Oregon Man Fined $500 for Criticizing Red-light Cameras

[Ghostpanther]

I hope he wins his lawsuit. The red light cameras are used primary for one reason. Funds. Our local small city installed them a few years ago and the one complaint was the timing on the red lights where purposely set as low as possible to catch as many as it could. Advocates against it started a group to get enough signatures to get the issue on a voting ballot and they succeeded and the red lights were removed after a great majority voted to have them removed. The % of serous accidents were not reduced after they were installed and did not increase after they were removed.

[God Save The King]

In this case, the speech was basically independent engineering research that he shared with the public. The consequences are stupid. If you stretch their reasoning just a little bit further, then suddenly every undergraduate in the state whose worked on engineering research projects at universities have suddenly committed civil offenses.

It's also a bastardization of the spirit of the law. You don't want people doing actual engineering work without a license because that work tends not to be sound, and can be dangerous to the public. Considering the government there is the only entity with the authority and capability to implement this work, there's no way that what he's doing is any harm to the public.

It really just seems like they don't want to reconsider yellow light times and are pissed off that the public might ask them to review it because of him. And subsequently they're using this as convenient stick to smack him away with.

Undergraduate research is done under the supervision of a professor, who in this case should be licensed. Students can circumvent that path, if they choose, but they should be aware of the risks of doing so. All my undergraduate (and most of my graduate) research was done under the supervision of my professors, and we co-published papers.

It's certainly stretching the law, I never claimed otherwise, but people acting like breaking a civil law, and receiving a fine because of it, is the same as state censorship (which usually is "random disappearances" or long stints in prison) is absurd in my eyes.

I agree with your last point. He certainly wasn't doing anything I'd consider illegal. I'd like to see the law restricted to actual engineering work (either that or allow people like him to make a disclaimer similar to what attorneys can).

[Allerius]

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.

His life nor liberty was not taken.

Actually the whole point of freedom of speech is freedom from consequence, at least from the government. 'At least they didn't kill/jail him' isn't a valid defense.

[Garnier Fructis]

I hope he wins his lawsuit. The red light cameras are used primary for one reason. Funds. Our local small city installed them a few years ago and the one complaint was the timing on the red lights where purposely set as low as possible to catch as many as it could. Advocates against it started a group to get enough signatures to get the issue on a voting ballot and they succeeded and the red lights were removed after a great majority voted to have them removed. The % of serous accidents were not reduced after they were installed and did not increase after they were removed.

I think that's the primary motivation in this case as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with your last point. He certainly wasn't doing anything I'd consider illegal. I'd like to see the law restricted to actual engineering work (either that or allow people like him to make a disclaimer similar to what attorneys can).

This is basically my main point; I largely agree with the rest of the stuff you wrote in this post.

[Tikaru]

The "law" (still can't find it online) is beyond ridiculous.

I have a question to those somehow defending Oregon: should it be illegal for me to talk/discuss/question police policy if I'm not a cop? Should it be illegal for me to talk/discuss/question medical practices without a medical license?

That's what happened here. Someone with an engineering background used math (*GASP!*) to call out a flaw in a system, and rather than address the issue, the board fined him for the audacity of questioning them.

[Independent voter]

Was it one of those stop lights with a camera that takes your photo if you don't stop? Those things are huge money makers for a city.

A lot of people slow down almost to a stop but don't stop, they get fined too.

[Manabomb]

They actually fined him for calling himself an engineer without being registered as such and that's illegal in Oregon.

Look, someone paying attention.

[ipaq]

That is directly contradicted by the video (which might be biased) - if you have a statement from Oregon claiming otherwise provide a link.

And he is actually an engineer (with a degree it says), and calculating the speed of a vehicle when decelerating doesn't require specializing into traffic engineering - or even a degree at all.

Vehicles work similarly all other the world, and a lot of vehicles are designed by engineers who don't have a degree in traffic engineering.

False, in the US, the earth is flat, the world was created 5 to 6k years ago, and climate change is a scam from China.

[Manabomb]

The "law" (still can't find it online) is beyond ridiculous.

I have a question to those somehow defending Oregon: should it be illegal for me to talk/discuss/question police policy if I'm not a cop? Should it be illegal for me to talk/discuss/question medical practices without a medical license?

That's what happened here. Someone with an engineering background used math (*GASP!*) to call out a flaw in a system, and rather than address the issue, the board fined him for the audacity of questioning them.

Are you a registered engineer claiming you have a systematic solution the red light problem, or are you a random joe that Oregon doesn't care about save for the fact you are claiming you are an engineer?

[Forogil]

Undergraduate research is done under the supervision of a professor, who in this case should be licensed. Students can circumvent that path, if they choose, but they should be aware of the risks of doing so. All my undergraduate (and most of my graduate) research was done under the supervision of my professors, and we co-published papers.

The major risk for the research is that the papers will be of low quality and not accepted; and that reviewers will ignore them - and there is no money since the ones giving grants don't hand them out to everyone.

However, I haven't heard of any scientific journal that formally require authors to hold a degree - there might be some; and it is unlikely that there are many actual examples of papers published.

Similarly it is unlikely that you will become a professor without a graduate degree or equivalently, but not unheard of.

It's certainly stretching the law, I never claimed otherwise, but people acting like breaking a civil law, and receiving a fine because of it, is the same as state censorship (which usually is "random disappearances" or long stints in prison) is absurd in my eyes.

Fining people for trying to solve a problem absurd in my eyes.

Fining people and sending them to jail isn't the same - but both are still censorship. Singapore fining political films $100,000 and this fine of $500 are not the same.

[Garnier Fructis]

I have a question to those somehow defending Oregon: should it be illegal for me to talk/discuss/question police policy if I'm not a cop? Should it be illegal for me to talk/discuss/question medical practices without a medical license?

Specifically on medical issues, I could see some slight restrictions. If someone is going around giving dangerous medical advice, then I could understand fining such a person.

I'm not drawing any analogies with the main topic with this.

- - - Updated - - -

Look, someone paying attention.

Actually, someone didn't pay attention.

The Board told Mats they had no interest in hearing about his ideas. Fair enough. But the Board didn’t stop there. They launched a full-blown investigation, alleging that he’d engaged in the unlicensed “practice of engineering.”

After a two-year-long investigation, the Board fined him $500. According to the Board, “critiquing” the length of yellow lights and talking about his ideas with “members of the public” made Mats a lawbreaker because he’s not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer.

[Fudal]

The guy isn't a licensed engineer in ANY jurisdiction.

You don't need to be "licensed" in order to be trained in a technical field. There are a lot of people in this country with degrees in engineering that are subject matter experts licensing not withstanding.

[Garnier Fructis]

The major risk for the research is that the papers will be of low quality and not accepted; and that reviewers will ignore them - and there is no money since the ones giving grants don't hand them out to everyone.

However, I haven't heard of any scientific journal that formally require authors to hold a degree - there might be some; and it is unlikely that there are many actual examples of papers published.

Similarly it is unlikely that you will become a professor without a graduate degree or equivalently, but not unheard of.

Another aspect of this is that a lot of engineering research is hard to distinguish from applied mathematics or applied physics research in general, and we absolutely aren't bringing the hammer down on mathematicians and physicists for not being licensed engineers.

[Forogil]

They actually fined him for calling himself an engineer without being registered as such and that's illegal in Oregon.

Actually it is not clear that he violated that since we haven't seen the exact text that allegedly violate this.

If he stated that he was a Swedish engineer that would arguably be legal as the law allows for non-Oregon engineers to claim to be engineers - if they state from where (and possibly with some extra condition).

- - - Updated - - -

You don't need to be "licensed" in order to be trained in a technical field. There are a lot of people in this country with degrees in engineering that are subject matter experts licensing not withstanding.

Even in the US the NSF in 2004 found that 22% of science and engineering work was done by people without a bachelor's degree.

[Gutpile]

They actually fined him for calling himself an engineer without being registered as such and that's illegal in Oregon.

Please don't bring facts and truth into the issue. The mob is trying to get itself worked up.

[Matchles]

You don't need to be "licensed" in order to be trained in a technical field. There are a lot of people in this country with degrees in engineering that are subject matter experts licensing not withstanding.

So? You need one in Oregon. They didn't just fine him, they told him the law and he continued to claim to be an engineer.

[Allerius]

So? You need one in Oregon. They didn't just fine him, they told him the law and he continued to claim to be an engineer.

He is an engineer. The phrase you're looking for is 'engineer specifically licensed in Oregon' if you wanted to have a point. He also wasn't practicing engineering but sharing research, which is kinda included/protected under free speech. But hey, good on Oregon to go after the guy criticizing their bs money grab system.

[Garnier Fructis]

Please don't bring facts and truth into the issue. The mob is trying to get itself worked up.

Linking this again, because the 'facts and truth' crowd seems to want to keep ignoring this:

The Board told Mats they had no interest in hearing about his ideas. Fair enough. But the Board didn’t stop there. They launched a full-blown investigation, alleging that he’d engaged in the unlicensed “practice of engineering.”

After a two-year-long investigation, the Board fined him $500. According to the Board, “critiquing” the length of yellow lights and talking about his ideas with “members of the public” made Mats a lawbreaker because he’s not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer.

[Matchles]

He is an engineer. The phrase you're looking for is 'engineer specifically licensed in Oregon' if you wanted to have a point. He also wasn't practicing engineering but sharing research, which is kinda included/protected under free speech. But hey, good on Oregon to go after the guy criticizing their bs money grab system.

No I'm not. It matters that he called himself an engineer. The relevant law.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007

A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering.

- - - Updated - - -

Linking this again, because the 'facts and truth' crowd seems to want to keep ignoring this:

Except I've already linked the case and that isn't what they held at all.

[Garnier Fructis]

Except I've already linked the case and that isn't what they held at all.

Seems like I'm totally wrong. I read a distinction that doesn't exist in the law. Picked out the relevant part below:

which define the practice of engineering as including both engineering work and use of the engineering title.

Well, there go all my objections, so, I guess I'm out of this thread.