A Misguided Resolution on Commercial e-Delivery Vehicles

Hoboken’s State Senator and Assembly representatives are advancing key legislation that would allow municipalities to enforce moving vehicle violations through automated cameras. Unlike many neighboring states, New Jersey currently prohibits the use of speeding and red-light cameras. This ban weakens traffic law enforcement, makes it less efficient, and increases unnecessary risks on our streets.

On August 20, the Hoboken City Council adopted a resolution supporting this state-level change, passing it by a 6–2 vote. Bike Hoboken fully supports this resolution.

However, on Wednesday, September 3, the City Council went a step further, passing another resolution urging the state to include licensing requirements for “commercial e-delivery vehicles” in the proposed camera enforcement legislation. At first glance, the logic seems simple: if cars can receive automated tickets for traffic violations, shouldn’t commercial e-bikes be treated the same way?

While understandable, we believe this is a well-intentioned but misguided approach. In advance of Wednesday’s meeting, we urged councilmembers to oppose the resolution. Unfortunately, it was adopted unanimously on the consent agenda.

Our concern lies in a key misunderstanding by the authors of how “e-bikes” are categorized under New Jersey law. The resolution fails to distinguish between low-speed electric bicycles, which are capped at 20 mph and exempt from licensing, and motorized bicycles, which can reach 28 mph and already require licensing.

Because of this oversight, if the resolution’s intent were enacted at the state level, delivery workers would not license the low-speed electric bicycles they currently use. Instead, many would shift to faster, larger, louder, more polluting, and more dangerous vehicles that fall under existing licensing requirements; the opposite of the City Council’s intent to make Hoboken’s streets safer.

Below is the letter we submitted to the City Council, outlining these concerns in greater detail.

Re: Opposition to Clerk Resolution 2