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).

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.

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 the new Wisconsin statute is one tool that the state government has created that local governments can use, if (as provided for in subsection 1 of the statute) the local government passes an ordinance.

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 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). Although speed safety cameras are used in many communities across the United States, apparently no Wisconsin cities are currently using any type of speed safety cameras (pehaps because of a misunderstanding as to the scope of § 349.02(3), or because most speed safety cameras "on the market" use radar). 

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 saftey cameras (sometimes mounted on a trailer), that can be moved around a community, to distribute enforcement and deterrence efforts.  

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.

Fiscal Impact of Red Light Cameras?

If Shorewood were to start using an automated enforcement system to enforce stop 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 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 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).

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. 

Clearly, speed safety cameras nationwide tend to be politically unpopular, so unpopular that about 30 states 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 and 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. If you favor the Village adopting such an ordinance, or trying such cameras, you may want to consider contacting members of the Shorewood Village Board, so they know you are concerned about reckless driving in Shorewood, and that you favor the Village investigating the above options.

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.

Shorewood Sidewalks, Snow & Ice

We at Greater Shorewood Bikers and the Shorewood Complete Streets Coalition want people of all ages and abilities to be able to continue to be active all year round, including during the winter months.  

Snow is falling in Shorewood once again, and that's good. But with that Winter Wonderland also comes snow and ice on sidewalks, and if property owners don't take their responsibilities seriously, that snow and ice can become highly problematic for predestrains. Older pedestrians and others who are prone to falling are put particularly at risk by slick sidewalks.  

Shorewood's Village Code is clear about who is responsible for clearing snow and ice, and the penalities for a failure to do so. Village Ordinance 466-27 requires Shorewood private property owners, commercial property owners and property occupants to clear the sidewalks of snow and ice abutting their property within 12 hours after the snow or ice has stopped falling. This requires clearing the full width of the sidewalk, down to the pavement. This also includes the corner ramps to the crosswalks for property owners with corner lots, or those whose property abuts a mid-block crosswalk.

That ordinance exists because there are thousands of people who live, walk or use transit in Shorewood who don’t own cars. Walking can be their primary way of getting around, and snow or ice covered sidewalks can pose a risk to them, especially if they are older.   

What happens if you as a property owner or occupant fails to remove snow and ice?  First, your neighbors might think less of you. Second, you could be held liable in a civil suit, if someone slips  and is injured on your sidewalk (which could also cause your insurance premiums to rise). Third, the Village could issue a citation to you (and the penalty for a violation can range from $10 per day, to much, much higher). (See Village Ordinance 115-1.) Fourth, the DPW may come and clear your sidewalks, and pass that cost (which is not cheap) along to you on your property tax bill. 

And it's not just the public sidewalks that folks should be paying attention to. Slippery private sidewalks or staircases to front doors can also pose a risk to postal carriers, or other delivery or service personnel.

If you notice sidewalks that are not properly being cleared of snow and ice, and you want action taken by the Village, you can call the Police Department at 414.847.2610. The Police Department will send someone out to inspect, and if noncompliance is determined, the property owner will be notified, and a citation may be issued.

Of course, sometimes shoveling is not enough to clear snow and ice. In those situations, a property owner may need to resort to salt (or other products), to either melt snow or ice, or to make existing snow and ice less slippery. Shorewood's "How to Be a Good Neighbor" video series, has helpful suggestions regarding how much salt to use, or other ways to reduce sidewalk winter slickness. The Shorewood Senior Resource Center can also be a resource, for older residents who are looking for assistance in finding someone who can be hired (or who even might volunteer), to help an older resident clear thier walkways. 

Be a good neighbor.  Clear your walks, help protect your neighbors, and ensure that folks of all ages and abilities can stay active year round.  

 

Shorewood Santa Ride 2024! Don't Miss It!

By Alexander "Sheboygan Santa" Pendleton (President, Greater Shorewood Bikers)

If you love a good party, you’re in luck as the Wisconsin Bike Fed is holding its annual and truly epic Santa Cycle Rampage Ride on Saturday, December 7^th. That morning, interested Shorewood riders and their festive Northshore friends will be gathering starting at 8:30 a.m. at Three Lions Pub, to gear up, carbo load, and head out on the Shorewood Santa Ride to join with the Rampage.

Click on the above video, to be amazed and put in a holly jolly mood.

If you’ve never participated in the Bike Fed’s Rampage Ride, I highly recommend it. See the above video and the article “Why Ride in the Santa Cycle Rampage,” which I penned for the Bike Fed a few years back, as published in Urban Milwaukee (complete with 10 “can’t miss” holiday dad jokes).

Santa Rides are a joyous and silly way to get in the holiday mood, and it’s a gateway drug to winter biking. It also helps raise money for the Bike Fed, so it can continue to do its crucial and important work. Riders are encouraged to dress as Santa, or to wear some other creative holiday-themed costume (complete Santa costumes start as low as about $19 on Amazon). 

Those of you who are doing the Ride from Shorewood, Glendale, Whitefish Bay or other points North, are invited to gather at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, December 7^th at Three Lions Pub in Shorewood on Oakland Avenue (they are expecting us). The plan is to gather there, then ride over together to Café Hollander (leaving Three Lions at 9:30 a.m. sharp, so we get to Café Hollander before the “Southern Wave of Santas” gets there around 10:30).

The ride will occur come rain, shine, blizzard, hell, or high water. (Your bike has no need to hibernate during the winter months, nor do you.) The ride (especially from Three Lions to Café Hollander) is a family-friendly, costumed, leisurely roll of holiday good cheer of less than 3 miles, generally occurring on low-traffic volume streets. (The full MKE ride is much longer, and will have a lot more Santas—approximately 1500—than our segment will.)

If you can't ride that day for whatever reason, but still are interested in biking issues in Shorewood and MKE, I encourage you to stop by at Three Lions or Café Hollander, to have a beer or a cup of coffee with us, to talk (plot?) about biking and better streets in our area. Just watching the river of Santas that will go by Café Hollander is an amazing and entertaining sight to see.

Riders starting at Three Lions are highly encouraged (but not required) to support the Wisconsin Bike Fed by formally signing up for the full Santa Rampage Ride at this link. Or, if you are a holiday procrastinator, you can still register for the ride and get your “GOOD SANTA” sticker in-person on Saturday morning at Café Hollander.

I recommend the event (or whatever portion thereof you can participate in or watch). Individual results may vary, but I’ve heard more than one person described participating in the full Santa Ride as a mind-expanding, life-changing experience.

Three Lions serves wonderful breakfast food (I recommend the Scotch Eggs), has a wide selection of beers, and its offering drink specials to all riders that morning. Convince yourself and your friends this is the year you are all going to ride a part of the Rampage. Hope to see you at Three Lions on the 7^th. Cheers!

P.S.: Buried in all of the frivolity of Santa Rides is a serious issue too, as it helps spread the message—in a fun and positive way—that our streets should be for everyone, not just cars.

Please note: the Shorewood Santa Ride is organized by Greater Shorewood Bikers, Inc. and the Shorewood Complete Streets Coalition (not the Bike Fed), so on the day of the Ride, each participant in the Shorewood Santa Ride will be asked to agree to a short waiver of liability agreement.

Talking With Your Kids About Protecting Vulnerable Users of Sidewalks, Crosswalks and the Oak Leaf Trail

By Alexander “Sandie” Pendleton,

President of Greater Shorewood Bikers, and Chair of the Shorewood Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Subcommittee

Summer is here, and lots of kids are riding bikes in Shorewood. That's great! And the Ped/Bike Safety Subcommittee and GSB want to see lots of kids and families out biking, because of all the benefits more biking brings to individuals and our community

And a lot of kids will be riding bikes this summer on Shorewood sidewalks (and that is permitted under the Village Code, if the rider is 12 or under).

But regardless of whether it is legal or not for a kids and teens to ride on a sidewalk, it is very important that kids and teens understand how older residents (especially those with mobility or hearing issues) feel about bike riders in general, and especially bike riders on sidewalks.

One of the most common concerns that members of the Shorewood Ped/Bike Safety Subcommittee hear about is the fear that older residents may be injured (or even killed), due to being hit, knocked down or surprised by a bike rider (even a small bike rider).

It does not matter if the Ped/Bike Safety Subcommittee (or GSB) shares with concerned persons who contact us that statistically, a person in the U.S. is about twice as likely to get killed by being struck by lighting, than by being struck by a bike. Data from the CDC shows that the number of pedestrians (of all ages) killed because they are struck by a bike each year is less than 10 (and most of those deaths occur not in the Midwest, but on the East Coast, in Florida, or in California). That number of less than 10, of course, pales in comparison to the on average more than 7000 pedestrians (of all ages) killed each year because they were struck by a car or other motor vehicle, and the more than 40,000 persons in cars killed each year in car crashes. 

But regardless of what the statistics say, the fear that many of Shorewood’s older residents have of being struck by a bike is very real.  No one in Shorewood should have to live in fear. (For more on why this fear may exist, and why the media--especially conservative media outlets--may like to play up the risks that bikes pose to pedestrians, see the article written by Professor Peter Tuckel The Myth of the Demon Biker.)

So parents, this is what we ask you to do:

1. Talk with your kids about the real harm they could do, if they ride close to an older person (especially if that person is using a cane).
2. That harm could be merely psychological to the older person, but that’s a real psychological injury (the phrase “I was scared to death by that boy who rode by me” is one we often hear). Explain to your children that many older pedestrians are very scared by the thought of being hit, or falling down, because a bike rider rode too close to them.
3. Many kids just simply do not know that older persons often cannot hear a bike rider approaching. Almost half of all Americans over 75 have some hearing loss. Explain this to your children.
4. Many kids simply do not understand that even if they do not come into physical contact with an older person, such does not mean they won’t cause any harm. Explain to your children that their riding anywhere close to older pedestrians, could cause them to startle, loose their balance, and fall. And explain the severe harm (life-changing harm) that can come to an older person, if they break a hip due to a fall.
5. What can happen if a child or teenage rider causes injuries (or death) to an older pedestrian?  There could be a number of bad outcomes for that young rider and his or her family, including such things as traffic tickets, a ride to the police station, a ride to the hospital (if the rider is also injured), and even lawsuits.

And the above is phrased in a gender-neutral way, but I do note that most of the complaints on this issue we receive are about boys and male teens (not to mention older males) engaging in reckless behavior on sidewalks, and the Oak Leaf Trail; so moms and dads, the above message is especially important to be conveyed to and absorbed by boys and male teens.  For further information about how teens (and especially male teens) tend to analyze risk differently than others, see Teens and Risk TakingTeens and Risk Taking (from the University of Minnesota).

The above is the “negative” or “bad stuff” message that we ask you to consider conveying to your kids. But there is also a positive message.

Explain to them about “The Shorewood Way.” What’s that? People in Shorewood bike at a rate that is four to five times higher than the average American, and our students also bike to school at a higher rate than kids in other communities. We’ve been recognized by multiple national organizations as a great community to bike in, especially for kids and teens (and we have one of the best middle school and high school mountain bike teams in the state). What does that all mean? That means we are better at biking than folks in other communities. And part of being “better at biking” involves bike riders here (no matter what their age) always being vigilant about going out of their way to protect vulnerable users of sidewalks, of crosswalks, and the Oak Leaf Trail.

What’s a “vulnerable user”? That’s a broad category, but it includes older persons, persons with disabilities, and small children.

So here’s the important things we ask you to teach your children and your teenagers (and the behavior we ask all riders to model for younger riders):

1. On Sidewalks, Don’t Be a Jerk. If you ride on a sidewalk, and you see an older person (or other vulnerable user) GET OFF THE SIDEWALK, OR GET OFF YOUR BIKE. Quite simply, if you are riding on a sidewalk, you should never be riding within 10 yards of an older pedestrian or other vulnerable user. If you as a rider choose not to get off the sidewalk, then you must dismount, and walk your bike by the older person. (Say “hi” or “good morning” as you walk by, and you will likely get a heartfelt “thank you,” from the person you’ve shown courtesy to.)
2. At Intersections, Don’t Be a Jerk. If you see an older person at or in a crosswalk (or a parent with small children in such a situation), DON’T RIDE ANYWHERE NEAR THAT PERSON, and certainly don’t ride by them fast. Slow down, or stop. Communicate to the person that you are going to give them the right of way. Again, you will probably earn a heartfelt “thank you” from the older person (or mother with young kids) you’ve shown courtesy to. Even if you as a rider don’t receive such, you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing you did the right thing.
3. On the Oak Leaf Trail, Don’t Be a Jerk. We want you to ride on the Oak Leaf Trail, but we also want you to do that in a way that does not scare or harm older persons (a lot of whom live near and use the OLT). If you see an older person ahead of you on the trail SLOW DOWN, AND MOVE OVER (or get off the trail). If you can’t move over WAIT. Never try to “squeeze by” or “swerve around” an older person on the trail. If you are approaching an older trail user from behind the person, be sure to give an audible signal (like a bell ring, or a called out “passing on your left”).  Do not assume that the older person heard you (they could be hard of hearing). Also, just because you see other riders speeding on the OLT, or otherwise riding recklessly around older trail users, does not mean you should do that too. Bike riders do not have the right of way on the Oak Leaf Trail, they are obligated to ride on the OLT in such a way so as not to jeopardize the safety of other trail users. Again, speed matters. A bike rider’s speed greatly influences the severity of a pedestrian’s injuries in a bike/ped crash, so much so that the authors of the above referenced 2023 study recommend that the speed limit for bikes on shared paths be less than 10 mph (specifically, 12 km/h, or about 7.5 mph). 
4. Around Dogs, Don’t Be a Jerk. If you see an older person walking a dog on the OLT or on a path in River Park, be particularly cautious and courteous. Dogs can often do unpredictable things. When you see a dog, anticipate the dog will not react well to your riding near its master. Nobody wants to hurt a dog (or a dog’s older owner). Ride in such a way that if a dog does something unexpected, you are in control of your bike, and you do not hit either the dog or the dog’s owner. Slow down, and give the dog and dog owner plenty of room.

An Aside About Legal Stuff. Pursuant to Village Code § 207-5(c)(1)(d), persons “may operate bicycles on public park paths or trails designated for use of bicycles [such as the public park paths in River Park, or the Oak Leaf Trail, but when] operating on such designated paths or trails, the bicycle operator shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian, shall exercise due care[,] and shall give an audible signal when overtaking and passing a . . . pedestrian proceeding in the same direction.” As to the penalties for violating the above section, first time offenders can be ordered to pay a fine of between $10 and $2000, plus costs of prosecution, and if the person convicted fails to pay the fine, he or she can be imprisoned until such fine and costs are paid up to 90 days (second time offenders can be fined between $50 and $3000). A violation of a village ordinance can also form the basis of finding a person negligent and liable to an injured person in a civil lawsuit. Also, under Wis. Stat. § 346.62, under Wisconsin law bicycles are “vehicles,” so the same statute that penalizes “reckless driving,” can also be used to penalize “reckless riding.”   

A Word About Kids and E-Bikes. And finally, we ask parents to think twice, and then think again, about buying their kids (or even letting their kids use) e-bikes. Compared to traditional bikes, e-bikes are far heavier, more powerful, and can be operated at higher speeds; they thus pose greater risks (for both their riders and vulnerable pedestrians) than do traditional bikes. No teen needs an e-bike to get around Shorewood, and providing e-bikes to teens deprives them of the physical-activity benefits that comes with the use of traditional bikes. Teen e-bike use has risen dramatically in many communities, often with tragic results. See ‘A Dangerous Combination’: Teenagers’ Accidents Expose E-Bike Risks‘A Dangerous Combination’:Teenagers’ Accidents Expose E-Bike Risks, The New York Times, 7/29/23.

Conclusion

We want persons of all ages to enjoy living in Shorewood, especially older residents. We want such residents to continue to lead healthy and active lives for many years, including being able to walk to stores, the library, on the OLT, or to wherever else they want to go in our Village. We want them to do that, without fear that they are going to be hit by a bike rider, or knocked over by a careless rider.  So as to make Shorewood a better place for riders and walkers of all ages, we urge parents to discuss the above issues with your children and teens. 

Koningsdag Returns! Ja! Ja! Ja!

 

What’s King’s Day? 

Saturday, April 27^th is King’s Day (Koningsdag)! If you aren’t sure what that is, it’s sort of the Dutch equivalent of St. Patrick’s Day. Just like everybody is Irish and raises a toast to Ireland on St. Patrick’s Day, on King’s Day anybody who wants to be Dutch, is Dutch. King’s Day is an excuse to wear orange, go for a spring day bike ride, and gather at a fine local establishment or two with friends to drink Dutch bier and raise a toast to the Netherlands. 

The Shorewood/Milwaukee King’s Day Celebration

You don’t have to travel to Amsterdam to celebrate King’s Day because Shorewood and Milwaukee are having their very own King’s Day festivities. On Saturday, April 27^th, those celebrating King’s Day are gathering at Three Lions Pub in Shorewood starting at noon.  After a brief ceremony, those desiring to participate in a King’s Day Ride, are then riding onto other eastside drinking establishments.  Note, this is a free, no-cost event.  

The Schedule of the Grande Tour

After gathering at noon at Three Lions, and hydrating a bit, our ceremony will start at noon, and then Riders will saddle up at ~12:40 and head to Café Hollander.

After re-hydrating at Café Hollander, riders will saddle up at ~1:40, and head to The Nomad World Pub. 

After that, the schedule may become a bit more flexible, but the idea is we head out from the Nomad, and stop by the Red Lion Inn, then go from the Red Lion to Café Benelux, and then back to Shorewood.  

Biking and Wearing Orange Are Encouraged

This event happens ran or shine. Attendees are encouraged to bike to and between participating venues. (Note, there is no organized ride; all riders ride at their own risk, just like any other day.)

Those attending are encouraged to wear orange (the national color of the Netherlands, and the official color of King’s Day). All welcome, invite your friends. You don’t have to be Dutch to bike or join in the celebration on King’s Day!

Family Friendly?

Yes, especially the first segment. Our intent is that the first ride segment (the one from Three Lions Pub to Café Hollander), will be an especially family-friendly segment (paced so that families with kids can ride along).    

Why Does GSB Organize a King’s Day Event Every Year?

Because the Dutch 50 years ago made a bold decision that their country and cities had become far too “car centric” in their designs, and acted to change that. That decision has made the Netherlands the World leader in well-designed, bike-friendly and pedestrian-friendly streets and sidewalks. Because of that, the Dutch now having the highest rates of routine, everyday bike use in the World; and many studies indicate those high rates have many benefits for Dutch health, happiness, prosperity and the environment. Shorewood and Milwaukee could learn a lot from the Netherlands.

You’re Invited

We hope you can join us, if not for the ride, at least for a drink at Three Lions. It’s not required, but if you think you may attend, please RSVP to the below email address (so we can give venues a rough count as to how many may be stopping by that day). Proost!

Alexander "Sandie" Pendleton, sandiependleton@gmail.com, 414.418.4469

If You Drink, Drink Responsibly. Hartelijk dank!  

 

Better Street Culture: How We as Drivers and Pedestrians Can Better Communicate and Share Our Streets

 

The above message roughly says “Raise Your Hand to Cross and While Crossing the Street for Greater Visibility!”

By Sandie Pendleton

Developing our street use traditions and culture

Streets are public spaces, which everyone has a right to be on and use, as long as their use does not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use of other users. Every pedestrian has just as much right to be on and use Shorewood streets, as any vehicle driver.

Use of streets is something of a negotiation between different users. Negotiation usually goes much better when two parties are willing to communicate, to negotiate, and to compromise.

Elected representatives and judges make law, but it is we the people who make traditions and culture. Here’s how we as drivers and pedestrians can create a better culture of street use in Shorewood.   

The seriousness of this issue

Pedestrian deaths in the U.S. have unfortunately been increasing over the last ten years. Last year in Wisconsin, there were 1,324 collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, which caused 72 pedestrian deaths (with almost a third of those deaths—23—occurring in Milwaukee County).

Of course, anytime we look at the number of pedestrian deaths (or bike rider deaths), we have to recall that walking and biking are good for one’s health. The CDC estimates that about 9% of all deaths in the U.S. are the result of inactive lifestyles (that’s hundreds of thousands of Americans who die prematurely each year). That’s often as expressed in the saying “the thing that is most likely to kill your typical American is his couch, his TV remote and/or his refrigerator.” And we have to recall that the number of pedestrians who die each year, pales in comparison to the number of people in cars who die in auto crashes each year in the U.S. (more than 40,000 each year).

We can do better. And one way that pedestrian traffic deaths have been lowered in other places relates to better education, and a tradition and culture of better communication between pedestrians and drivers.  

DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS: THE LAW OF STREET USE

There are several common misconceptions about Wisconsin laws governing how pedestrians and drivers use streets.

In Wisconsin, pedestrians have the right of way at signalized intersections when they have a walk or green signal. That means that no driver has the right (for example) to make a right turn, when a pedestrian has a walk or green signal, and the pedestrian is in the crosswalk. (Wis. Stat. § 346.23-.24.)

When it comes to unsignalized intersections, pedestrians also have the right of way at those, at both marked and unmarked “crosswalks” (id.), and it is very important to understand what a “crosswalk” is under Wisconsin’s laws.

What is a “Crosswalk” Under Wisconsin Law?

“Crosswalks” do not require a signal, any type of sign, or anything painted on the street. Essentially, if there is a natural crossing between sidewalks (or in the case of no sidewalks, between roads), under Wisconsin law, that is a “crosswalk.” And (as explained below) the general rule is pedestrians have “the right of way” in any crosswalk. (See Wis. Stat. § 340.01(10), which defines the term “crosswalk.”) What the above means is that if a pedestrian has “stepped off the curb” and is in a “crosswalk,” a driver approaching the pedestrian must yield to the pedestrian (i.e., must slow down or stop, so as not to endanger the pedestrian).

As indicated above, some crosswalks are marked and others are not. Also, some “crosswalks” have right-of-way controls—like stop signs or traffic signals—while others have none. (Image credit, WisBike Fed.)

A limitation on the above “general rules,” is that Wisconsin law says that a pedestrian may not “suddenly leave . . . a curb or other place of safety and walk [or] run . . . into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield.”  (Wis. Stat. § 346.24; see also Estate of Zhu v. IDS.)

So the above are the rules regarding crossing at “signalized intersections,” and at “crosswalks.” 

“Jaywalking” Is Not Against the Law

But what about a pedestrian who is crossing a street outside of a “crosswalk”?  Can’t that pedestrian be ticketed for “jaywalking”?   

Jaywalking is a derogatory term invented by the auto industry in the early 20^th century, to make it seem as though people walking were at fault for being hit by drivers. Wisconsin law does not prohibit or make illegal jaywalking. Instead, Under Wisconsin law, pedestrians may cross the street “mid-block” and at any other place where there is not a “crosswalk.” That said, one also has to take into account the law of negligence in Wisconsin. Under that law, if a pedestrian chooses to try to cross the street at “mid-block,” the pedestrian has the obligation to yield the right of way to vehicles. So if I’m crossing the street and I’m doing that outside of a crosswalk, I need to ensure that I am not doing that in a situation in which it would be impossible for an approaching vehicle to avoid hitting me. If I fail to do that, and the car hits me, if there is later a lawsuit, my failing to comply with the relevant statute (Wis. Stat. § 346.25) could be used to argue that the collision was (and my injuries were) caused at least partly by my own negligence.

Reasonable Speed for Conditions

Finally, it should be noted that regardless of right of way, drivers still need to drive an appropriate speed for the conditions and be prepared to stop if needed. Specifically, Wis. Stat. § 346.57(2) states:

No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. The speed of a vehicle shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and using due care.

(Emphasis added.) So even if the driver is driving within the posted speed limit, he still may be violating Wisconsin law (and proceeding in a negligent manner), if that speed is not appropriate for the conditions. For example, as to conditions, was it snowing, was it raining, was it dark? And as to “actual and potential hazards,” could the driver see (or should the driver have seen), that there were kids playing near the street, or a pedestrian in the street or approaching the curb of the street? If so, the driver had an obligation to reduce the vehicle’s speed, so the driver would be more likely to be able to avoid hitting, injuring or killing a child or other pedestrian.

Bigger Vehicle, Bigger Responsibility

While it is the responsibility of all road users to pay attention to their surroundings, and conduct themselves in a “reasonable” manner, drivers in particular have such a responsibility, because they have chosen to drive a vehicle that could cause serious harm (or even kill) vulnerable road users like pedestrians. And because drivers choosing to use large SUVs and large pickup trucks cannot stop as rapidly (compared to regular-sized cars), and because such super-sized vehicles are far more likely to seriously injure or kill pedestrians they strike (compared to regular-sized cars), the drivers of such vehicles have a heightened obligation to drive in such a manner as to not endanger pedestrians.

And having the legal right of way never gives a driver the right to drive above the speed limit, drive without headlights on, text, drive while impaired, or hit a pedestrian. And no driver ever has the right to drive a vehicle with tinted windows that do not comply with Wisconsin law relating to such windows (see Wis. Admin. Code § Trans 305.32(4)-(5), probably one of these most violated laws in Milwaukee).

With the above baseline understanding of the law, let’s turn to the subject of how pedestrians and drivers can better communicate with each other, and share the road, so as to lessen the chances that collisions occur.

HOW WE AS PEDESTRIANS CAN COMMUNICATE AND SHARE BETTER WITH DRIVERS     

We can become better pedestrians. Here's how.

If you or I want to cross a street at a crosswalk, as indicated above, a car approaching has an obligation to yield to you or me in the crosswalk (provided we don’t “suddenly” step into the street into the path of a near approaching vehicle). But of course, you or I cannot just assume all drivers are going to automatically stop or slow down. So as to increase the chances such will occur, we want to establish a dialog with approaching drivers, as we negotiate our way onto and across a street.   

So first, we do not “suddenly leave” the curb abruptly and step into the path of a car that is too close to us to be able to avoid hitting us. (Duh.)  

Instead, when you or I want to cross a street, and we can step off the curb or sidewalk into the street without placing ourselves in danger, we should do so. Once we have stepped off the curb or sidewalk on to the street at what the law considers a “crosswalk” (see above), we are now “in the crosswalk.”

Once a foot or two away from the curb, if a car is approaching, we raise our hands high, to get the driver’s attention. (The first couple times you do this, it may feel weird to you; but trust me, I do it all the time, and it makes such a huge difference in the way drivers respond to my presence on the street.) Once we have raised a hand high, we look closely to see if the car approaching sees us and is reacting to our presence in the street (i.e., slowing down). If you look online, you will see that children in Taiwan (and other countries) are taught to “raise your hand high” anytime they cross a street. Many adults (like me) have adopted this practice as well. Other states promote this practice; for example, Connecticut promtes this practice, and even changed its laws, so that drivers have an obligation to stop if a pdestrian raises his or her hand, even before the pedestrian steps off the curb (see New Connecticut law requires vehicles to stop when pedestrians at a crosswalk raise their hand). We are entering into a non-verbal dialog with drivers; we are using a sort of "sign language" in this dialog, whereby we use our hands, our arms, and how we move the rest of our bodies to send a clear message to drivers about our desires and intentions. 

If the driver does respond to our raised hand by slowing, we proceed to walk further into the street (and if there is a second lane for traffic traveling in the same direction, we ensure any vehicle in that lane also sees us, responds to our raised hand, and is slowing down).

Increasing our visibility

There are of course several things we can do to increase our visibility to drivers. For example, avoiding wearing dark clothing, especially at low-light times of day. Something that works well for me and others is to acquire and wear a pair of “construction worker gloves,” that are high viz and reflective.

Above, one of my pairs of High Viz Kinco® Brand “Construction Gloves”

There are affordable winter versions of such gloves (e.g., these $25 Kinco Gloves), or summer versions, all of which are available on the websites of Amazon, Fleet Farm or running stores. Not only do the colors (or in low light, the reflective strip) really stand out, the movement of your hands with these gloves makes you substantially more visible and conspicuous to drivers. Trust me, these gloves really get drivers’ attention, and make it far more likely that the driver will respond by slowing, and "allowing" you to safely cross the street. (That, and they are great, affordable biking gloves for everyday bike commuting or riding around town.) In the non-verbal dialog that we are having with approaching drivers, what we wear on our hands (and our bodies), helps us "to  shout clearly" our message to drivers. And that makes it more likely that drivers will "hear" our message, understand our message, and respond appropriately to our message.

“Don’t be stupid,” but don’t be tentative

Once a driver responds to you, don’t be stupid (continue to be alert), but also do not be tentative. Bike riders are often advised to “ride assertively” or “take the lane” so that the rider’s intentions are clearly communicated to drivers. To the extent you as a pedestrian have established communication with an approaching driver, you too should walk “assertively” and “take the crosswalk” or "take the street" in front of you. As said above, every pedestrian has just as much right to be on and use Shorewood streets, as any vehicle driver. Being a tentative pedestrian will likely lead to a driver not being sure if you are going “to go or not go,” or frustrate the driver because you are taking longer to cross the road than you might otherwise.

Watch out for the “Milwaukee Slide”

Of course, when we decide we want to cross a street and as we are doing that, we remain alert as to any vehicles that may try to “slide around” the cars that are slowing to allow us to cross. If we see such a car, again, we raise our hand to increase our visibility; and if the “slider” does not appear to be slowing down, we are prepared to retreat or otherwise get out of the slider’s way (or to put that in a more fitting manner, that “jerk’s way”).

Try not to unduly delay drivers -- “keep ‘er moving”  

As we are able (and as is safe), as we cross a street it is generally a good idea for us to increase our walking pace. Doing that communicates to the drivers that we are making an effort not to take an unreasonably long time to cross the street. Our intention should be to make our use of the road, not unreasonably burdensome to the driver’s use of the road. As we said above: “Streets are public spaces, which everyone has a right to be on and use, as long as their use does not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use of other users.” (That applies to all users, be they vehicle drivers, pedestrians, bike riders, runners, skateboarders, inline-skaters, scooter-users, delivery-vehicle operators, or even horse-drawn buggy drivers.)

Our objective is not “to win”

Of course, there are unfortunately some drivers out there who are not going to be willing to enter into a dialogue with us as pedestrians, and are not going to be willing to yield to us. That could be because they are oblivious to us as pedestrians, because they don’t know the law, because they are impaired ddrivers, or because they are just plain jerks. We must as pedestrians be on the lookout for such drivers and protect ourselves from them. We as pedestrians should never be looking to “win an argument” with the driver of a 6000 pound vehicle. Be assertive, but don’t be stupid.   

Consider reporting serious law-breaking drivers (they’re not hard to find)

If a driver fails to yield when the driver has an obligation to do so, don’t be afraid to note the driver’s license plate, and report the driver to the Shorewood Police. Especially if that driver’s vehicle comes into contact with you, barely misses you, or is otherwise driving in a reckless manner. Where it is safe to do so, consider taking a photo of the vehicle, so you can provide that to the police. Even if the police decide not to try to ticket the driver, they still collect such reports, and may use that data to shape the focus of their enforcement efforts, or advocate for changes in the road design at the location in question. 

Express courtesy to courteous drivers

Finally, if we are going to create a culture of courtesy and shared use in Shorewood, this is important: when a driver has “been a real mensch” and slowed to let you or me cross, we are sure to acknowledge the courtesy shown to us by that driver, with some type of appropriate and clear gesture (e.g., a friendly wave, a thumbs up, a blown kiss, etc.). (Assuming, of course, we are able to do so safely). In Japan, children are actually taught not only to raise a hand high when they cross the street, but also—once they’ve crossed—to give “a little bow” to the nice driver who yielded. Showing gratitude is going to increase the chances that the driver will perceive that the driver’s courteous behavior has been noticed, and is appreciated. And that makes it more likely that the driver will choose to be courteous to other pedestrians in the future. There, we've created a virtuous circle.

HOW WE AS DRIVERS CAN DO BETTER

No driver wants to hit a pedestrian. We all know that would be awful. To help prevent that, there are some things we can do when we drive in Shorewood that will help prevent that, and also make our drives more pleasant (and likely make us feel better about ourselves overall).

Streets are shared spaces

First, understand that when we are driving, we do not own the road. The road belongs just as much to pedestrians—and pedestrians have just as much a right to use, be on, and cross a street—as any of us drivers. That means everywhere in Shorewood (whether we are driving down an alley, or the quietest residential street, or rushing down Capitol Drive to get to Walmart before it closes). We do not own the street, any more than any pedestrian in Shorewood owns the street.

Understand that even if a pedestrian is engaging in what others might call “jaywalking,” we as drivers have an obligation to do everything reasonable—to slow our vehicles or turn the steering wheel—so as to avoid hitting a pedestrian. Again, that includes on Capitol and Oakland, and no matter where we are on those streets.

Also, understand that if a pedestrian is in a “crosswalk” (a marked or unmarked crosswalk as indicated above), we drivers have a duty to yield to the pedestrian.

The "perception problem": we drivers often fail to “perceive” pedestrians

When driving, we should obviously be on the lookout for pedestrians, and understand that as we increase the speed we are driving, it becomes more difficult for us to see (and avoid hitting) pedestrians. Why is that?  Studies indicate that this is because as we drive faster, we tend to “see” less of the world around us. That's because as we increase our speed, our eyes naturally start focusing further down the street, and we develop a sort of “tunnel vision” that sees or focuses on things farther away, but may not see or become conscious of things (like a pedestrian or child) outside of the narrow tunnel that our eyes are focused on. The following graphic shows this phenomenon: 

The above image helps to explain how after hitting a pedestrian, a driver might honestly say and believe that the driver didn’t see the pedestrian before the impact occurred, or that the pedestrian “appeared out of nowhere.” (Of course, this statement doesn’t make sense: someone who appears is always coming from somewhere.) The point is, when we are driving, and we know there are pedestrians who use the street we are driving on, we should always be prepared to stop, and we should ensure that we are not driving at a speed that makes it less likely that we are going to see (and react to) pedestrians the street. (Here’s looking at you, drivers on Oakland and Capitol.)

Speed kills, higher speeds kill more

Know too that as we as drivers choose to increase our vehicle speed, if we hit a pedestrian, the chances that the pedestrian dies increase substantially as our speed increases. When hit at 20 mph, on average 9 out of 10 pedestrians will survive. But when hit at 30 mph, on average only 5 out of 10 pedestrians will survive, and at 40 mph, on average only 1 out of 10 pedestrians will survive. And those survival numbers go down, when the pedestrians are minors or elderly.

The above shows the probability of a pedestrian surviving being hit by a car at 20, 30 and 40 mph.

Think about the next time you see drivers choosing to drive 35 mph down Capitol during “rush hour,” when students are walking (or biking) to and from the high school or the middle school.

Check cultural biases

Know that we as drivers need to think about (conscious or unconscious) cultural biases we may have. Studies indicate that White drivers, are less likely to yield to African American pedestrians, than White pedestrians. That may be (or may not be) one of the reasons why (according to a study by the Wisconsin Bike Fed) Black Milwaukeeans are disproportionately represented among pedestrian fatalities. Though they make up only 39.4% of the city’s population, Black Milwaukeeans have been 59% of the pedestrians killed in the city in the past 5 years. Black Milwaukeeans are the only racial group to be over-represented in pedestrian fatalities. The cause is unclear; maybe it’s cultural bias, maybe it’s that Black pedestrians are somehow harder to see in low light conditions, maybe it’s due to the poor design of streets in African American Neighborhoods or maybe its due to higher speed rates or rates of reckless driving engaged in by drivers using the streets in those neighborhoods. We just don’t know. Whatever the cause, if you are driving, look for African American pedestrians (no matter what the light conditions), and don’t discount that pedestrian’s right to use the streets just like everybody else.   

Good citizenship driving -- how drivers can communicate and share better with pedestrians

With all of the above in mind, if we see a pedestrian who is stepping off the curb (a pedestrian of any age, gender or ethnicity), and we can slow safely and not “suddenly” (especially if there is a car tailgating behind us), we should let the pedestrian know we have seen him or her, and that we are going to slow or stop our vehicle, until the pedestrian passes out of our way.

There are several ways we communicate that. We can raise our hand and give a small wave. We can flick our lights or brights (a behavior that is commonly seen in Boston and in Europe). But the most important thing (and the clearest thing we can do) is to slow our vehicle. Make sure you are communicating with the drivers behind you. One way to do that (when safe) is to tap the brake pedal; that causes our rear brake lights to flash, which is more likely to get a driver’s attention (compared to just applying our brakes in a steady fashion).    

Expressing gratitude to pedestrians

If the pedestrian expresses gratitude to us, we make a gesture of gratitude back to the pedestrian.

There. In such a situation, aren’t we glad we’ve been able to enter into a non-verbal dialog with the pedestrian? Aren’t we glad we’ve been able to make the pedestrian safer, a little less stressed, and probably a little happier? Doesn’t our doing such make our day a little brighter, and us at least a little bit happier about our lives and ourselves?

We want more people in Shorewood to more often choose active means of transportation (walking, biking, etc.) to get around in Shorewood. That not only decreases traffic congestion, and is good for local businesses, it also has multiple other benefits (for individual’s personal health, for public health in general, and for the environment). We can help make that happen.

Making walking and biking less-stressful, and more pleasant

If we want to encourage more active transportation, we need to pay attention to how people feel when they use Shorewood streets to walk or bike. Do they feel like trying to cross Capitol or Oakland is like trying to cross “a hellscape highway” out of the movie Mad Max? Is riding in Shorewood stressful for students, and riders of all ages? More stress (and more concerns about safety) will cause less use of active transport methods here. In contrast, the less stressful (and more pleasant) it is for people to ride or walk on Shorewood streets, the more likely it is that more people will choose to walk and bike more, and choose to drive a bit less.

It’s often said that “cars are socially isolating.” But they don’t have to be. We can make our use of cars less so (especially as we drive around a community like Shorewood, which has a lot of pedestrian activity). We can choose to be less socially isolated, and engage in positive dialogs with our fellow street users.      

Conclusion: Creating a Community Culture

We’ve all experienced the fact that in some communities there is a tradition and culture where the streets are shared, and there is a tradition of drivers showing deference and courtesy to pedestrians. I’ve personally seen this in cities where one wouldn’t expect that would be the culture (for example, in Las Vegas, or in very “red conservative” town or cities out West). And we have all also experienced some communities, and some streets, where that is definitely not the tradition and culture.

We can build in Shorewood and the overall Milwaukee area—one block, one street, one neighborhood and one community at a time—a new tradition, and a new culture one that is not only safer for pedestrians, but in the end, one where we feel good about our streets and our interactions with our fellow road users.

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