When Mats Järlström's wife got snagged by one of Oregon's red light cameras in 2013, he challenged the ticket by questioning the timing of the yellow lights at intersections where cameras had been installed.
Since then, his research into red light cameras has earned him attention in local and national media—in 2014, he presented his evidence on an episode of "60 Minutes"—and an invitation to present at last year's annual meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
It also got him a $500 fine from the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying.
According to the board, Järlström's research into red light cameras and their effectiveness amounts to practicing engineering without a license. No, really. Järlström had sent a letter to the board in 2014 asking for the opportunity to present his research on how too-short yellow lights were making money for the state by putting the public's safety at risk. "I would like to present these fact for your review and comment," he wrote.
Instead of inviting him to present, the board threatened him. Citing state laws that make it illegal to practice engineering without a license, the board told Järlström that even calling himself an "electronics engineer" and the use of the phrase "I am an engineer" in his letter were enough to "create violations."
Apparently the threats weren't enough, because the board follow-up in January of this year by officially fining Järlström $500 for the supposed crime of "practicing engineering without being registered."
Järlström is now suing the state board over that fine, arguing that it's unconstitutional to prevent someone from doing math without the government's permission. He's getting support from the Institute for Justice, a national libertarian law firm.
"Criticizing the government's engineering isn't a crime; it's a constitutional right," said Sam Gedge, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, in a statement. "Under the First Amendment, you don't need to be a licensed lawyer to write an article critical of a Supreme Court decision, you don't need to be a licensed landscape architect to create a gardening blog, and you don't need to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights."
The notion that it's somehow illegal for Järlström to call himself an engineer is absurd. He has a degree in electrical engineering from Sweden, worked as an airplane camera mechanic in the Swedish Air Force, and has worked in a variety of technical jobs since immigrating to the United States in 1992. In Oregon, though, all that matters is whether he has a state-issued license.
What's worse...if he wins the lawsuit, it's the tax payer who's going to pay for it. Which is retarded. It should come out of the salaries of those who made the decisions that resulted/allowed this fine to be put through.
There is a LOT of that kind of thing all over the internet.
Professional associations going after unpopular hobbiests/inventors/practicioners/whatever to try and silence them.
Its been going on since the begining of time. Those who THINK they are in charge and are the status quo dont like it when they arent, especially when money and elitist attitudes are involved.
Originally posted by Stubby79: What's worse...if he wins the lawsuit, it's the tax payer who's going to pay for it. Which is retarded. It should come out of the salaries of those who made the decisions that resulted/allowed this fine to be put through.
Exactly, and that's part of the problem. The jackholes that fined him for "practicing Engineering without a licence" will never have to worry about anything. They will still get paid, they will still have a job. They won't even miss work because of this. Nothing changes for them because they were aholes.
Many years ago I resigned my membership in the National Society of Professional Engineers over just such issues, never to return. It's a small, vocal, activist minority of engineers who promote overly-broad interpretation and aggressive enforcement of state licensing laws.
Never confuse credentials with competence.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-26-2017).]
Originally posted by spark1: These regulations are pushed by groups who benefit from having a professional license. As always, follow the money.
True but, the regulations were not enforced by the same groups. Again, as you say, follow the money. The fine money.
Fine by me ! You ain't gonna get none. I will do all the redneck engineering all I want to. Along with southern engineering, roughneck engineering, even marriage engineering.
Thanks for weighing in. I thought of you as I read the story.
Are my scales, laser levelers, micrometers, calipers, and the such illegal? I am not an engineer, but I use math daily. Can I be fined for following through with a project? I do all my own drawings for the code regulations here. Am I a criminal now? Shat, so much I am doing wrong.
Mats is doing what everyone should do. Seeking facts. Solving problems. I like that.
I have two separate engineering degrees... neither of which I personally really consider to be engineering (cyber security and software development). But I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I can't call myself an Engineer if I suddenly feel like doing so.
Engineering is NOT a regulated field like being a doctor or being a lawyer... both of which have a direct affect on a person's life and liberty. I UNDERSTAND the need for those to both be regulated.
But an engineer??? That's arbitrary.
The fact that they even have degrees for "Software Engineering" shows that the term is arbitrary. The states have NO RIGHT to tell someone what they can or cannot do with respect to that. This is so absurd, and I hope he fights it, and people get punished.
The whole organization there sounds to me like a bunch of bitter old ladies in an HOA.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Engineering is NOT a regulated field like being a doctor or being a lawyer... both of which have a direct affect on a person's life and liberty. I UNDERSTAND the need for those to both be regulated.
That shows how much you really understand, . I can Constitutionally represent myself as my own lawyer. I can also decide if I want to take an aspirin or not. All those pharmacy commercials we see ? Are they for just doctors ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-26-2017).]
Many years ago I resigned my membership in the National Society of Professional Engineers over just such issues, never to return. It's a small, vocal, activist minority of engineers who promote narrow interpretation and aggressive enforcement of state licensing laws.
The one disagreement I had with them was a new requirement (at the time) that all radio towers had to have their foundation designs signed off by a registered professional engineer, certified by a particular State. Previously it was the job of the out-of-state structure builder to supply foundation drawings based on soil samples supplied by the buyer. The new requirement meant a delay in construction and a payment to an engineer to sign off on another engineer's drawing. Just double work and added expense for no gain IMO.
That shows how much you really understand, . I can Constitutionally represent myself as my own lawyer. I can also decide if I want to take an aspirin or not. All those pharmacy commercials we see ? Are they for just doctors ?
Those are things you're doing to yourself. You are totally allowed to perform surgery on your own body... but it's likely not possible, and you might get Baker Act'ed.
But you aren't allowed to do those to someone else...
There is a LOT of that kind of thing all over the internet.
Professional associations going after unpopular hobbiests/inventors/practicioners/whatever to try and silence them.
Its been going on since the begining of time. Those who THINK they are in charge and are the status quo dont like it when they arent, especially when money and elitist attitudes are involved.
...all you have to do is work in academia and you find all kinds of those people, there are many "Phd's" that think they are god and everyone else is beneath them and hate it when you challenge them...
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 04-26-2017).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Those are things you're doing to yourself. You are totally allowed to perform surgery on your own body... but it's likely not possible, and you might get Baker Act'ed.
But you aren't allowed to do those to someone else...
Who made up that rule ? From a previous thread, anybody should be able to choose which azz monkey works on their stuff.
I don't know about the rest of the world but I do know this : Here in Texas, you can not be forced to testify against your married unit. Who again is lodging a complaint ?
Baker Acted ? I kid but take your azz back to FloriDUH.
The Baker Act allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.
I have seen a manly man stitch up his own hand. In front of my own eyes. I helped him, and had other help. He didn't want to take a drug test. I thought that was a rational act.
My wife has 20+ years at Kerrville State Hospital. A Texas State, mental health internment, institutional, allowed for examination of an individual. (Criminal and mental)
That takes a tall court order. Anybody committed to such an action gets a free lawyer.
If they do get interned, they have a treatment plan. My wife wants to write mine, .
Who made up that rule ? From a previous thread, anybody should be able to choose which azz monkey works on their stuff.
I don't know about the rest of the world but I do know this : Here in Texas, you can not be forced to testify against your married unit. Who again is lodging a complaint ?
Baker Acted ? I kid but take your azz back to FloriDUH.
The Baker Act allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.
I have seen a manly man stitch up his own hand. In front of my own eyes. I helped him, and had other help. He didn't want to take a drug test. I thought that was a rational act.
My wife has 20+ years at Kerrville State Hospital. A Texas State, mental health internment, institutional, allowed for examination of an individual. (Criminal and mental)
That takes a tall court order. Anybody committed to such an action gets a free lawyer.
If they do get interned, they have a treatment plan. My wife wants to write mine, .
I mean... I mostly agree with you.
But I argue with:
1 - If you were being charged with a crime, and couldn't afford a lawyer. Would you really want someone who had never practiced law before and was the one appointed to representing you? Or would you rather know that this guy went through the BAR exam and was certified?
2 - Would you want to go to a hospital for surgery... assuming the guy was good (or not knowing I guess) and some schmoe was putting you under and accidentally killed you because he didn't use the right amount?
I mean, I think people should be allowed to do what they want... so I mostly agree with you on this argument. But Life and Liberty are two things that are affected by this.
As a person with a degree in engineering, I've got a dog in this fight. I've had "Engineer" on my business card for 35 years. But I cannot call myself An Engineer in certain contexts. Calling yourself An Engineer implies being a Licensed Professional Engineer. Somebody who has passed certain tests and has the qualifications to do certain things. Like design bridges, dams, and other items where failure has life-threatening consequences. Trust me (I'm an engineer) you don't want ME designing those things. I'm not qualified, licenses notwithstanding.
Are the state licensing boards overly pedantic about who gets to use the title Engineer? Yes, but only because they know what happens when unqualified people do the jobs. People die. So, I'm okay with this. Jarlstrom was warned. He could have made tiny changes in his language, like saying "I have a degree in engineering, and have been employed in the field for years." Not a violation. But he didn't, he chose to continue. Is this petty? Yes. But wrong? No. They're Engineers. They are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
A degree in Criminal Justice does not make you a cop. A degree in Political Science does not make you President.
Unfortunately each state sets its own standards for what is required to be a "Registered Professional Engineer". What is accepted by one state may or may not be accepted in another state and there is not always reciprocity between the states. The "RPE" designation is required by some states/agencies to actually sign/approve drawings and/or designs for certain types of work. Note that there is generally no specific requirement for a civil engineer to sign off dirtwork, structural engineers to approve to approve building designs, etc. It is even possible for a "RPE" to approve items for which he has no training whatsoever. However, he is then responsible for the item if there are issues. A person needs to be very careful as to what they approve even if they are a "RPE".
That being said, I see no sense in the Oregon Board fine for someone monitoring traffic light timing. Looking at the time each of the three lights is on or off is a simple visual operation requiring no more training than the ability to start and stop a watch and use addition and subtraction. Writing a summary of the results is basic English composition. Those functions are not "engineering" in any traditional sense of the word and I hope that he fights this fine and wins the case. If this gentleman was to design the system, he might be required to have a "RPE" certify that the design meets the appropriate standards but timing light duration is absolutely not engineering.
BTW, I am an engineer with a degree in Nuclear Engineering and an additional major in Chemical Engineering and also have some basic professional engineering registration certification. There are significant continuing education requirements for maintaining the RPE status even after you get the "registration".
Nelson
[This message has been edited by hnthomps (edited 04-27-2017).]
This certification frenzy has created a whole new bureaucracy in state governments.
I am certified, and have to maintain a license. It gets to be ridiculous with the fees and such.
Many people are having a hard time getting employment because it takes a certificate to do anything. Even some of the smallest things. If you want to be a barber or do someone's nails you have to be certified. The state convinces the public that its for their own protection. It really puts up some real obstacles for those seeking employment.
Why would I have to be certified to do landscaping?
Againn, he wasn't fined for monitoring traffic lights, or fighting red light cameras.
He was fined for calling himself an Engineer.
You guys who have had to take the time and spend the money, do you want somebody else to be able to do your job without getting certified? Yes, the process sometimes doesn't make sense. But I don't want any schmoe running around doing these jobs. I'd like at least the slightest assurance he was able to do it right.
[This message has been edited by Zeb (edited 04-26-2017).]
All he has to do is tell the judge he self-identifies as an engineer. Case closed.
All kidding aside, it's not hard to figure out the state gov't is putting up a smokescreen to cover up their own corruption. Covering up corruption with more corruption is pretty silly, though.
They don't have to have the same beliefs but maybe we can weed out the ones who think an island will tip over if more marines are stationed there or ones who call for the impeachment of a president BEFORE he takes office.
I know that won't happen but we could get a lot closer to political competency if we certified the voters.
Againn, he wasn't fined for monitoring traffic lights, or fighting red light cameras.
He was fined for calling himself an Engineer.
BUT, and this is key.. Them pulling this is to shut him up and put doubt into his findings.. First we'll hit him with a fee, telling him, we will make it hurt if he proceeds..
It has zero to do with him calling himself an engineer.. Only way that come into play is if he was charging people for engineering services..
They don't want that money maker stopped.. the fine is just a smoke screen to force him to stop..
If they even bothered to have one of their "engineers "look over the math.. To see if his complaint had merit.. But they didn't and won't. as they already know he is right.. they knew it when the cameras where installed and they changed to timing of green/yellow/red..
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I mean... I mostly agree with you.
But I argue with:
1 - If you were being charged with a crime, and couldn't afford a lawyer. Would you really want someone who had never practiced law before and was the one appointed to representing you? Or would you rather know that this guy went through the BAR exam and was certified?
2 - Would you want to go to a hospital for surgery... assuming the guy was good (or not knowing I guess) and some schmoe was putting you under and accidentally killed you because he didn't use the right amount?
1) I had been charged with a crime, and could not afford a lawyer. I got a court appointed lawyer. Never again could I not afford a lawyer. I have also represented myself successfully. This man represented his wife. Did she/he win ? Some things are worth dying for. Freedom being one.
2) You make a good point. Hard to argue with that, but I will try, . Who am I kidding ? Then again, I want to build my own shop. Do I need a licensed architect, engineer, contractor ? Why is not the cement slab guy licensed ?
quote
Originally posted by Zeb: As a person with a degree in engineering, I've got a dog in this fight. I've had "Engineer" on my business card for 35 years. But I cannot call myself An Engineer in certain contexts. Calling yourself An Engineer implies being a Licensed Professional Engineer.
? Was he calling himself an engineer for hire ? In front of a jury, was it a jury trial ?
quote
Originally posted by Zeb:
Again, he wasn't fined for monitoring traffic lights, or fighting red light cameras.
He was fined for calling himself an Engineer.
You guys who have had to take the time and spend the money, do you want somebody else to be able to do your job without getting certified? Yes, the process sometimes doesn't make sense. But I don't want any schmoe running around doing these jobs. I'd like at least the slightest assurance he was able to do it right.
Again, was he hiring out his skills ? No.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-27-2017).]
Againn, he wasn't fined for monitoring traffic lights, or fighting red light cameras.
He was fined for calling himself an Engineer.
You guys who have had to take the time and spend the money, do you want somebody else to be able to do your job without getting certified? Yes, the process sometimes doesn't make sense. But I don't want any schmoe running around doing these jobs. I'd like at least the slightest assurance he was able to do it right.
And, this is the whole thing in a nutshell. /\ I will preface this by sayi g I have stated many times that I am very much in favor of formal education and would readily support at least a taxpayer funded program for anyone who is academically qualified, to get at least an associate degree as part of their 'public education'.
But, I think this whole thing is far LESS about fearing the un-certified/non-degreed person will fail and far MORE about fearing they will succeed. It is ego and $$$ driven as if the person who doesn't have the paper work succeeding, somehow detracts from the certified person's own accomplishments. I really don't get it but we've all seen it numerous times in our lives. The always present justification for the complaints from the 'professionals" is always the 'crappy or unsafe' work, but the real driving force is the possibility of a dilution of the social status/personal importance in having the paperwork they spent so much time and $$ acquiring. It's equivalent to nothing less than a caste system. We even see it within the professional organizations and sectors. I have 2 nieces, both in eduction. One is multiple degreed. The other has an associate degree, and the one with the lesser # of letters after her name makes 1/3 again more $$ than her highly educated sister and it drives the educated sister nuts and she has even adamantly stated her sister (and those like her) shouldn't even be allowed to teach.
And, this is the whole thing in a nutshell. /\ I will preface this by sayi g I have stated many times that I am very much in favor of formal education and would readily support at least a taxpayer funded program for anyone who is academically qualified, to get at least an associate degree as part of their 'public education'.
But, I think this whole thing is far LESS about fearing the un-certified/non-degreed person will fail and far MORE about fearing they will succeed. It is ego and $$$ driven as if the person who doesn't have the paper work succeeding, somehow detracts from the certified person's own accomplishments. I really don't get it but we've all seen it numerous times in our lives. The always present justification for the complaints from the 'professionals" is always the 'crappy or unsafe' work, but the real driving force is the possibility of a dilution of the social status/personal importance in having the paperwork they spent so much time and $$ acquiring. It's equivalent to nothing less than a caste system. We even see it within the professional organizations and sectors. I have 2 nieces, both in eduction. One is multiple degreed. The other has an associate degree, and the one with the lesser # of letters after her name makes 1/3 again more $$ than her highly educated sister and it drives the educated sister nuts and she has even adamantly stated her sister (and those like her) shouldn't even be allowed to teach.
What they going to do if he pays the fee for the lic.. and then goes back with his "findings"
Bet they don't issue him a lic.. As doing so, he can proceed with his findings.. and the state doesn't want that.. as it show the red light camera fraud.
All he has to do is tell the judge he self-identifies as an engineer. Case closed.
All kidding aside, it's not hard to figure out the state gov't is putting up a smokescreen to cover up their own corruption. Covering up corruption with more corruption is pretty silly, though.
Having an engineering degree is worthless if you have no competence as an engineer. Lots of PHD engineers have screwed up in the past. Titanic comes to mind and a couple of the space shuttles. Walkways and bridges fail often like this...all designed by engineers, in this case an engineering PROFESSOR...https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-myth-of-galloping-gertie
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 04-27-2017).]
What they going to do if he pays the fee for the lic.. and then goes back with his "findings"
Bet they don't issue him a lic.. As doing so, he can proceed with his findings.. and the state doesn't want that.. as it show the red light camera fraud.
Unfortunately, the RPE process is quite slow and involves not one but two separate tests (around 8 hours each) that must be passed, a specific number of years experience documented, and recommendations from several other RPEs. Years back the tests were given once or twice per year but I have no idea as to the current schedule.
BTW, I believe that it is likely legal for him to call himself an engineer if he has an engineering degree from an accredited school. If he has referred to himself as a Registered Professional Engineer without going through all the hoops, then he is likely to have a problem. Even in the US it should be noted that it is quite possible to be a RPE in one state but have no legal RPE standing in another state.
Nelson
[This message has been edited by hnthomps (edited 04-27-2017).]
Traffic light timing is a HUGE contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. If people like this guy make that a well-known public fact and back it up with data, the greenies would be up in arms and protesting it. Unfortunately for guys like this, traffic light timing is a huge money maker for police departments, the judicial system, and politicians, who will stop at nothing to silence people like him interfering with their revenue stream.
Againn, he wasn't fined for monitoring traffic lights, or fighting red light cameras.
He was fined for calling himself an Engineer.
You guys who have had to take the time and spend the money, do you want somebody else to be able to do your job without getting certified? Yes, the process sometimes doesn't make sense. But I don't want any schmoe running around doing these jobs. I'd like at least the slightest assurance he was able to do it right.
Curious, because "calling" himself a Engineer is not the reason cited for the issuance of the fine.
quote
Apparently the threats weren't enough, because the board follow-up in January of this year by officially fining Järlström $500 for the supposed crime of "practicing engineering without being registered."
Practicing, not claiming the title of.
They stated just using the phrase "I am a Engineer" in his letter was enough to "create violations", but that's not apparently what they fined him for.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 04-28-2017).]
. I can Constitutionally represent myself as my own lawyer. 
.
