident were). But while the media may largely ignore the more than 40,000 persons per year who die in car-car collisions, or the more that 6000 pedestrians who die in car-pedestrian collisions, the media (especially in New York City) gives front page coverage to stories about bike-pedestrian crash fatalities. See Peter Tuckel’s article, The Myth of the Demon Cyclist. And there is data that suggests that overall, the number of collisions between bike riders and pedestrians is decreasing. Id. This is not to say, however, that collisions between bike riders and pedestrians cannot have devastating consequences for a pedestrian, especially older pedestrians (or kids hit by a bike rider). And a bike rider who hits a pedestrian, can face substantial civil liability, if the collision was the rider's fault. Naturally, we want Shorewood to be a place where everyone (but especially older pedestrians) are able to feel comfortable when they are out being active, and using our streets and sidewalks. You can help achieve that by stopping at stop signs, especially anytime there is a pedestrian near the intersection.   
2. If you don’t stop, you could get hit by a motor vehicle, and be seriously injured or killed. In 2023, car-bike collisions killed 937 riders in the U.S. (an all-time record high number), and those types of fatalities have increased 75% since 2010.
3. If you don’t stop at a stop sign, you could receive an expensive citation. 
4. I also want my fellow riders to understand why it is that drivers (especially older drivers) want bike riders to stop at stop signs. Drivers (especially older drivers) have a fear of hitting a bike rider (especially a younger rider); I hear this fear expressed to me all the time. Many riders think that drivers’ complaints about bike riders riding in an irresponsible manner is because "those drivers hate bike riders," or because drivers think that drivers have more right to use our streets than do bike riders. That may be true for a small set of drivers, but overwhelmingly the emotion I hear about from drivers is not hate, but fear. Fear that they might not see someone who is riding recklessly until it is too late, hit and hurt a rider, and get sued (even if the accident was not the driver’s fault). We may think such scenarios are relatively rare (or that such fears are overly exaggerated in the minds of too many drivers). But we should nevertheless be cognizant of this fear, and take simple steps that will help alleviate the prevalence of this fear.  One simple step to that end is stopping at stop signs (especially whenever there are any pedestrians or drivers at the intersection).  
5. Riders who ignore stop signs (and otherwise ride recklessly) tarnish the image of all bike riders, and undermine advocates' efforts to get communities to build safer streets. They contribute to the belief that “if a car hit a rider at an intersection, it was probably the rider's fault,” or the belief that “bike riders behave like arrogant privileged jerks, who don't think they have to obey traffic laws like the rest of us,” or the belief that “bike riders don't need protected bike lanes to be safe, they just need to start stopping at stop signs, and obeying other traffic laws, like everybody else.” There are times when bike riders need allies when we are advocating for better and safer streets, for all users. If we as riders by our behavior alienate people who might otherwise be in favor of changes to street designs (changes that would make the streets safer for pedestrians, especially older pedestrians, but drivers as well), we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Note too that the resident who wrote to the Village Manager, described herself as both a driver, and a walker. As a walker, she should be in favor of traffic calming, and changing street designs, so that average vehicle speeds come down, and drivers drive in a more attentive way. But as indicated in Peter Tuckel’s article The Myth of the Demon Cyclist, some walkers fear being hit by a bike (or over estimate their odds of getting hit by a bike) because they preceive cars as normal and perceivable, but bike riders as "stealthy," less normal, and less perceivable (in part due to their being quieter and smaller than motorized traffic, and more likely to be traveling near the curb, in the area very close to where a pedestrian may step off a curb). So do what you can as a cyclist to build allies amongst walkers: stop at stop signs, be visible, use bike lights (day and night), use a bell, don't bike anywhere close to a pedestrian, let the pedestrian "go first," etc. Try not to be the biker who I get the call/complaint about, that usually goes something like this: "I was walking to Walgreens today, when I was almost [killed] [seriously injured] [knocked down] when a bike rider came out of nowhere, and brushed by me."  See also my prior blog article from last year "Talking With Your Kids About Protecting Vulnerable Users of Sidewalks, Crosswalks and the Oak Leaf Trail."  

So, my suggestion?  Next time you are out for a ride, surprise someone who’s driving or walking: stop at a stop sign. 

The above is my good faith "sermon" and argument to my fellow bikers. 

Skateboarders

And skateboarders?  Well, I'm not a skateboarder, it is unlikely that any of them are reading this blog, and unlikely that anything I say here is going to affect their behavior.  So someone else can write that article. 

Considering the Bike Rider's Perspective/Concerns/Motivations: Why Don't Riders Tend Not to Stop

My hope is that there are some non-bike riders who are also reading this blog article, and that they too are also people of good will, and are similarly willing to try to understand the riders' perspective, and try to understand why it is that riders of all ages, in general, tend not to stop at stop signs (especially when no pedestrians or drivers are around). I won't try to detail all those reasons here (there are lots of articles on the Internet, and videos on YouTube about that), but it has a lot to do with factors such as the following:

• The "energy" factor: Riders know that their energy is limited, and that leads to their having a strong desire to conserve momentum, and to avoid (if at all possible) repeatedly expending the amount of energy it takes to get going from a complete (or almost complete) stop. That is a considerable amount, especially when compared to the infinitesimally small amount of energy it takes a driver to get going from a stop (the energy it takes the driver to push on a car's gas pedal or accelerator pedal). This expenditure of energy is so obviously different to a rider, compared to the relatively small amount of the rider's energy it takes the rider (especially on a level street) to keep the bike going at the same speed (say 15 mph) once that speed is reached. 
• The "time" factor: If a rider makes the choice to take a trip by bike (as opposed to by car), it will likely take a rider more time to get from Point A to Point B by bike (and even more time if there is a considerable number of stop signs on the rider's route, and the rider chooses to come to a stop at each stop sign). This tends to increase the chances that a rider will choose not to stop at stop signs along the way.
• The "why should I, if they don't" factor: From the rider's perspective, riders see drivers not stopping at stop signs, rolling through stop signs, running red lights, and engaging in numerous other traffic violations that (from the rider's perspective) seem far more dangerous to human life and limb, compared to a rider's rolling through a stop sign (especially if no one is around). The question naturally occurs to the rider "why should I comply with stop sign laws, when drivers do not comply with stop sign laws?" (And Professor Tuckel's article linked to above indicates that studies indicate that drivers fail to comply with traffic regulations, including stop signs, at a rate higer than bike riders do.)
• The "I'm not likely to hit a pedestrian" factor: Many riders believe that if they ride through a stop sign, it is highly unlikely that they are going to hit a pedestrian. The basis for the "crash avoidance" belief are several. Riders believe that (relative to cars) they are (1) travelling at relatively slow speed (somewhere between 10 and 20 mph), (2) much narrower than a car (~2' wide for a bike rider, compared to 6' to 9' wide for a motor vehicle), and thus (as to a given road width) less likely occupy the same space a pedestrian is in, and more likely to be able to manuever left or right to avoid a collision; and (3) able to stop faster than a car. This last point is an issue subject to great debate on the Internet. Bikers and drivers have the same reaction time, and will travel the same distance at the same speed during that reaction time. And not all bike braking systems are the same (some have disc brakes, which are more efficient than rim brakes, and there are different types of bike disc brakes, and the performanc of rim bikes is affected by rain/moisture). In contrast, most cars these days have automatic emergency crash avoidance breaking systems (which may or may not in a given situation detect and react to a pedestrian), and anti-lock breaking systems (ABS). The studies that exist indicate that on average, at a given speed, cars will stop in a shorter distance than a bike traveling at the same speed. So it would be error for a bike rider to assume that when biking, he/she can stop in a shorter distance than a car. Braking by a bike rider may play an important role in bike-ped crash avoidance in a dense urban environment like NYC, but it probably plays less of a role in Shorewood (where there is generally much less traffic, and more "escape options" for riders in any given situation where a stop sign is involved   
• The "relative safety" factor: This factor is less prevalent amongst riders, and more controversial when drivers hear it. Most bike riders feel they ride in a safe manner. Everybody has fallen off a bike at some point in their lives, and it probably hurt. And most adult riders have had a fall, or a car door opened into them, and they are very familiar with how much pain is involved in hitting the ground, or hitting a car. So (and I know this is hard for non-riders to believe), most "adult riders" (those out of school or college) have a natural self-preservation incentive not to hit something (or someone), because that is going to really hurt, and they ride in such a way (in their minds) to avoid crashes. And conversely, they know if a car hits them, the driver is not going to be physically hurt. Many riders also have this feeling that when a driver is out on the street piloting a 4500 lb. Tesla, a 4500 lb. Ford Explorer, or 7500 lb. Ford F-250, that driver's failure to stop at a stop sign, is relatively far more likely to result in a pedestrian or rider getting killed or injured (or someone in another vehicle), than if a rider fails to stop at a stop sign. There is so much more kinetic energy that could be slammed into a pedestrian by a driver, compared to the kinetic energy that a bike rider could convey. Given this, such riders' attitude is one of "if you can show me that bike riders have hit and killed as many pedestrians at intersections as drivers have, then I'll agree with you that riders (and drivers) need to all start stoppping at all stop signs." Since each year drivers hit and kill about 6000 pedestrians, and bike riders hit and kill less than 10 pedestrians, that day is not likely to come any day soon. 
• The "environment" factor: This factor is less prevalent amongst riders, and more controversial when drivers hear it. But many riders tend to think that many drivers are often using a car to take a short trip around Shorewood or Milwaukee that could be taken by some other more environmentally responsible way (e.g., via bike or transit). This belief is not universal (and of course, does not apply to folks who have physical disabilities or limitations that make it impossible for them to bike). But to some riders the belief that they are doing something better for the environment than many drivers are, leads them to the belief that drivers should be willing to be more alert/protective of bike riders, more considerate to riders, and more accomodating to riders. Some drivers hold this belief as well, and it is not unusual to see drivers in our area at four-way-stop intersections (even when the driver has the right of way at the intersection) to "wave riders through." Doing that enables the riders to maintain their momentum, as they don't need to come to a stop, wait for the driver to clear the intersection, and then expend the energy to get going again. (And riders really do appreciate drivers who wave them through.) 

Again, I'm not asking non-riders to accept or agree with each of the above justifications, I'm just asking them to at least consider or be aware of them.  

Re-Thinking Stop Signs?  Do Stop Signs Make Our Street Safer?

I can understand where there are places where a stop signs make sense, and probably do decrease the number of car crashes (and injuries) that occur. But what about at intersections in Shorewood where two, low-traffic-volume residential streets meet? Do we really need stop signs there? Have you ever thought about whether stop signs actually result in fewer crashes (and injuries) on such streets?    

From the above article about the brief history of the stop sign:  

[Today,] some experts are . . . recommending doing away with [stop signs in some communities]. (Ejby, Denmark; Ipswich, England; and Ostend, Belgium, are already experimenting with a post-stop-sign world.) “The theory is that people will pay more attention to pedestrians and other vehicles and slow down in pedestrian areas [and around intersections] if there are no signs, because they won’t know what to do,” . . . .

If there is an element of uncertainty on a street, that tends to lead to drivers driving more slowly, and more attentively, and in a more "shared environment" manner. I’ve certainly seen that occur on Edgewood Avenue since Shorewood and Milwaukee worked together to re-configure the lane markings on Edgewood, so as to add a "shared center lane," and advisory bike lanes. Note, many drivers do not like that feeling of uncertainty, but it is exactly that feeling that causes them--consciously or unconsciously--to slow down, become more attentive, and more cautious; and that is what leads to fewer crashes on such streets, and less severe crashes.    

Advocates for better and safer streets often argue that we will never be able to "sign our way" to safer streets, or "traffic-enforce our way" to safer streets. Why is that? Numerous studies show that adding more signs to streets (be they stop signs, yield signs, "watch for children" signs, or similar) have little effect on the speeds drivers choose to drive, or on the safety of a street. The same is true as to enforcement. Few communities have enough police officers who could be engaged in traffic enforcement at a level of enforcement that would change driver behavior (as to speed, for example), and studies show that shortly after a "traffic enforcement crackdown" on a street ends, driver speeding behavior returns to what it was previously.   

What Works? What Makes Streets Safer for All Users?

Numerous studies show that it is changing the design (the geometry) of streets. Doing such things as installing traffic calming measures, and otherwise engineering streets in such a way so as to reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes of all kinds when they occur. As part of that, better separation of different modes of travel (pedestrians, bike riders, drivers), plays an important role. That means nothing more than creating protected areas within the public right of way for pedestrians and bike riders; on higher volume streets (like Capitol, Oakland and Lake Drive) that can make those streets better and safer for all users. 

This may sound flippant to some readers, but if we replaced all our stop signs in Shorewood with roundabouts, we'd never have to worry again about a bike rider (or car driver) running a stop sign. Yes, if we did that, police officers would still need to be vigilant and issue citations to riders or drivers for a failure to properly yield to others. And there would still be occasional crashes at intersections (but on the whole, if the intersections were properly designed), those crashes would be at far lower speeds, would be less dangerous types of crashes (diagonal angle crashes rather than "t-bone" perpendicular crashes), and would (on average) result in less in far less severe injuries.   

Conclusion

Drivers and riders need not be "cats and dogs," in a perpetual battle of shared hatred and grudges.  Almost all riders are also drivers, and many drivers (at some point in their lives) were or are riders. 

We should all be able to get along, and work together to make our streets better and safer for all users.    

(So, I as a well-known bike rider in Shorewood have written a Village Manager's Memo article entitled "Five Reasons Why We Drivers Should Stop at Stop Signs." Hopefully, next week in the Village Manager's Memo, we'll see an article by a well-known Shorewood non-bike rider, titled something like this: Five Reasons Why We Drivers Should Stop at Stop Signs, and Not Speed, Run Red Lights, Drive While Drunk, Roll Through Stop Signs, Fail to Look for and See Bike Riders and Pedestrians, Fail to Stay at Least Three Feet Away from a Bike Rider When Passing the Rider, Fail to Yield to Bike Riders and Pedestrians in Situations Where Those Folks Have the Right Of Way, Drive Impatiently, “Rage Drive,” Make Illegal Turns into the Path of Bike Riders, Swerve Wildly in Traffic, Engage in “The Milwaukee Slide,” Flee from Police at High Speeds, Engage in Reckless Driving, Fail to Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalks, Drive Like a Driver’s Right to Use the Road Is Somehow Greater Than Any Pedestrian's or Bike Rider's Right to Use the Road, Fail to Slow and Stop For Pedestrians Who Have Activated Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (Such as On Capitol, Oakland or Lake Drive), Contribute 16% of All Greenhouse Gases Generated in the U.S., Speed in School Zones, Turn Right on Red at Intersections Where That Is Prohibited, Choose Increasingly to Purchase and Drive Larger-and-Heavier Vehicles (Like SUVs and Pickup Trucks) That Pose Substantially Greater Risks to Pedestrians and Bike Riders When They Are Hit By Them, Pass in the the Parking Lane Cars That Have Stopped for Crossing Pedestrians, Fail to Obey School Crossing Guards, Drive While Texting, Drive While Posting to TikTok, Routinely Drive Kids a Relatively Short Distance to School (Thus Contributing to the Epidemic Of Physically-Inactive Kids and Childhood Obesity), Drive While or After Consuming Copious Amounts of Marijuana (or Other Illegal Drugs), and/or Otherwise Drive in a Manner That Directly or Indirectly Hurts Public Health, the Health of Our Communities, and/or Contributes to About 45,000 People Being Killed in Car Crashes Each Year in the United States.) :)       

Sandie Pendleton is the President of Greater Shorewood Bikers, Inc., and a founder of the Shorewood Complete Streets Coalition. He can be reached at sandiependleton@gmail.com. 

Results and Winner of the “Imaginary Street Beauty Design Contest"

 

Article by Sandie Pendleton

The Shorewood Complete Streets Coalition ("S|C|S|C") over the last month has conducted the Imaginary Street Design Contest, to see who had the most creative idea as to how traffic calming infrastructure in Shorewood might be both effective and beautiful. We are happy to announce that the winner is Ayla Kang, a rising junior at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (where she is majoring in visual communication, graphic design and illustration, with a minor in painting and drawing). Her winning entry is shown above (a re-imagined image of what a more-permanent traffic circle at the intersection of Murray & Beverly might look like).  

The judges commented that Ayla’s entry did an excellent job showing that traffic circles in Shorewood “do not have to be ugly or merely functional, or merely rooted in the now, but can be beautiful, and have artistic elements that evoke the past, present and future.” Congratulations to Ayla, and best wishes to her in her future endeavors. 

We received other entries to the contest not just from Shorewood or Wisconsin, but from other states as well.  Some of those other entries are below, along with the judge's comments. 

Above, a fanciful entry from an anonymous Shorewood entrant. The judges like the idea of whimsical, creative statue in a traffic circle, especially if the traffic circle in question was installed near a school. “Now all we need to do is to convince Jeff Koons to donate one of his million-dollar giant stainless steel balloon animals to Shorewood, for installation in one of our permanent traffic circles,” commented one judge.

Above, an entry from Shorewood resident Matt Robinson, showing an enhanced temporary traffic circle at the intersection of Murray and Beverly. “What a pleasure that would be to see something like this in May or June” said the judges.

Shorewood resident Linda Keene (a nationally known urban street designer), also brought to our attention images and links to an online video regarding an award-winning design of a traffic circle built in Normal, Illinois in 2010. To see how a (not particularly attractive, and underperforming) central intersection in a small town can be transformed into a place of beauty and prosperity by a traffic circle, we highly recommend watching the following short video: 

Designed by Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects, the "Uptown Normal Traffic Circle," serves multiple beneficial functions: a village focal point; a place for people to gather (rather than just for cars to drive through or park on); a place where kids can get their feet wet; a place that collects, cleans and re-purposes 1.4 million gallons of collected stormwater; a place for trees to grow that sequester over ten thousand pounds of carbon annually; a place that generates new commercial and residential development (along with an increased tax base), and higher retail sales for surrounding businesses. 

For more images and details regarding the Uptown Normal Traffic Circle, click on this link.  

We wouldn't want to just copy Normal, of course, because we're not Normal. (Rimshot "ba dum tss" and canned laughter.) But wouldn't it be nice if the intersection of Capitol & Oakland was more than just (as a friend of mine described it) "a time-wasting, polution-generating, junction of two car sewers"? What if the intersection of Capitol & Oakland were instead re-imagined and re-constructed to become a place that actually is attractive to people (in both senses of the word)? 

Another anonymous entrant who was "thinking big," submitted the above "two season depiction" of “a re-imagined design for either the intersection of Downer & Menlo, or Capitol & Oakland” with koi pond in the summer, and ice rink in the winter. The judges admired the creativity (but not necessarily the practicality) of the entry, noting that (while an ice skating rink is probably not in either intersection's future), the idea of having a fountain or some other type of water feature in a traffic circle could be a welcome addition to our Village.      

Not all of the entrants submitted actual images. One entrant told us she would like to see the Village consider planting one or more trees within the traffic circles, but that until the trees matured, she’d like to see one or more “solar trees” planted in those traffic circles.  An image of such a solar tree (one recently installed in a Milwaukee-area park) is below.

The judges liked the idea, especially if the electricity generated by the sun and the trees would help to lower the Village’s electric bill or carbon footprint, or could power a “slow-changing artistic light show” in the traffic circle.

This design contest, of course, has been more focused on creativity, than actual practicality. S|C|S|C is well aware that multiple considerations go into decisions relating to traffic circles, the design of traffic circles, and that there are costs associated with moving from a traditional intersection (one controlled by one or more stop signs or traffic signals), to a traffic circle intersection. S|C|S|C is well aware that there are many drivers in Wisconsin and this area (especially older drivers) who are unfamiliar with traffic circles, and who do not want them added to streets. And we are well aware that if the Village wants a portion of Capitol Drive to be re-designed, that is a long-term project, that will need to be done in conjunction with (and with the cooperation of) the Wisconsin DOT.    

That said, through this contest S|C|S|C hopes to do a couple of things. That includes helping to get a conversation going in the Village regarding what the research says regarding the multi-faceted benefits that modern street design (and in particular "modern traffic circles") can bring to a community. It is our hope that going forward, street design decisions in Shorewood are made based on such research, rather than just anecdote, or subjective prediction. That is, just because there is a a number of residents who have a deeply-held subjective conviction or prediction that traffic circles would be certain to make Shorewood streets less safe, is not a reason for us generally (or Village officials specifically) to ignore the substantial amount of research based on evidence and experience from other communities that traffic circles (and other modern street design elements) make streets safer. That research shows:

• That better designed streets (especially with high-quality landscaping) naturally lead to drivers driving a bit slower. That tends to make streets safer for all users—pedestrians, students, families, bike riders and drivers. 
• That when streets are well designed, and well landscaped, property values along such streets increase, and (in commercial districts) retail foot traffic and sales also increase.  
• That better designed streets naturally encourage more people to be physically active, and to walk, bike and socialize on and near such streets. 

It should also be noted that the experience in many other communities has been that opposition to traffic circles (and other modern street design elements) peaks around the time the elements are proposed and first installed, then—once a few months pass, and residents become more familiar with the new design—opposition substantially decreases, and acceptance substantially increases. Locally, that has been the experience with the 2003 "removal of the Park East Freeway," and Shorewood's 2018 “traffic-calming re-design” of Wilson Drive, and its 2024 “traffic-calming re-design” of Edgewood Avenue.

So, at a minimum, we are asking folks of all ages in the Village to approach these issues at the outset with an open mind. Our hope is that folks will consider the evidence/research, and avoid the temptation to make a snap judgment that our moving towards more modern street designs would be a bad thing for the Village and its residents.   

Thanks again to everyone who submitted images and ideas to the contest, and thanks for reading this far.  

The author is the president of Greater Shorewood Bikers. To communicate with Sandie on the above issues, or to be added to the GSB email listserv, write to Sandie at sandiependleton@gmail.com. 

E-Bikes and Cargo Bikes at June 4th SMC Meeting

Shorewood resident and bike expert Beth Vandervort (pictured above) will be the guest speaker at the Shorewood Men's Club next meeting, on Wed., June 4^th at Hubbard Park Lodge, speaking on E-Bikes and Cargo Bikes — the Economic, Environmental and Health Arguments for One of Them in Your Garage/Life.

With the average new vehicle (car/SUV/pickup) price now at ~$48,500, plus the added costs to fuel, insure and maintain a vehicle (according to AAA, now on average over $1,000 per month), Beth will tell us about just some of the benefits that can flow from choosing to go “car light” or at least “car lighter,” through the use of an e-bike or cargo bike. 

Also, Wheel & Sprocket (where Beth worked for many years), has agreed to bring a small fleet of e-bikes and cargo bikes (both traditional and e-cargo bikes) to the meeting, so that any attendee who wants to can go for a test on one on the OLT that night.

 

Above: (1) Shorewood resident Eric Seeger takes his three children for a spin on Downer Avenue in the Seegers’ cargo bike; (2) the Seegers’ bike filled with “the essentials” from Metro Market; and (3) the Seegers get refreshment and support local entrepreneurs, while out for a ride.

SMC’s speaker events are open to all and are held every first and third Wednesday of the month at Hubbard Park Lodge. Meetings start at 6:00 (drinks 6:00, dinner 6:30, speaker 7:00). The SMC seeks to be Shorewood’s premier public forum, for engaging topics and speakers, from a variety of perspectives. Through its programs and events, the SMC seeks to enrich its community, and build community connections. There is no charge for those who desire to attend at 7:00 just to hear a scheduled speaker. Persons who want dinner and to hear the speaker (dinner is just $20), should make a reservation at the  SMC website.

Can you picture yourself on an e-bike or a cargo bike?  Come to Hubbard Park on Wednesday night, and find out! 

"What if . . . " Enter S|C|S|C's "Imaginary Street Beauty Design Contest"

TO   ?

The Shorewood Complete Streets Coalition ("S|C|S|C") invites you to enter its Imaginary Street Beauty Design Contest. As you have probably seen, this month at five locations in our fair community, the Village has installed temporary traffic calming devices (traffic circles, curb extensions, and a speed table). This project is just a temporary demonstration project, so the focus of the project has been on utility and function, rather than aesthetics or creativity.

But—if you ruled the world or had a magic wand—what would you do to enhance those traffic circles aesthetically, or from a creative standpoint?

What would your ideal Shorewood traffic circle look like? Would it have flowers? Topiary? A flowering crabapple? A painted pavement design? A fountain? A koi pond? A waterfall? A yellow tubular giraffe? A statue of Dick Bacon?

The basic rules of the Contest are simple:

1. Create an image of how you would enhance one or more of the new traffic calming installations. The image can be a photograph, a computer-generated image, a painting, or a drawing (using programs like photoshop or ChatGPT, etc. is fine). Your image can involve one of the current demo intersections, or some other Shorewood intersection (e.g., the intersection of Capitol & Oakland, or Capitol & Lake).
2. Submit your image to S|C|S|C (via an email addressed to sandiependleton@gmail.com). Then sit back, and wait to hear the decision of the judges. Deadline for all entries is 5:00 pm on Thursday, June 5th. 

See the full rules for this contest below. We have a lot of creative people in Shorewood, so we are looking forward to seeing the entries that are submitted.   

This is a somewhat-less-than-serious design contest, but through this contest S|C|S|C hopes to highlight the research that shows that when streets are better designed (especially if streets have high-quality landscaping), drivers tend to drive a bit slower. That tends to make streets safer for all users—pedestrians, students, families, bike riders and drivers. Also, when streets are well designed, and well landscaped, property values along such streets increase. 

Research also shows that such better designed streets naturally encourage more people to be physically active, and to walk, bike and socialize on such streets. 

Please also note that the Village is asking folks to share their views about the new temporary infrastructure. The Village’s online survey is available at this link. S|C|S|C (and Greater Shorewood Bikers) are encouraging folks to take a few minutes to respond to the Village's survey. We note that when it comes to anything new (especially when it comes to street design), it is the opponents who are more likely to contact the Village, and express their opposition. (As Taylor Swift says "haters gonna hate, hate, hate.") If the Village only hears from the haters, Village officials are going to be under the impression that residents do not want better and safer streets. So please let the Village hear your thoughts, views and suggestions on the new infrastructure. 

FYI, if you don't want to take the time to take the full survey, but still want to express your support quickly to the Village, you can "take the fast lane" by sending an email to Bart Griepentrog (the Village's lead person on this project). Bart's email address is bgriepentrog@shorewoodwi.gov. Your email can be as short as "I support the temporary traffic calming infrastructure that Village recently installed, and would like to see more such infrastructure in the Village."  Or (if you want to be more specific) your email could say "I agree with the Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Subcommittee's comments on the new temporary traffic calming infastructure." Those comments can be viewed at this link.

The Design Contest Complete Rules

No purchase necessary to enter. This contest is organized by Greater Shorewood Bikers, Inc., a part of the Shorewood Complete Streets Coalition ("S|C|S|C"). Designs submitted become the property of GSB, and may be displayed (online or physically) and otherwise used by GSB. If you do not want your name associated with your design, you must so state in your email submitting the design. Designs must be received before 5:00 pm central time on Thursday, June 5, 2025. Winners will be notified within one week of that date. By submitting a design, the entrant certifies that the design is original, and does not contain any elements that are the copyrighted, trademarked or other property of any third person. Prizes for the contest may be nothing more than the GSB blog identifying an entrant as a winner. (GSB is attenpting to identify some local businesses who might be willing to donate or provide some gift cards that could be distributed to winners, but there is no guaranty that such efforts will be successful.)         

Deterring Reckless Driving in Shorewood (and Elsewhere)

Reckless driving is dangerous. It imperils the driver (and any occupants in the driver’s vehicle), not to mention all the rest of us who are using the streets (and sidewalks).

And probably just as important, reckless driving is highly corrosive to the feeling of safety and order, that makes people want to live in a community. “Why live in Shorewood with all these reckless drivers, if I could live in Fox Point, Cedarberg or Port Washington instead?” 

Can we in Shorewood do anything to discourage reckless driving on our streets? 

There is no perfect solution to this problem, but there are innovative ways to address it. One of them is amending the Shorewood Village Code so that a reckless driver’s car or motorcycle can be impounded (and disposed of, if fines are not paid). Another is to start using new "Automated Enforcement Systems" in Shorewood (specifically red light camera safety systems, vehicle-noise-deterrence camera systems, and lidar-based speed safety camera systems, especially around school zone crosswalks).

Impounding Reckless Drivers’ Vehicles

There is a concern in Wisconsin (including in Shorewood and the Milwaukee area generally) about reckless drivers, and in particular, deaths and injuries caused by reckless drivers. I’ve also heard concern expressed by Shorewood residents regarding motorcyclists riding recklessly in Shorewood, especially groups of riders. In response to concerns regarding reckless drivers, the Wisconsin legislature passed in 2023 a bill (which Governor Evers signed), that enables local jurisdictions to enact ordinances providing that the jurisdiction may impound and dispose of a reckless driver’s vehicle, in certain situations. The new law went into effect on August 5, 2023. The new statute provides in full as follows: 

Wis. Stat. § 349.115. Authority to impound vehicles

(1) A political subdivision may, by ordinance, authorize a law enforcement officer to impound any vehicle used in the commission of a violation of s. 346.62 [Wisconsin’s reckless driving statute] or a local ordinance in strict conformity with s. 346.62 at the time of issuing a citation for the offense if the person cited is the owner of the vehicle and the person has a prior conviction for a violation of s. 346.62 or a local ordinance in strict conformity with s. 346.62 for which a forfeiture was imposed that has not been fully paid. The ordinance may provide for impoundment of the vehicle until the person fully pays the prior forfeiture amount and reasonable costs of impounding the vehicle, including towing or other transportation costs and storage costs.

(2) A political subdivision shall return to its owner a vehicle impounded under sub. (1) upon payment of the amount required under the ordinance.

(3) A political subdivision that has impounded a vehicle under sub. (1) may dispose of the vehicle by following the same procedure as provided for disposing of an abandoned vehicle under s. 342.40 if the impounded vehicle remains unclaimed for more than 90 days after the disposition of the citation for which the vehicle was impounded.

(Emphasis added.) Note that the term “vehicle” as used in Wis. Stat. § 346.62 applies not just to cars and trucks, but also to motorcycles as well (as cars, trucks and motorcycles are all “self-propelled vehicles”). 

As indicated above in § 349.115(1), before a vehicle can be impounded, there are several requirements that have to be satisfied (e.g., second reckless driving offense, vehicle belongs to the driver, and the driver has an outstanding unpaid fine for reckless driving). The limited scope of the statute limits the statute's ability to deter reckless driving in several ways. Due to these limitations, since adopting its impound ordinance based on § 349.115 about two years ago, Milwaukee has impounded only eleven recklessly-driven vehicles under that ordinance (compared to the approximately 600 recklessly-driven unregistered vehicles it has impounded under an ordinance based on Wis. Stat. § 341.65(2)).      

The statute is not a perfect approach to the “reckless driver” issue, because many reckless drivers don’t own the vehicle they are driving. But many do. (And my sense is that reckless motorcycle riders in Shorewood, are not operating stolen or borrowed motorcycles, but instead are operating motorcycles they own--which motorcycles they probably want to continue to own.)  

So, Wis. Stat. § 349.115 is one tool that the state government has created that any local government can use to try to deter reckless driving, if (as provided for in subsection 1 of the statute) the local government passes an ordinance.

As indicated above, Milwaukee has passed such an ordinance. Milwaukee also recently asked the legislature to modify Wis. Stat. § 349.115 , to make it even tougher, by making it applicable to first offense reckless drivers.  (In March 2025, the Assembly unanimously passed a bill that would do that, but the Senate Bill has as of the date of this article not passed.)

Should Shorewood Adopt a Reckless Vehicle Impound Ordinance?

I’ve not conducted a poll, but my guess is that giving the Shorewood Police the ability to impound reckless drivers’ vehicles would be popular amongst a lot of Shorewood residents.

And the great thing about an impound statute is it has immediate consequences. Unlike just receiving a traffic ticket (one that might be ignored), with this ordinance our young reckless driver would be left by the side of the road, without a car, having to figure out whether he’s going to have to walk home. And the next day, the reckless driver has to figure out what he is going to do to get his car (or his mom's or girlfriend's car) out of the impound lot.

Some Shorewood residents would probably also be happy if signs were posted at the entrances to Shorewood that said something like "RECKLESS DRIVERS' VEHICLES SUBJECT TO IMPOUND AND DISPOSAL."  Such signs would look something like this:  

I’m not saying I would be in favor of such signs (they don't exactly convey the message “Welcome to Shorewood”), but I could see some folks in Shorewood who would favor having such on Lake, Capitol and/or Oakland.

Fiscal Impact of Adopting an “Impound Vehicle” Ordinance

As to the fiscal impact of adopting such an ordinance, it would seem like the fiscal impact would not be substantial. The cost of just changing a Village ordinance is relatively low (usually less than $1000), and new signs (if we decide to display signs), are a hundred or so dollars each. I understand that Shorewood already has a contract with a towing service and impound lot (used now relating to abandoned vehicles and some parking violations). When enforcing the new ordinance, the Village would incur towing costs, and might incur unreimbursed impound lot fees (if too many owners of "low value" vehicles do not promptly act to get their vehicles out of impound, and once sold, the vehicle price does not cover the storage and towing costs). The cost issue bears further analysis, but the initial and recurring costs of such an ordinance would not seem to be significant (compared to the costs associated with just one significant reckless driver accident, or one high speed chase that goes awry).

Using “Automated Enforcement Systems” to Effectively Fight Reckless Driving

First, a bit of terminology (and some acronyms). Collectively, “speed safety cameras,” “intersection safety cameras,” “parking enforcement cameras,” and “noise cameras” (a/k/a "noise-deterrence cameras") are data-collecting-and-software systems used in what are called “automated enforcement systems” (“AESs”). 

Shorewood is already using some forms of AESs, and has been for over a decade.

For example, the Village uses an automated camera and software system to detect parking violations, and to generate citations (which an officer then places on vehicle windshields). More recently, the Public Safety Committee in December 2023 recommended that the Village Board act to allow Shorewood police officers starting January 1, 2024 to start using its already existing “automated license plate recognition” (ALPR) system. The ALPR system uses cameras in squad cars and software, whereby the cameras automatically scan and record license plate numbers; the system than instantly checks a national crime database, and gives computer alerts to officers, if a scanned license plate is flagged in the national database. For example, an alert might notify the officer that a vehicle license plate in front of his squad car has been reported as stolen, reported as connected with a wanted felon, or connected with an Amber Alert (or similar alert). (For further details about implementing ALPR technology in Shorewood, see pages 134-137 of the Village Board Agenda Materials from 12/4/23).

The Legality of AES Systems Generally, and Speed Safety Cameras in Particular, in Wisconsin 

As you may have heard, the use of one specific type of AES system is currently prohibited by a state statute in Wisconsin. Section  349.02(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes provides: “law enforcement officers may not use any radar device combined with photographic identification of a vehicle to determine compliance with motor vehicle speed limits.” (Emphasis added.) Note that § 349.02(3) does not prohibit all types of speed camera systems; specifically, the use of lidar-based speed safety camera systems to enforce speed limits is not prohibited by § 349.02(3), or any other provision of state law. Such lidar-based speed safety camera systems are offered to communities by such companies as TrafficLogic (apparantly on a revenue neutral, or even revenue positive basis, depending on the community). 

There are also new types of speed safety cameras that help to decrease some of the problems that traditional "fixed-point" speed safety cameras had. Some complain that with such traditional speed safety cameras, drivers would know where the cameras were, slow down briefly at that location, and then (once past the camera), proceed to once again speed. Recently, some communities have started using "point-to-point (P2P) systems, that use cameras to measure the average speed of vehicles (by license plate, typically) over a certain distance between the two cameras to determine if drivers are speeding. This encourages drivers to stay within the speed limit over a longer distance. Currently the use of such P2P systems woud be legal in Wisconsin, because such systems do not use radar. Some communities are also using mobile speed safety cameras (sometimes mounted on a trailer), that can be moved around a community, to distribute enforcement and deterrence efforts.  

Why Wisconsin Communities Currently Are Not Using Speed Safety Cameras

Although speed safety cameras are used in many communities across the United States, apparently no Wisconsin communities are currently using any type of speed safety cameras.

That could be due to several reasons. Pehaps because of a misunderstanding as to the scope of § 349.02(3), or because most speed safety cameras "on the market" use radar. But the key reason appears to be because the provisions in the Wisconsin Traffic Code prohibiting speeding, require the enforcing agency or community to prove that the alleged violator was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the violation. The key differentiator is whether the Traffic Code provision allows the enforcing agency to issue the citation to (1) either the vehicle owner or the vehicle operator, or (2) only the vehicle operator. Some Traffic Code provisions allow the former, most only the latter.

For example, State law permits vehicle owners or operators to be cited/penalized when a vehicle's operator (1) disregards a crossing guard's commands; (2) illegally passes a stoppled school bus; (3) flees an officer; or (4) fails to stop at the scene of an accident ("hit and run"). Because of the way State law is written as to the above violations, the enforcing agency can mail a citation to the owner (or lessee) of the vehicle, and (if there is a trial) the prosecution does not have to prove the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged violation. (Although each of these laws provide certain defenses to the owner, such as, if the owner reported the vehicle stolen, or reported to the agency the identity of the operator at the time of the violation, and that persons admits he/she was the operator.) 

So, for example, talk with any school crossing guard in Shorewood, and he or she will tell you that drivers ignoring crossing guard stop commands (some speeding, some not) is a daily occurence, and that their personal safety (as well as the safety of children and other pedestrians) has been jepardized many times by such behavior. If this is a behavior Shorewood wanted to deter (and/or punish), there is nothing in Wisconsin law that would preclude Shorewood from using an AE System camera to capture video or other images of drivers ignoring crossing guard "stop" commands, and then (once reviewed at the station by an officer) issuing via mail a citation to the owner of the offending vehicle. If the owner desires to contest the violation, nothing in Wisconsin law would preclude at trial the prosecutor from using the video or other images, to prove the elements of the violation. 

So, evidence gathered by AE Systems (other than radar-based systems), could be used in the prosecution of speeding violations, but given the way the current speeding statutes are drafted, a community's trying to do such creates challenges.  In a simple "alleged speeding" trial, it would be the burden of the prosecutor to prove that the person to whom the citation was issued was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Given the current camera technology used in AE Systems (which tend to capture an image of the license plate, and the vehicle, but may or may not capture a clear picture of the driver), identifying the driver solely based on the images captured by AE System cameras, can make operator identification at trial perhaps not impossible, but potentially challenging.  

What About the Fiscal Impact of Installing Speed Cameras

That is unclear at this point, but other communities that use speed cameras have been able to do so in a revenue neutral, or even revenue positive way. This is because cities are able to enter into “percentage of ticket revenue” agreements with companies that manufacture, install and maintain such systems. According to the Illinois Policy Institute (a conservative think-tank), in 2021 Chicago collected $89 million worth of revenue due to its use of speed cameras. In 2024, that amount increased to $102 million.

Are Speed Cameras Effective -- Do they Decrease Fatalities and Injuries?

According to the the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, yes, speed safety cameras can reduce roadway fatalities by 20%, and roadway injuries by 37%.  The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) agrees.

What about Red Light Cameras – Are those Permitted in Wisconsin?  

Section 349.02(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes prohibits the use of radar-based speed camera systems, but, there is no Wisconsin statute that prohibits law enforcement from using a system that automatically records whether a vehicle is running a red light.

Please note, however, that if you look on the Internet, you can find many “layman” articles indicating that Wisconsin prohibits the use of red light cameras (see such as this article, or this article). But the assertions made in those articles are not supported by citation, and I have been unable to find any provision in the Wisconsin Statutes that would prohibit the use of red light cameras in Wisconsin. Some might argue that the use of red light cameras is prohibited in Wisconsin, because the use of redlight cameras is not expressly permitted by the Wisconsin Statutes; such an argument would probably be based on the pre-emption provisions in the Wisconsin Traffic Code (see Wis. Stat. § 349.03 and § 349.06). But that argument is a strained argument, one not supported by the actual text of those statutes, or the pre-emption case law interpreting those statutes. See, e.g., City of Janesville v. Garthwaite, 83 Wis. 2d 866, 266 N.W.2d 418 (1978)(because the Wisconsin legislature has not acted to prohibit excessive noise made by squealing tires or acceleration of automobile engine, a city ordinance that prohibited such does not interfere with uniform application of the noise provisions in Motor Vehicle Code, and was therefore not invalid as not meeting the Code’s “strict conformity test”). (As always, if you are reading this, and you think I should be aware some authority that would prohibit the use of red light cameras in Wisconsin, let me know.)

Of course, there have been some highly-publicized efforts in Wisconsin in the last few years, to pass legislation that would expressly allow the use of some speed cameras in the City of Milwaukee (or at least permit a certain limited number of those cameras). See 2023 A.B. 85 and 2023 S.B. 107. The passage of those proposed bills would also make it clear that the use of red light cameras would also be permitted, at least to a certain extent in Milwaukee. But the efforts to pass those bills, at least so far, have been unsuccessful.

Are Red Light Cameras Effective?  Do They Save Lives?

According to the latest research, the answer is "yes." In 2021, 1,109 people were killed in the U.S. in crashes involving red light running. A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that cameras reduced the fatal red light running crash rate of large cities by 21 percent, and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 14 percent.

Why It May Be that Wisconsin Communities Currently Are Not Using Red Light Safety Cameras

Although red light safety cameras are used in many communities across the United States, apparently no Wisconsin communities are currently using red light safety cameras. Like with speed cameras (see above), the primary reason appears to be because of the way the red light laws in Wisconsin are currently written. Specifically, those laws currently indicate that to prosecute someone for running a red light, the enforcing agency or community would need to prove that the alleged violator was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. 

So, evidence gathered by red light safety cameras could be used in the prosecution of red light violations, but given the way the current red light statutes are drafted, a community's trying to do such creates challenges.  In a simple "red light violation" trial, it would be the burden of the prosecutor to prove that the person to whom the citation was issued was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Given the current camera technology used in AE Systems (which tend to capture an image of the license plate, and the vehicle, but may or may not capture a clear picture of the driver), identifying the driver solely based on the images captured by AE System cameras, can make operator identification at trial perhaps not impossible, but potentially challenging.  

Fiscal Impact of Red Light Cameras?

If Shorewood were to start using an automated enforcement system to enforce red light regulations, what would the fiscal impact be?  As indicated above, cities in other states (such as Chicago) that have decided to use AESs (including red light camera systems) are often able to do such with a substantially positive budgetary impact. This is because cities are able to enter into “percentage of ticket revenue” agreements with companies that manufacture, install and maintain such cameras.

So think about it. Wouldn’t it be nice if your property taxes went down, because redlight cameras are bringing in new revenue to the Village? Especially if the persons paying those fines were reckless drivers choosing to flagrantly ignore red lights (and in the process, creating a substantial danger to themselves and others)?

Of course, if cities or villages in Wisconsin were to install red light cameras, that might result in legislators acting to ban expressly such camera systems. Legislators might seek to ban such cameras on the grounds that they believe the use of such cameras smacks too much of “big brother,” or that the use of such cameras would unfairly penalize lower-income members of society. Or some legislators may believe that everybody (especially young men) ought to have the right to run red lights anywhere they like, whenever they like. To me at least, that seems like an asinine argument, which I would hope no Wisconsin legislator would be willing to make.

Publicizing that Shorewood Uses Red Light Cameras

The effectiveness of using red light cameras in Shorewood would be enhanced if drivers know Shorewood uses such cameras. Some Shorewood residents would probably be happy if signs were posted at some key entrances to Shorewood that said something like this:  

 

Or if such signs were posted at key intersections, where compliance with red lights have been a problem (e.g., at Capitol & Wilson, Capitol & Morris, or Capitol & Oakland). Having such systems and signs would seem especially helpful to discourage the current high rates at which east bound drivers on Capitol ignore the “no turn on red” signs/rules at Morris, and also as Oakland). Both those latter two intersections are near schools, and have a high number of students and other pedestrians crossing there.

What About Using Automated Vehicle Noise Deterence Camera Systems?  

"Cities aren't loud, cars are loud." That's a quote from Michael Savage, in one one of his better videos in his “Not Just Bikes” YouTube series. The video was eye-opening for me, and how I think about “aurally-polluting” motor vehicles within cities (especially motorcycles and sports cars). Most reckless drivers are not only creating substantial safety riskes to themselves and others, they also creating excessive noise as they proceed recklessly down a street. Fortunately, there are new innovative means available to the Village by which such behavior can be identified, punished, and deterred.

Other communities have come up with innovative ways to discourage drivers who use streets in an excessively noisy way. See this 2023 New York Times article:  If You’re Too Noisy in New York, New Cameras Might Catch You:  New York City, not exactly known for its peace and quiet, is expanding its use of “noise cameras,” which ticket the drivers of loud cars and motorcycles. See also this 2024 New York Times Aricle: Motorbikes, Nightclubs, Tricked-Out Cars: Is Rhode Island's Capital Too Loud? 

Or see this recent article from TTI (Transportation Technology International), about the growth in the use of noise-deterrence cameras in several countries, including in the U.S. For example, as mentioned in the TTI article, the small city of Elkhart, Indiana has had a highly positive experience with cracking down on those who produce excess noise, both specifically to reduce noise, but also to prevent crime. “Elkhart’s experience demonstrates the strong link between noise, guns, drugs, gangs, and crime.” In short, penalize those who create excess noise, and make it more likely that criminals will choose to stay away from your community. See Elkhart, Indiana Noise Ordinance Yields Drugs and Weapons Arrests and Pays for Itself. According to the above two articles, Elkhart has collected more than $1.6 million in noise fines (enough to more than cover the cost of hiring an extra fulltime “noise-focused” police officer, and acquire two special undercover Ford Mustang police cars).

Does Shorewood Currently Use Noise-Deterrence Cameras, and What Exactly Are They?

Shorewood currently does not use a noise-deterrence camera system. A "noise-deterrence camera" is an AES that measures and records sounds (in particular, vehicle sounds), and then (when the sound is above a certain level) records the sound and an image of the vehicle. The data collected is then used to issue noise citations to the owner of the vehicle. For further details about such systems, see the above New York Times article, or the website of Not-A-Loud. Not-A-Loud specializes in providing noise-deterrence cameras to cities, and its website provides a good deal of information about the detrimental effects of excessive noise, and how its products can help discourage excessively loud driving. According to the above New York Times article, each of the noise-detecting cameras deployed in NYC costs about $35,000.

The Legality of Noise Deterrence Cameras in Wisconsin

There is no Wisconsin statute in any way comparable to § 349.02(3) that would prohibit communities from using noise-deterrence camera to enforce state or local noise regulations. I see no argument that can be legitimately made that Wis. Stat. § 349.02(3) prohibits the use of noise-detecting cameras. Obviously, noise-detecting camera systems do not use "radar," and such systems are not used to determine compliance with motor vehicle speed limits. It's not like Wisconsin police officers are offering readings from sound level meters in court to convict speeding drivers. Some speeding vehicles are violating noise regulations, but not all speeding vehicles (think quiet electric vehicles) are violating noise regulations; and even a stationary vehicle can be operated in such a way that it is violating a noise regulation (think of a driver revving his engine in an excessively noising manner while parked, or at a stop light).

Is Driving in an Excessively Noisy Way already Illegal in Shorewood?

In Wisconsin, police officers are able to ticket operators if they are operating a motor vehicle that is producing “excessive noise.”  See Wis. Stat. § 347.39(1) (relating to motor vehicles and motorcycles); see also Wis. Reg. Trans. 305.39 (relating to motorcycle mufflers). What constitutes “excessive noise” under § 347.39(1) is not defined by an objective, measurable standard. Nevertheless, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has rejected the argument that the term “excessive noise” in § 347.39 is so vague, that it deprives a defendant of the right to due process under the law. See Cnty. of Jefferson v. Renz, 222 Wis. 2d 424, 437 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding that the officer’s belief that the driver was violating § 347.39 gave the officer probable cause to pull over the driver, and holding that once pulled over, the officer’s observations did not give him probable cause to require the driver to take a breathalyzer test), rev'd on other grounds, 231 Wis. 2d 293 (1999) (while not addressing the portion of the court of appeal’s decision finding the noise statute constitutional, finding that the officer did have probable cause to administer breathalyzer test).

The Shorewood Village Code (“VC”) also has prohibitions against excessive noise. VC § 383-1 provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any noise which is unreasonably loud or any noise which either unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others, within the limits of the Village.

Additionally, Shorewood has a “nighttime” noise ordinance (contained in VC § 383-2), which among other things prohibits the “operation between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any equipment, machinery or vehicles, the use of which is attended by unreasonably loud noise.”  (Emphasis added.)

The penalty for violating a noise ordinance in Shorewood can be steep. First offense is a forfeiture fine of “not less than $10 nor more than $2,000, together with the costs of prosecution, and in default of payment of such forfeiture and costs of prosecution shall be imprisoned in the county jail or house of corrections of Milwaukee County until such forfeiture and costs are paid, but not exceeding 90 days.” After the first offense, fines go up to be $50 to no more than $3,000 per offense. The range of fines in the ordinance enables a judge to distinguish between the temporarily (and perhaps “inadvertently”) noisy driver (for example, a driver who has a muffler go bad on him one day, who receives a citation, but who gets the muffler fixed the next day), compared to the intentionally noisy driver (for example, the driver who intentionally modifies the muffler system on his car or motorcycle, so his vehicle "really roars" as it idles at an intersection, or goes down a street).

Note that the standards in Chapter 383 of the Village Code for what is an “unreasonably loud noise,” is not defined by reference to an objective, measurable method. But the words used in the Village Code are likely sufficiently similar to the words used in Wis. Stat. § 347.49, that VC §§ 383-1 and 383-2 would also likely survive a due process challenge.

The folks at Not-A-Loud have also given thought to how local noise ordinances can be drafted, so that localities have objectively measurable standards in their noise ordinances: “We have a library of vehicle noise ordinances from a US context. If you are interested in proposing a vehicle noise ordinance in your own community, reach out and we would be happy to discuss.”

It is highly likely that noise ordinance statutes that apply objective standards make it more difficult for the noisy operator to defeat a citation, and such standards also make it less likely that such ordinances are enforced in a discriminatory manner. If Shorewood was to amend its ordinances so that there is a more objective standard therein, it would need to be careful to ensure that its noise standard is not more restrictive than the state vehicle noise standard (otherwise, enforcement of the village ordinance might be hampered by a defendant arguing that the village ordinance is preempted by the state noise ordinance).  It might be best (rather than amending the Village Code to provide an objective standard), if the Shorewood Police Department merely had a consistently-appliced policy defining an objective standard, by which it determines whether a particular driver is violating the noise provisions in the Wisconsin Statutes or the Village Code.  See Cnty. of Jefferson v. Renz, 222 Wis. 2d at 436-37 (finding state noise statute not unconstitutional vague and unenforceable, where--even though there was no objective standard in the statute--a police officer had and applied an objective standard before he chose to pull over what he determined to be an excessively loud vehicle, that objective standard being that the vehicle's muffler was emitting far more noise than a muffler would, if the muffler was in the same condition as originally installed on a new vehicle).  

Also, while an officer would not be able to use evidence from a noise-deterrence camera to give an operator a speeding ticket, the officer could use the noise camera evidence to give an excess noise ticket to an operator producing excessive noise, who is also in the act of speeding (or driving recklessly). Not all reckless drivers are violating a noise ordinance when engaging in reckless driving, but a lot of them surely are.

Of course, if cities or villages in Wisconsin were to install such noise-deterrence camera systems, that might result in legislators acting to ban the use of such camera systems. For example, perhaps the Wisconsin motorcycle clubs or sportscar clubs would band together and urge legislators to ban the use of noise-deterrence cameras (even though most motorcycle riders and sportscar owners do not ride or drive in a manner that violates state or local noise ordinances). Or maybe there are legislators who believe that anybody (especially young men) ought to have the right to produce excessive noise as they operate cars, trucks or motorcycles, anywhere they like, whenever they like, including in dense urban environments, or on residential streets. But as the saying goes: “My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins.” The same might be said of “the other fellow’s ears,” or the other “fellow’s” sense that he (or she) is living in a relatively-peaceful community where excessively loud and/or reckless-and-unsafe driving is deterred (and if not deterred, punished).

Why It May Be that Wisconsin Communities Currently Are Not Noise-Deterence Cameras

Again, similar to speeding and red light statutes, the Wisconsin Statute that prohibits vehicles from producing excessive noise (§ 347.39(1)), requires the citation to be issued to the operator of the vehicle, and for the local community to prove at trial that the defendant was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the violation. So (just like with speed and red light cameras), using AE System images to prove the defendant was the operator at the time of the alleged offense, can be challenging.

Publicizing that Shorewood Enforces Noise Restriction Laws

The effectiveness of using noise-detecting camera systems in Shorewood would be enhanced if drivers and motorcycle riders know Shorewood enforces noise restrictions. Some Shorewood residents would probably be happy if signs were posted at some key entrances to Shorewood that said something like "EXCESSIVE VEHICLE NOISE PROHIBITED Village Code Chap. 383."  Other communities use signs like this:  

I'm not saying I would be in favor of such signs (again, they aren't exactly saying "Welcome to Shorewood"), but I could see some folks in Shorewood who would favor posting such signs at key entrances to the Village, or near schools.

What Would it Cost to Install an Automated Noise-Deterrence Camera System in Shorewood? 

If Shorewood were to start using an automated enforcement system to enforce noise regulations, what would the fiscal impact be? 

According to the above New York Times article, each noise-detecting cameras installed in NYC costs the $35,000 in up-front costs. But cities in other states that choose to have AESs are often able to do such with a substantially positive budgetary impact. 

But at this point, I do not know if there are any suppliers of noise cameras, who offer “percentage of ticket revenue” agreements, or otherwise have agreements that would assure a locality that—if it installs such a company’s noise camera systems—the use of such a system would be at least be revenue neutral for the locality.

It would seem like automated enforcement programs (like noise-deterrence cameras) would also save a locality money, because they would function as police “force multipliers,” because an actual officer does not have to be out on the street looking for and waiting to spot violators, and then attempting to pull over violators, to issue a citation. Instead, the automated enforcement systems would work "24/7," identifying violators, and recording the evidence that would support mailing the vehicle ower a noise violation citation.

So at this point, I don’t know exactly what costs would be associated with the Village trying to implement a noise-deterrence camera system. But—if speed camera and red light camera systems in other communities are any indication—it may be that the Village implementing such a system would bring in revenue to the Village. Think about that. Wouldn’t it be nice if your property taxes went down, because noise-deterrence cameras are bringing in new revenue?  Especially if the persons paying those fines were reckless drivers?

Are There Better Options to Discourage Reckless Driving?

Cities have other options they can use to try to decrease the amount of reckless driving. Those options include:

• Better drivers-ed programs for young drivers;
• Lobbying legislators to increase the penalties for reckless driving, in the hope that such more substantial penalties will deter such behavior, or encouraging local judges to more often “throw the book” at those cited for reckless driving;
• Hiring more police officers, and deploying those police officers to focus on deterring reckless driving;
• Not hiring more police officers, but having existing officers focus more of their time on traditional trraffic enforcement activities (i.e., looking for, attempting to stop, and ticketing reckless drivers); and/or
• Redesigning and re-constructing streets, so the design of the streets naturally discourages high speeds (such as by adding narrows, chicanes, mini-traffic circles, speedhumps, protected bike lanes, etc.), or the running of red lights (for example by replacing “signal-controlled intersections” with roundabouts).

Are the above options better options? 

Drivers ed courses tend to be expensive, and it is questionable whether they would affect driver behavior. As to the “stiffer penalties” option, penalties are already high, and that doesn’t seem to be deterring the behavior. As to the “police officer options” identified above, each of those options carries risks (for example, attempting to stop reckless drivers, can lead to high-speed chases), and considerable expenses. And as to the last option, such options can take years if not decades to implement, and are expensive.

If it is the case that cities in Wisconsin can implement noise-deterrence camera systems and/or red light camera systems in at least a revenue-neutral manner (and if cities can adopt and implement “reckless driver vehicle impound and disposal” ordinances for little or no cost), it would seem like those two options would be less expensive (and as to camera systems maybe even revenue positive) compared to the costs associated with any of the above five alternative methods. The use of AESs could also help to reduce alleged incidents of racial profiling and help to minimize the number of stressful police-driver traffic-stop interactions.

And there is nothing that says that we can try only one method to deter reckless driving.  

Does the Community Support the Village Moving to Use Speed Safety Cameras, Red Light Cameras, or Noise-Deterrence Cameras to Discourage Reckless Driving?

That’s a difficult question. As with many things, it is likely that “the devil’s in the details.” 

First and foremost, there is the issue of cost. It is probably fair to say that there are few in Shorewood who want their property taxes to increase. So it is unlikely the community would support such camera systems unless state or federal funds could be obtained to pay for such, or if contracts with providers were available that would make such systems at least revenue neutral. Of course, if the implementation of such systems in Shorewood would likely lead to a positive fiscal impact (or better yet, a promise that the revenue would be applied to lowering property taxes), such would likely increase support amongst residents for such systems. 

In some states (about nine or ten of them), speed safety cameras are politically unpopular, so unpopular that those states to varying degrees ban them (including Wisconsin, at least to the extent such system use radar, as opposed to lidar). Studies also indicate, however, that speed cameras have become more popular, where the public believes that their use will cut down on alleged incidents of racial profiling, and minimize police-driver interactions. The Village is already using some forms of AESs (an automatic parking enforcement system, and an “Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) and Notification” system).

We are primarily discussing in this article red light cameras, and noise cameras. Only seven states—Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia—prohibit red light cameras. And, as best I can tell, no state bans noise cameras.

As to the “details,” as to red light cameras, maybe Shorewood residents would only support trying such cameras at only a few intersections (e.g., Capitol & Wilson, Capitol & Oakland, and/or Oakland & Edgewood); or would want to ensure the system is calibrated so it would only issue automatic tickets to flagrant red light runners. Police officers have never cited every driver they see who technically violate traffic light rules, so even if Shorewood starts using redlight cameras, it would retain the discretion to calibrate the redlight cameras, so that they only issue automatic tickets to “flagrant” red light runners (i.e., the type of drivers who pose the highest risk to others, and who are most likely to engender a sense of lawlessness and disorder in the community). Red light camera systems can be "calibrated," so that one or more "written warnings" are sent to vehicle owners, before an actual citation is sent to the owner.  

As to the “details” as to noise cameras, maybe it is the case Shorewood residents would support noise cameras only in the follow situations: (1) only at a few specific locations (for example, near schools); (2) only if Shorewood adopts objectively-measurable noise standard policies (rather than the Village’s Code’s current rather-subjective standard); and/or (3) only if the standards are different, depending on whether daytime or nighttime hours are involved (e.g., 10:00 pm to 7:00 am).

Conclusion:  We Don’t Have to Accept the Status Quo

Reckless drivers are harmful to Shorewood and Shorewood residents in multiple ways. There are things that we in Shorewood can do, if we want to, to address this problem. Those include:

• Enacting, publicizing and enforcing a reckless driver vehicle impound ordinance; and/or
• Investigating implementing Automated Enforcement Systems in Shorewood (noise cameras, redlight cameras, and--to the extent they are permitted by state law--speed cameras).

I hope we can get a discussion going about addressing this problem, sooner rather than later. 

In the meantime, be careful out there.

As always, I’m willing to engage in civil dialogue with anyone who wants to discuss what I write about in this blog. Also, if you believe I’ve overlooked relevant authority, evidence, or research, I’m interested in hearing from you about such.