( Click image to start popup video )

HOBOKEN - A new state law has given a green light to the city's plan to install two traffic cameras to catch drivers cruising through stop signs.

Hoboken has always maintained that the cameras would be legal, but the law, signed by Gov. Jon Corzine this week, removes any lingering doubts, said Hoboken Corporation Counsel Steven Kleinman.

"It's clear that these are now expressly permitted by law," he said of the law that allows municipalities to install cameras at traffic signals.

The idea that installing cameras at stop signs in the city as an effective way to prevent reckless driving as well as accidents is ludicrous. Deciding to mount the cameras at various Hoboken stop signs under the pretense of "safety" is incredibly misleading as well. These cameras are nothing but income-generating devices operating under the guise of accident prevention.

As a Hoboken resident, I would like to know why the Council decided on the measure, what statistics were used to justify the cameras, who will be watching the tapes, exactly how long will the cameras roll and what contacts or relationships the Council or Police Department has with the operators and installers of the cameras.

In Hoboken, motor vehicles are evil. They clog streets, take away parking from local residents, and are inherently dangerous to pedestrians. The Mile Square City is a dense urban community that would like to rely on mass transit and other less stressful modes of transport - light rail, PATH, buses, taxis, bicycles and shoe leather.

The biggest concern among pedestrians is the danger they face from motorists who run stop signs and traffic lights. Hoboken officials said they will install traffic cameras to capture dangerous drivers. Two cameras were purchased in July and installed at a cost of $74,541.

With two cameras ready to capture dangerous drivers cruising through Hoboken stop signs, a city ordinance authorizing their use may conflict with state law.

The City Council voted unanimously to approve the "automated red light and stop sign equipment" last Wednesday, but the state Attorney General's Office said yesterday that photographic equipment can't be used to issue traffic violations.

A bill is currently making its way through the state Legislature to allow traffic cameras, but until it is signed into law, it is illegal to use the cameras for ticketing, Attorney General's Office spokesman David Wald said.

A law that was passed in 1992 to prohibit "speeding" cameras also covers images used to catch other traffic violations, Wald said.

Hoboken City Council votes to bring photo enforcement back to New Jersey with stop sign and red light cameras.

A city in New Jersey is testing the waters for the automated issuance of traffic tickets, despite a statewide legislative ban on the use of speed cameras. The Hoboken City Council gave preliminary approval last Wednesday to a measure authorizing itself to use both red light cameras and newer stop sign cameras. Mayor David Roberts expects the devices to generate a significant number of expensive citations from commuters passing through Hoboken.

The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer.

But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices.

Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and said they were surprised by the results. Their conclusion: The cameras do not appear to be making any difference in preventing injuries or collisions.

"The data are very clear," said Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety. "They are not performing any better than intersections without cameras."

Criminal Justice Section Standards

Hoboken is planning to use clandestine traffic light cameras to catch drivers running red lights and to improve pedestrian safety.

The ordinance approved unanimously by the City Council Wednesday night sets up the legal framework to place cameras at traffic signals and stop signs around the city.

Council members said the Police Department will set up a pilot program, placing a handful of cameras at secret locations around the city. Hoboken Police Chief Carmen LaBruno could not be reached for comment yesterday.

"It's a public safety issue and these are the kind of complaints we receive all the time," said Council President Theresa Castellano. "You can't have a cop on every corner."

on the use of surveillance cameras

to enforce traffic laws

"If Big Brother saves lives," says Florida's Palm Beach County Commissioner Burt Aaronson, "then I'm happy to be Big Brother."

All over America and England, and, no doubt, in a great many other countries all over the world, a growing number of local police departments have begun relying upon high-tech surveillance cameras to not only monitor traffic conditions and protect homeland security, but also to "catch" automobile drivers who drive too fast or go through red lights. (According to some estimates, defense contractor Lockheed Martin installed and operates approximately 80 percent of these cameras, and receives as much as 50 percent of each ticket as payment.)

Automobile Association of America pulls its support for traffic cameras

One of the foremost advocates of traffic safety has withdrawn support for the District of Columbia's traffic camera enforcement program after city officials conceded revenue was a primary motivation. The Automobile Association of America (AAA), which supports the use of traffic cameras to enhance road safety, has rebuffed the city's plan to expand the program to earn more revenue. The Metropolitan Police Department collected $18,368,436 in fines through August 2002 with the automated red-light enforcement program, which was implemented in August 1999 to combat "the serious problem of red-light running."

"There is a mixed message being sent here. When using these cameras you should not have a vested interest in catching one person running a red light or speeding," said Lon Anderson, spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic. Mr. Anderson said that AAA brought attention to a camera that the automobile association deemed unfair on H Street Northeast adjacent to the Union Station garage exit. The camera was affixed at a location on a declining hill with a flashing yellow light that went to red without changing to a solid yellow. "Drivers didn't even know they were running a light. That camera issued 20,000 tickets before we caught it," Mr. Anderson said. He said the camera also caused its share of rear-end collisions, as opponents have contended since the first few months after the program began. "At the H Street camera, we noticed several near rear-end collisions" Mr. Anderson said. "There have been studies that show that red-light cameras can cause an increase of rear-end accidents, but there aren't any hard numbers yet."

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division

Emelike U. Agomo, 1644 6th Street, N.W., District of Columbia 20001

and

Auto Ward, Inc., 129 Q Street, N.W., District of Columbia 20001, plaintiffs

and similarly situated plaintiffs

v.

Anthony A. Williams, Mayor (in his official capacity), District of Columbia Government, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., District of Columbia 20004, defendant

Civil action 02-6520
Judge Melvin Wright

AMENDED COMPLAINT CHARGING CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Class Action Against Municipal Government

This action charges the District of Columbia with violating fifth amendment due process as established in the U.S. Constitution. The action arises from the unconstitutional use of the Automated Traffic Enforcement System ("ATES") as a purported means of enforcing District of Columbia traffic regulations and statutes. By means of this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C., section 1983, the named plaintiffs assert their civil rights as well as the fifth amendment rights of others prosecuted by ATES since July 31, 1999.

Jurisdiction

1. According to the mandate established in the D.C. Coda, section 11-921(a)(S), this court has jurisdiction to hear this matter.

2. The incidents described in this complaint took place in the District of Columbia.