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 this problem. 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 "noise cameras," and "redlight cameras").
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 a bill
earlier this year (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).
Of course, 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 above) 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.
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 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:
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. When enforcing the
new ordinance, the Village would incur towing costs, and might incur
unreimbursed impound lot fees (if too many vehicle owners do not promptly act
to get their vehicles out of impound). But there would also be some revenue
flowing to the Village, if and when abandoned vehicles are disposed of. 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).
“Cities Aren’t Loud, Cars Are
Loud”
The above quote comes from one of
Michael Savage’s 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 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 recent 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.
Or see
this recent article from TTI (Transportation Technology International),
about the growth in the use of noise 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).
Using “Automated Enforcement
Systems” to Effectively Fight Reckless Driving
First, a bit of terminology (and
some acronyms). Collectively, “speed cameras,” “redlight cameras,” “parking
enforcement cameras,” and “noise cameras” are camera-and-software systems used
in what are called “automated
enforcement systems” (“AESs”). And more specifically, “speed cameras” are components
of what are known as “automated speed enforcement systems” (“ASESs”), and “redlight
cameras” are components of what are known as “traffic control photographic
systems” (“TCPSs”).
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 generate
citations (which the 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 the proposal to implement ALPR technology in Shorewood, see pages
134-137 of the Village
Board Agenda Materials from 12/4/23).
Does Shorewood Currently Use
Noise Cameras, and What Exactly Are They?
Shorewood currently does not use a noise camera system. A "noise camera" is an AES that measures and records sounds (in particular, vehicle sounds), and then (when the sound is above a certain level) records an image of the vehicle, and the data collect (sounds and image) are 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 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.
The Legality of AES Systems Generally,
and Noise Cameras in Particular
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.) (While speed cameras are not a primary topic of this article, note that § 349.02(3) does not prohibit all types of speed camera systems; specifically, the use of lidar-based speed camera systems to enforce speed limits is not prohibited by § 349.02(3), or any other provision of state law.) Although speed cameras are used in many communities across the United States, apparently because of § 349.02(3), no Wisconsin cities are currently using speed cameras.
But getting back to noise camera AESs, there is no Wisconsin statute in any way comparable to § 349.02(3) that would prohibit communities from using noise camera AESs 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 cameras. Obviously, noise camera systems do not use "radar," and noise cameras are not used to determine compliance with motor vehicle speed limits. Some speeding vehicles are violating noise regulations, but not all speed 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.
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 a specifically 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. 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 $50 to $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 how 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, mechanically-measurable method. But the
words used in the Village Code are likely sufficiently similar to the words
used in Wis. Stat. § 347.49, that the Chapter 383 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 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 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 cameras, that might result in
legislators acting to ban such cameras. For example, perhaps the Wisconsin motorcycle clubs or sportscar clubs would band together and urge legislators to ban the use of noise 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 cameras 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 "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 Automatic Noise Enforcement System in Shorewood?
If Shorewood were to start using
an automated enforcement system to enforce noise regulations, what would the
fiscal impact be?
Cities in other states that
choose to have AESs 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. 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. (And, while it
does not appear that Elkhart uses noise cameras, its noise abatement program in is reportedly cash positive for its budget.)
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 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.
So at this point, I don’t know exactly
what costs would be associated with the Village trying to implement a noise
camera system. But—if speed camera and redlight 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 cameras are bringing in new revenue? Especially if the persons paying those fines
were reckless drivers?
What about Redlight Cameras –
Are those Permitted in Wisconsin?
As I indicated above, there is a
Wisconsin statute (§ 349.02(3))
that prohibits the use of certain types of 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 redlight.
Please note, however, that if you
look on the Internet, you can find many “layman” articles indicating that
Wisconsin prohibits the use of redlight 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 redlight cameras in Wisconsin. Some
might argue that the use of redlight 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 redlight 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 allow the use of 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 redlight 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 Redlight 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 redlight running. A
recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found
that cameras reduced the fatal redlight 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 Redlight
Cameras?
If Shorewood were to start using
an automated enforcement system to enforce stop light regulations, what would
the fiscal impact be? Again, as
mentioned above, cities in other states (such as Chicago) that have decided to
use AESs (including redlight 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
redlights (and in the process, creating a substantial danger to themselves and
others)?
Of course, if cities or villages
in Wisconsin were to install redlight cameras, that might result in legislators
acting to ban such cameras. 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 redlights 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
Redlight Cameras
The effectiveness of using redlight 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 redlights have been a problem (e.g., at Capitol & Oakland,
and Capitol & Morris). 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.
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 enforcement activities (i.e., looking for, attempting to stop, and ticket 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 redlights (for example by replacing “redlight 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 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 camera systems and/or redlight 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 Noise Cameras or Redlight 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 cameras are 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 as of January 1, 2024, an “Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) and Notification” system).
We are primarily discussing in this article redlight
cameras, and noise cameras. Only seven states—Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia—prohibit
redlight cameras. And, as best I can tell, no state bans noise
cameras.
As to the “details,” as to
redlight 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 redlight 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”
redlight 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).
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.
