15 ms·

Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

• rgbrenner 9y ago
  That's just insulting... the state says they acted unconstitutionally.. so they offered him $500 -- which is just a refund of the fine he already paid -- and asked the court to dismiss the case. After he had to pay 4 years of lawyers fees, take them to court, etc. It's just a big FU, and I have no doubt they won't change a thing if they successfully get the court to dismiss it. If the court allows this, then the state won. They've sent their message: pay the fine, or we'll fight you in court for years, force you to pay thousands to lawyers, and maybe in the end we'll give you a refund of any fine you paid if it looks like you might win.
  • zitterbewegung 9y ago
    The best tool in any court case is time.
    • bob_theslob646 9y ago
      Seriously, this. It is such bs, since most lawyers are incentivized to take as much time as necessary since they work on an hourly basis.
      • vermontdevil 9y ago
        Umm no. Not all lawyers. They do take time because they want to win. And sometimes they have to be sure as some cases can be complicated.
        • bigchewy 9y ago
          Ummm unless lawyers somehow have evolved different brains than the rest of us, they, too, prefer to make more money vs less. So if they are billing hourly, then yes they all do want to spend more time. Now, they might fight against that urge (E.g. believing that spending less time on Client A will improve their reputation and lead to more clients) but your statement is naive re how incentives work
          • enraged_camel 9y ago
            Just because you bill a client hourly doesn't mean it's in your best interest to drag things on. This is true across all professions, not just legal. The only thing hourly billing does is shift the risk to the client.
          • gamblor956 9y ago
            Lawyers in criminal cases generally work on a fixed fee basis, so working needless hours on one client means less work they can do on other clients. Celebrity lawyers charge hourly, but that is because their clients are so much more demanding that they generally only work on a single client's case at a time. Lawyers in tort cases bill on a contingency basis, so working more does not change their payout--success is all that matters. Lawyers in transactional cases usually bill hourly, because when you're talking about multi-million or multi-billion dollar transactions, the few thousand you spend on the lawyers and accountants is a rounding error compared to what you spend on the airfare for the executives negotiating the deal.
      • rayiner 9y ago
        You can’t change the underlying economics of a market by changing your billing model. All the billing model does is change the risk allocation between the parties. Court cases take a long time because each judge handles hundreds of cases (and civil cases take a back seat to criminal cases). Briefing on a motion, for example, might be done over a few weeks. Then the parties just sit and wait possibly for months for a decision. Trial calanders are booked years in advance.
        • dredmorbius 9y ago
          How long has this been the case? Was it ever thus?
        • bob_theslob646 9y ago
          Maybe not in the legal field, but the counter example is online advertising (ppc). The better question is why are there not more judges? Everything is also bound by time.Unfortunately in the legal system there is just no incentive to go fast.
          • rayiner 9y ago
            Ad agencies generally use a variety of fee structures: https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/advertising-agency-fee-structures-4029.html https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/advertising-agency-fee-st.... If you step back one level of abstraction, I'm not sure pay-per-click nets advertises more ad revenue than other billing models would, it's just an easy way to calculate things. And in the legal field, fixed fee or hybrid fee structures are very common. In practice, those options aren't cheaper than just negotiating for a discount on hourly rates; they just allocate the risks over/under-estimation differently. Also, plaintiffs have huge incentives to move cases along quickly, because very often some or all of their compensation is tied to the outcome. But cases with contingency lawyers who aren't getting paid until the client gets paid don't move any more quickly than other kinds of cases. As for why there are not more judges: what do you think of this proposal to create a whole bunch of new judgeships? https://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/calabresi-court-packing-memo.pdf https://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/calabre....
      • hobbyjogger 9y ago
        The lawyers in this specific case work for a non-profit (Institute for Justice) that did not bill Järlström a single dollar. http://ij.org/ij-receives-charity-navigators-highest-rating-16-years-running/ http://ij.org/ij-receives-charity-navigators-highest-rating-...
  • mikepurvis 9y ago
    He's probably just done with the whole thing at this point, but I suppose he'd have to counter-sue to recover the money? You'd think it would be an easy case— he was unfairly attacked and incurred costs as a result, therefore the entity doing the attacking needs to pony up.
    • xigency 9y ago
      The suit isn't about money. It's about having the law removed as being unconstitutional.
      • mikepurvis 9y ago
        Right, and he "won" in the sense that they apologized for at least this particular instance and refunded the fine. But the GP is saying that it's really a loss because of all the time and money he had to spend fighting it, which I'm saying could probably be recovered with a lawsuit of his own.
  • tantalor 9y ago
    Unsurprisingly, exceeding one's authority is not a crime.
    • thomastjeffery 9y ago
      It's ludicrous that the word "engineer" was defined to be considered "authority". If you understand the nuances of a subject, you likely want to explain why you do, so that your thoughts aren't totally disregarded. The problem is that the state wanted to disregard his (or anyone's) thoughts, so they defined "engineer" to carry authority, and levied a fine for anyone who sought to use the word. This is a reasonable thing to do for professions like Medical Doctor, or EMT, where your title demands specific education. It is not reasonable for ambiguous words like "engineer".
  • ajmurmann 9y ago
    Most annoyingly, as someone who lives in Oregon I don't want to pay for this. I certainly want the poor guy who tried to fix something broken to be hugely compensated. However, I want whoever did this to pay for it. I also want then to stop focusing traffic tickets on speeding and instead fine people who cause traffic jams by not accelerating when entering the freeway or go unnecessary slow. But well that's of course never gonna happen and probably most native Oregonians would be fine constantly because they drive insanely slow...
    • uniformlyrandom 9y ago
      > most native Oregonians would be fine constantly because they drive insanely slow And this is why they do not want you to drive slow. The difference of speed between cars is what causes accidents. This is why speed limits are raised based on 90th percentile speeds. And this is why everyone in California drives 80 in 65, and CHP are apparently OK with that.
      • flyinghamster 9y ago
        75-80 in a 65 (or even 55) is common in the Chicago area too, except in traffic jams. If you're not going at least 70 when you merge onto the highway, you're gonna get run down. I think the cops are fine with it, since it provides a perfect pretext for a traffic stop if they want you for some other reason.
        • briffle 9y ago
          Chicago's freeways have two speeds, 35 and 80, and they switch between the two in 100 yards or less..
      • davidgay 9y ago
        > The difference of speed between cars is what causes accidents. A cause, but most definitely not the cause. There's the not-so-trivial factors of reaction time (separation / speed) and breaking distance (proportional to the square of the speed) too. And many other factors too, of course.
  • manyxcxi 9y ago
    Some of the original articles (that I’m too lazy to dig up and cite) stated that Oregon was telling him not to SAY that he was an engineer in his correspondence with them and in media portrayals because it’s a licensed profession. At some point people started reporting about how the state has basically used this licensing requirement as a way to gag people from publicly disclosing any kind of ‘technical’ information, and that’s where people started really jumping on board with his case. Kudos to him for sticking it through. Hopefully it leads to a change in our traffic laws AND our laws regarding ‘technical’ information and engineering licensing. A HUGE F you to the state/county/city beaureacrats and lawyers that just pissed away tens (or more) of thousands of dollars just because they could.
    • jnordwick 9y ago
      https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/07/licensing-board-admits-they-cant-silence https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/07/licensing-board-admits-th...
    • trhway 9y ago
      >Oregon was telling him not to SAY that he was an engineer in his correspondence with them and in media portrayals because it’s a licensed profession. according to Oregon's own gov website the licensed profession is "Professional Engineer". Seems like a similar difference between Registered Nurse and just a nurse. http://www.oregon.gov/osbeels/obtaining/Pages/default.aspx http://www.oregon.gov/osbeels/obtaining/Pages/default.aspx
      • thomastjeffery 9y ago
        > Seems like a similar difference between Registered Nurse and just a nurse. That is a distinction that was invented by the state. Calling yourself an "engineer" is unspecific, and is not a claim to authority, but to knowledge. To claim that it is suddenly a specific claim to authority is to redefine the term. When you redefine a common term, and punish someone for not knowing you did so, that is a real problem. In this case, that was simply done to delegitimize him, which is clearly malicious.
  • hobbyjogger 9y ago
    > force you to pay thousands to lawyers From the article: > but Järlström and his attorneys from the Institute for Justice IFJ is a non-profit (that has received Charity Navigator's 4-star rating for 16 years in a row)[1]. That's not to say that what Oregon has done here is right (not by any means) but Järlström surely hasn't paid IFJ anything. [1] http://ij.org/ij-receives-charity-navigators-highest-rating-16-years-running/ http://ij.org/ij-receives-charity-navigators-highest-rating-...
• tonylemesmer 9y ago
  I hate hearing tales of how public bodies waste taxpayers money fighting cases like this instead of focussing on the actual issues themselves. Even if the public body had done nothing in this case it would have been better than suing him.
  • TomK32 9y ago
    Admitting failure is extremely hard for any human, wether it is such cases or infrastructure projects that took decades of planning and discussion: no one wants to admit that they followed the wrong path.
    • islanderfun 9y ago
      I can't agree with this more. It really holds us back (since the beginning). From school boards, local government, and even HOAs. Humans are so prideful, they rather find ways to defend their wrong decision than fix the underlying issue.
      • lovich 9y ago
        I don't know that it's all pride. I don't have much of a problem admitting mistakes amongst friends and most co-workers, but I've definitely worked with a few people you could never admit failure to. They were either the type of people who felt everything needed to have someone to blame and who would be punished for the failure, or people who could use any mistake as ammunition in office politics. The government here may have refused to back down out of fear of setting a precedent that would be used in other cases where they were actually in the right
        • TomK32 9y ago
          Your last sentence just makes the worst excuse ever. Doing wrong to be able to do right in other cases...
          • lovich 9y ago
• ptero 9y ago
  Kudos to the engineer who decided to fight the state on its ridiculous claim. I wonder if there is anything that can be done to help avoid a repeat? It is possible for the bureaucrat(s) responsible for original decision to sue to be fired or at least demoted? If so, what would it take (media coverage, letters to lawmakers, something else)? I am glad the results were the way they were, but without slapping someone's hand for this it will happen again next time.
• kayfox 9y ago
  I can see how the State of Oregon would be annoyed that an unlicensed environmental engineer would be touting his engineering credentials when arguing with licensed civil engineers, especially since the State of Oregon licenses engineers. Engineering is a field where if you mess up, people may die, so just as we license doctors, we license engineers.
  • ct0 9y ago
    Math is universally accepted across country lines.
    • jfk13 9y ago
      Don't be too confident... it was a close thing: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-leg...
  • matthewdgreen 9y ago
    Engineering and medical licensing laws prohibit commercial engineering work (resp. medical practice) without a license. They don't prohibit free speech about engineering issues, and they certainly don't trump the First Amendment. Geez, HN would be illegal if you accepted that ridiculous interpretation.
  • StreamBright 9y ago
    A traffic light camera timing problem is worst base high school math / phys (best case primary school matter). How do we need somebody "licensed" to determine it is unfair?
  • ptero 9y ago
    > I can see how the State of Oregon would be annoyed that an unlicensed electrical engineer would be touting his engineering credentials when arguing with licensed civil engineers. Sorry for nitpicking, but the State did not get annoyed; a few bureaucrats did, probably because correcting the camera cycles deprives them of "extra revenue" in the form of fines. That said, whoever at State got annoyed should get unannoyed. If an unlicensed engineer does the work that requires a license, state can intervene. Other than this everyone, licensed or not, should be able to argue that any state decision is inefficient / harmful / stupid and offer better alternatives. I suspect this is protected by the first amendment.
• mulle_nat 9y ago
  The two biggest dangers in life: scorned women and inconvenienced bureaucracies.
  • ArialAnemone 9y ago
    In this day and age, often the same. The older I get, the more I understand Turner's thesis on the frontier. Without a frontier, ambitious people turn into ever-more specialized rentiers, trying to squeeze the golden goose as hard as they can before it dies. Seasteading, space, personal nanomachine universal constructors, or bust. Otherwise I'd welcome the destruction of, to paraphrase Nietzsche, the insane asylum of modern civilization. Give us twenty thousand years. Maybe we'll be able to breed beings who have a high enough IQ to navigate a ”modern” world without various social status systems going completely insane.
    • ArialAnemone 9y ago
      So what comment of mine tripped the downvote sensors? The first line was somewhat of a half joke, half truth. Have you ever dealt with HR and interoffice politics?
  • botverse 9y ago
    I don’t understand how nobody downvoted this comment a la Weinstein
  • salvar 9y ago
    And people wonder why women feel alienated and unwelcome in the technical world.
    • Chris2048 9y ago
      And this still will if they resist cherry picking their evidence.
  • voxl 9y ago
    Why are scorned men not as big of a danger as a scorned women? A scorned man might kill you, might go on a killing spree, might shoot up a school (elementary or college).
• skadamou 9y ago
  The whole business of red light cameras is pretty dubious to begin with. It seems more like a tool local municipalities use to tax through traffic rather than a means of protecting public safety. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/13/211723717/a-dilemma-zone-for-red-light-cameras-safety-vs-cash https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/13/211723717...
  • vermontdevil 9y ago
    Of course it’s a way to raise revenue without using the ballot box.
  • 0xfeba 9y ago
    Yes. And from my former state: http://abc7ny.com/traffic/new-jersey-drivers-get-huge-christmas-present/416041/ http://abc7ny.com/traffic/new-jersey-drivers-get-huge-christ... > Since then, a federal lawsuit settlement awarded partial refunds to nearly 500,000 violators, and this year a computer glitch voided more than 10,000 violation notices. http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/01/newark_netted_over_34m_from_red_light_camera_tickets_over_five_years_data_shows.html http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/01/newark_netted_over... > While the cameras in Newark have been turned off, Redflex continues to face a series of legal battles. > The company’s former CEO was indicted in August on federal corruption charges, alleging she bribed a retired Chicago official in exchange for assistance with the company’s red light camera contracts in that city. > In a federal lawsuit, a fired company executive has claimed Redflex provided lavish gifts and bribes to government officials in 13 states, including New Jersey, to secure new contracts. http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2009/09/meadowlands_trainstogame_show.html http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2009/09/meadowlands_tr... > With the research conflicting, Fairfax County, Va., sought other ways to reduce red-light violations and related crashes. It found that lengthening an amber light by 1.5 seconds cut red-light violations by 96 percent - a greater reduction than red-light cameras produce. But that's a problem if what you're looking for is ticket revenue. And I could not find it -- but I clearly remember a Newark/Trenton mayor accidentally saying "We really need the money" when trying to speak for re-instating the cameras. And then there's the pesky Constitution, which municipalities get around by making the violations civil instead of criminal. Less burden of proof.
• aruvira 9y ago
  what the heck are you guys real hackers
• aruvira 9y ago
  omg
• wonderwonder 9y ago
  This is a pretty great way to stifle innovation and one of the most blatantly authoritarian programs I have seen. They are essentially saying that no one is allowed to advance technology within their state unless they adhere to their arbitrary rules including passing a test and "a work record of four years or more of technical work or engineering work under the supervision and control of a professional engineer." 4 years before you are even allowed to publicly discuss engineering! Last time I checked math and physics work the same regardless on an internship.
  • ataturk 9y ago
    It's how totalitarians roll. You can't have upward mobility, you can't have a level playing field where people can take on the state and win with common sense. We need that, but it leaves the autocrats out of a job.
  • carlmr 9y ago
    I understand this for bridge building, not for public discussion.
  • jgamman 9y ago
    they never used to at the turn of the 19th/20th century. then innovative bridges collapsed killing lots of people. then they ensured minimum standards. makes sense for bridges/tunnels etc but it's not a free speech thing. kudos to the guy for battling it out.
• aruvira 9y ago
  wow
• revmoo 9y ago
  Flagged for a popup that blocks the screen. We can do better than this.
• sandermvanvliet 9y ago
  Out of curiosity (and not really related to the article) but I’m kind of surprised to hear there is a formula for calculating how long(?) yellow lights are on and that it relates to a red light camera. AFAIK those cameras are hooked into the control system and only activate when the light is red, which seems like a pretty binary decision. Can someone shed some light on this?
  • tialaramex 9y ago
    The yellow light provides a period when drivers know the light is going to go red soon, all else being equal this light should be set to stay on for just long enough for drivers in properly maintained cars, who drive at legal speeds, to see it and all either come to a stop or pass the intersection before the light turns red. Typically formulas care about the allowed speed of cars, the expected braking capability of a car that's allowed on the road, the gradient (down hill it's hard to stop quickly!) and other factors, plus the size of the junction (a huge junction can't change as quickly because it takes time to cross the junction). That is, Sally is doing 40mph in a 40mph zone, she sees the light turn yellow, and she's very close to the junction so she just keeps going, everything is fine. Bob is doing 25mph in a 55mph zone, he's some distance from the lights, they turn yellow, Bob stops normally as the lights turn red. With red light cameras providing revenue there is an incentive to cut that time too short. Now Sally finds the light turned red earlier and she got a ticket. So next time Sally won't make that mistake, as soon as the light goes yellow she slams on the anchors, and somebody goes straight in the back of her - there's a traffic accident even though we invented these lights to reduce accidents. Oops. Now a _good_ government would resist the temptation. They would set the formula to reduce crashes. But money is very tempting. Shaving a second off the time, getting $1M of extra revenue and oops smashing up a thousand people's cars, that's a good deal so long as you aren't paying for all those car repairs...
    • Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      I came to say basically the same thing - only your reply is much better worded and detailed than mine would have been.
    • 9y ago
• 0x445442 9y ago
  Photo traffic tickets are just another tool for those with a monopoly on force to steal money from people. Fortunately, in Arizona the state is still required to serve in person in order for the ticket to be binding. My wife and I have got for or five of these tickets in the mail over the years. We just throw them in the trash.
  • leesalminen 9y ago
    > Fortunately, in Arizona the state is still required to serve in person in order for the ticket to be binding. Colorado as well. > We just throw them in the trash. This worked once for me. The second time, an off duty Sheriff's Deputy came to my house and served me.
    • oh_sigh 9y ago
      Not exactly true - in CO you can get a speed trap van to mail you a ticket from Arizona - they can't add points to your record but they can take you to court if you don't pay.
    • 0x445442 9y ago
      That happened to us once I think but it was not law enforcement. They tried to have someone serve us in the evening. We just didn't answer the door
      • leesalminen 9y ago
        Interesting...the guy flashed some kind of metal, cop looking badge. They do give badges to lots of people these days other than police/sheriff so I guess it could've been any .gov thug.
  • revelation 9y ago
    You run red lights and think it's a "money grab"? And are happy about non-enforcement? I believe you lack the maturity to operate multi-ton vehicles on public streets.
• exabrial 9y ago
  Hey guys, can we correct the title? It should be "Oregon punished man for Engineer claim, after criticizing their red-light cameras. He fought and won". The current title is very misleading.
  • peeters 9y ago
    I fail to see what's incorrect about the title. The fine was for publishing a technical report about red-light cameras while not being a licensed engineer. You're making it seem like they are unrelated events.
    • aidenn0 9y ago
      My understanding is that the fine was for referring to himself as an engineer in communication with the government. They also complained about the publishing of the technical report, but that is not what the fine was for.
  • kstrauser 9y ago
    I think it's accurate. It was clearly retribution for criticizing their cameras, and he was legitimately an engineer.
  • testvox 9y ago
    He is an engineer, changing the title as you suggest makes it sound like he isn't.
    • slantyyz 9y ago
      >> He is an engineer, changing the title as you suggest makes it sound like he isn't. Is he really though? He has an engineering education, but in Oregon he's not officially an engineer. In a lot of jurisdictions, you can't call yourself an engineer unless you've been certified by the professional body. A Canadian politician had to apologize for calling himself an engineer because he was no longer certified [1]. I get that we in the tech industry like to be fast and loose with words like "architect" and "engineer", but those words can be protected by law. I assume the reasoning behind that is for consumer protection -- to ensure people are hiring people who meet a certain standard. At some jobs I held, I used to have the word "architect" in my title, and everyone outside of tech would ask me if I designed buildings when I gave them my business card. I tend to think that if I had the word "engineer" in my title that a layperson would think I have an engineering education and certification. [1] https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/14/liberal-mp-apologizes-for-calling-himself-an-engineer-during-election-campaign.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/14/liberal-mp-ap...
• xigency 9y ago
  I'm interested in this because I know PE exams exist and there are licensing bodies for engineers. But what I've heard from most people is that they are a waste of time and money for someone holding an engineering degree unless you are the person who rubber stamps things at the end. Does someone who knows more about professional engineering know if this law in Oregon is uncommon? Beyond a free speech argument, it seems like the law is a bit flawed considering other related fields like science, math, and software may not have licensing. Also, it goes as far as saying someone can't put "engineer" on their resume with solely a degree. Seems very far off the norm.
  • patcheudor 9y ago
    These are very popular laws in the US with every state having some level of certification requirement for certain professions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...
    • walshemj 9y ago
      Including FFS Estate Agents (Relators)
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • jhayward 9y ago
        > Including FFS Estate Agents (Relators) Yes, because before regulation buying and selling real estate was rife with scams, ripoffs, blatantly false advertising, and misapropriation. These regulations don't come out of nowhere. I know that there is some residual teenage rebellion against rules, and there is without a doubt some downside and friction associated with imperfect regulation and enforcement. The alternative, though, is not better than the present. We really do not want to live in the completely unregulated society that many tech-lad libertarians think would be Nirvana. It would be, instead, the hell we got rid of.
• carlhjerpe 9y ago
  The United States of Soviet Russia strikes again!
• program_whiz 9y ago
  This is a clear case of using "well intentioned" laws to silence free speech. This supports the libertarian idea that we should reduce the size of government and regulation if possible, because given long enough and enough bureaucrats, fallible humans will exploit whatever mechanisms are available to them. People don't like criticism, especially when the criticism is of their work/policies and potentially threatens their livelihood, so giving them a way to easily stop critics is a bad idea.
  • ascendantlogic 9y ago
    Land of the Free* * must pay applicable fees to be licensed for practicing freedom
    • simook 9y ago
      Pay to play.
      • chrisdbaldwin 9y ago
        Pay more to win.
  • jgh 9y ago
    > This supports the libertarian idea that we should reduce the size of government and regulation if possible, because given long enough and enough bureaucrats, fallible humans will exploit whatever mechanisms are available to them OTOH a perfectly libertarian system is ripe for the exploitation of fallible humans. Anyway there's a case for moderation here. I don't think shrinking the government to some ineffectual, microscopic or nonexistent size will accomplish what libertarians would hope for. Likewise having an omnipresent behemoth that controls every aspect of life isn't good either.
    • astr0n0m3r 9y ago
      > if possible
    • 9y ago
• tomten053 9y ago
  tt667454 uhug
• wehadfun 9y ago
  A guy around here got rid of the things https://www.dallasnews.com/news/richardson/2016/07/19/richardson-suspends-red-light-camera-program-court-ruling https://www.dallasnews.com/news/richardson/2016/07/19/richar...
  • joeax 9y ago
    > City officials said the cameras are a safety tool in order to prevent accidents at busy intersections. When I hear something is "for my safety", I take it to mean I'm about to lose some freedoms or some money.
• larrydag 9y ago
  This might actually be a bigger deal than people realize. This sets a precedence of being able to submit engineering publications and work without being licensed. Sure you can't still perform commercial or public engineering works unless licensed but you can speak publicly on technical matters.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • uniformlyrandom 9y ago
    It shocks me that we literally have a license to speak about some matters in some states, and some people are OK with that.
  • jostmey 9y ago
    So what? I don't want to live in a society governed by titles. Real talent doesn't need to rely on titles. I have titles but so what?
    • larrydag 9y ago
      I wasn't speaking of titles. I was speaking of submitting technical work on engineering related ideas. Typically this is highly regulated under U.S. state laws.
      • mindslight 9y ago
        The generally-good requirement that plans are stamped by a "Professional Engineer" is required by public AHJs/codes and private regulations (eg insurance), and is not under dispute here. Meanwhile much engineering work is not under this regime, but checked by market demand and testing (eg software/electronic). As an Electrical Engineer that has little interest in power systems and isn't looking to rewire other people's houses for money, I have very little use for a PE. I still have the basic right, along with everyone else (regardless of education), to make technical judgments of any situation. How these judgments are valued can (and should) be questioned, but our right to speak them cannot. These laws you speak of are a mix of unenforced, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and unconscionable. Their actual effects are constrained between nothing (ie most people accept the concept of free speech) and the harmful thuggish behavior described in the article.
• joering2 9y ago
  Am I missing something? Isn't he eligible to recover reasonable attorney fees?
  • aidenn0 9y ago
    It is very rare in the US to be able to recover attorney fees. IANAL, but it typically only happens if there is a specific statute, or pre-existing contractual arrangement specifying it. Some states, for example, designate that attorney fees should be awarded if a plaintiff pursued a lawsuit despite knowing there was no grounds for it. Also many anti-discrimination laws also have such rules. That's the general rule, but I have zero knowledge of Oregon's laws.
  • CalChris 9y ago
    At this point, his attorneys (the Institute for Justice) are trying to get the law declared unconstitutional. And at this point, the state is trying to get the court case dismissed in order to avoid getting the law declared unconstitutional. http://ij.org/ http://ij.org/ I don't think this is about attorney's fees anymore and Järlström won't be paying them.
• Mtinie 9y ago
  For additional reference, here's a previous discussion on HN about this case, linked to a previous Vice Motherboard article: "Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't" (April 26, 2017 - 267 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14197512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14197512
• En_gr_Student 9y ago
  I think the guy was out of line. I'm an engineer. I had to put at least a decade of my life, 1/8 if stats are right, into freaking hard work to earn the right to use the title, and the skill-set to not kill people while doing it. That guy is a slap in the face to every engineer who had to work for their credentials instead of "name it and claim it" in the name of "free speech". This is like shouting "fire in a theater" - it causes harm. Claiming to be an engineer, and driving public opinion based on that false credibility, is dangerous. Setting a precedent for it absolutely and without a single doubt has already cost many people their lives (look at Mexico deaths from earthquakes) and absolutely and without a doubt stages for more people to lose life and substantial property. If one falsely claims to be a police officer, and extorts a fine, it is a crime. I see this as being on the same order of harm to the society.
  • mirceal 9y ago
    How is talking about this going to kill people? Does this guy get to decide how to set the traffic cameras? He is just expressing his opinion. + he wasn't trying to commit a crime, he was trying to have a discussion with the state about their scummy practices. the "is/is not engineer" was just a pretext to tell him to STFU. Personally I don't think that being an engineer changes anything he said/did. If random Joe want to challenge the timing of the yellow light sure go ahead. If this guy who has worked in another country as an engineer does this... whoooaaaa... put the brakes on.
    • cname 9y ago
      I think the argument is something along the lines of: the public hears that an engineer is making certain claims and then push for the laws to be changed. Running of yellow/red lights ends up killing a lot of people. Perhaps without this passive enforcement, more people would die. Having read some local news about the incident, it sounds like his wife blatantly ran a light according to the laws of Oregon and he attempted to get it thrown out using a dubious technical argument. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/02/joseph_rose_yellow_light_beave.html http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/02/joseph...
• lucb1e 9y ago
  > a $500 fine for “unlicensed practice of engineering.” Looking this up[1], this is phrased terribly. It's claiming some title or degree that you don't have, that's illegal. Not "practicing engineering" (which sounds to me like: you measured something and proposed an improvement, which you have to do a study for to be allowed to measure and suggest to improve it). That "state-issued license to practice engineering" is just your degree which allows you to wear a title. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...
• takk309 9y ago
  I have been following this story for quite some time and I would like to point a major item that this article misled the reader about. First off, the State Board did not censor what he was saying, they asked him to stop representing himself as an engineer. Järlström initially sent his analysis to the State Board with a letter in-which he referred to himself as an engineer. The Board Responded by requesting that he refrain from calling himself an engineer. After Järlström continued to call himself an engineer, the Board decided to fine him. Järlström is and was allowed to discuss his analysis all he wanted, however, he is not allowed to call himself an engineer in such a was as to imply that he is a traffic or transportation engineer. Full disclosure, I am a registered professional traffic engineer. As such, I feel that registration is very important and serves to protect the public at large from people producing work with little to no relevant experience. Here is an article that was previously posted on HN which includes many of the documents involved in this case. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vvapy4/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vvapy4/man-fined-...
  • coding123 9y ago
    I am an engineer. I am not a "registered professional traffic engineer". I am a software engineer. If I wrote a paper on traffic signaling (which is also huge in software) I should be able to call myself an engineer - yes I won't call myself a "registered professional traffic engineer".
    • takk309 9y ago
      As long as you are clearly stating that you are a software engineer and not purporting to have expertise in traffic engineering, I agree with you.
      • CalChris 9y ago
        If Järlström had actually referred to himself as a traffic engineer then both the state and you would have a point. But he didn't. He said he had an engineering degree which he has and he stated that he was doing work related to the problem which he was. Järlström did not misrepresent himself.
• squarefoot 9y ago
  What they wanted to silence him for is probably the risk that someone draws a pattern linking what happened there with this: https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...
• CalChris 9y ago
  There is a fearful symmetry between the inaccurate red light camera and misapplication of the Professional Engineer Registration Act in violation of Järlström’s free speech rights. The cameras were sold like opioids to cities promising revenues and 'safety'. I'd like to know who the elected officials who signed up for these were. They're mostly gone in the Bay Area but they still exist up in Redding. So CA hasn't banned them statewide.
• sg0 9y ago
  I was looking for Mats Järlström's account w.r.t this affair, because I wanted to know more about his findings. It's here: http://theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/blogs/blog/mats-jrlstrm-i-am-an-engineer http://theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/blogs/blog/mats-jr...
• FiatLuxDave 9y ago
  A number of people in this thread are accepting the position that "engineer" is defined by the State of Oregon to only mean Professional Engineer. Let's do a consistency check. Here is a job posting for an "engineer" by the State of Oregon, which is not for a PE position: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/oregon/jobs/1902737/software-testing-engineer-infrastructure-support-information-systems-specialis https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/oregon/jobs/1902737/s... For contrast, here is a job opening for the State of Oregon for a PE: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/oregon/jobs/1891379/specifications-engineer-with-telecommuting-option-professional-engineer-1-od https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/oregon/jobs/1891379/s...
• eranation 9y ago
  So companies who have an opening for a "Software Engineer" or people having resumes with "Software Engineer" titles (Which is prettty common, I mean my resume has it, most of my peers call themselves Software Engineer / SDE and some prominent people recommend this title as a mean of improving your chances to be hired, http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro... ). All are basically violating the law? (except those who actually took the official PE exam, which apparently is available for computer science since 2013 - https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/39541/can-software-engineers-become-certified-professional-engineers-pe https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3954... ) Basically in states like Oregon, the officials can just scan linkedin, anyone who lives in the state and has Software Engineer in their title and is not a licenced engineer, can be forced to pay a $500 fine? Edit: I actually went and did the search, there are 18,101 software engineer titles in Oregon in LinkedIn, here's an easy $9 million for the state in fines. My assumption that if this gets to court, since the colloquial term for a software programmer / developer is nowadays "Software Engineer" and since there was no official way to become a certified "computer science" engineer prior to 2013, this will be hopefully thrown out the window.
• romdev 9y ago
  From experience, Oregon law for yellow lights says you must stop if it's safe to do so. The duration of the yellow light is not relevant to your argument if you get a ticket.
  • valuearb 9y ago
    You are just helping confirm the fact that Oregon is the land of dumb laws.
• amatecha 9y ago
  "We have admitted to violating Mr. Järlström’s rights" -- looking forward to the followup news story where he sues the state.
• jasonkostempski 9y ago
  "a state law that says only state-licensed engineers can speak publicly about technical matters." How can this law exist inside of the United States?
• tripzilch 9y ago
  Hey America, maybe you should go after people "speaking about technical matters" on climate-change denial instead of this stupid bullshit. It's not like you're doing anything useful with your first amendment rights anyway. I'm 100% serious btw, selectively enforced right to free speech is objectively worse. I still remember almost everybody LOUDLY and PROUDLY proclaiming "disagree with but will defend to the death" the right for a bunch of religious nuts to ruin gay people's fucking funeral, and all the fucking silence and shuffling of the feet on anything that actually matters.