Oregon man fined $500 for 'unlawful' study suggesting yellow traffic lights too short

[Jeff P]

Oregon Man Fined $500 for 'Unlawful' Study That Found Yellow Stoplights Are Too Short:
https://heatst.com/life/man-fined-500-for-criticizing-traffic-lights-system/

Järlström, a former mechanic in the Swedish military, was slapped with the absurd penalty because his work contravenes licensing regulations in the state, according to the Institute for Justice.

He started his investigation into traffic lights after his wife got a ticket for turning right on a yellow light back in 2013. He wanted to know "how how exactly yellow lights are timed."

Järlström found out that the formula used in traffic lights was deficient, and invented his own one, while corresponding with one of the formula’s original creators.

He took his research and started reaching out to people in the scientific community, government authorities and the media.

His new formula ended up at the state's Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying. But rather than appreciating his findings, the Board fined him $500 because he engaged in unlicensed "practice of engineering."


-jp

.

[JustRalph]

I paid a red light ticket from a camera this week. They mail you the notice. You do it All online. they show you 2pics and video of your violation. Then you can pay on the same website. This intersection got my wife last year. $75 bucks!

[fast4522]

I paid a red light ticket from a camera this week. They mail you the notice. You do it All online. they show you 2pics and video of your violation. Then you can pay on the same website. This intersection got my wife last year. $75 bucks!

I thought something like sixth amendment rights to meet your accuser or just a camera was not enough?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Good thing he got dinged for only $500. If he would have been trying to sell MRIs with his own machine at a strip mall for a couple of hundred bucks, the AMA and health "care" companies would have had him tossed in prison - and probably lined up on death row.

[Actor]

I thought something like sixth amendment rights to meet your accuser or just a camera was not enough?A camera in Ohio was removed on those grounds a few years back. In that case you were not allowed to appeal until after you had paid the fine. Also a study by a local group found that traffic in residential neighborhoods increased because people were taking alternate routes to avoid the camera. I think the camera was removed not because of any legal action but because the city council got too much flak from the voters.

[Actor]

He is now suing the state of Oregon, claiming his traffic lights critique is protected by the First Amendment.:ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

I thought something like sixth amendment rights to meet your accuser or just a camera was not enough?

I agree with that, but I'm too lazy to fight :lol:

[highnote]

I agree with that, but I'm too lazy to fight :lol:

This article from an Iowa newspaper claims that few people fight the camera-generated tickets, but they should.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2015/06/20/automated-traffic-enforcement-cameras-appeals/29055365/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

The article says that 8 out of 10 Council Bluffs, Iowa appeals are successful:

"In Council Bluffs, for instance, motorists who receive citations can appeal to the city prosecutor.

The meeting takes place in the prosecutor's office, where both the person cited and the prosecutor may view videos of the alleged infraction and discuss the safety implications, said Don Bauermeister, the prosecutor.

"I don't think this needs to be a punitive system," he said. With the photo evidence that is available "it's easy for a prosecutor to win. But I take a different approach. I want to educate the public about why full stops on red lights are important.

"When I do that, the likelihood that I'll see them again is nil."

Bauermeister said it's more important to him to ensure that Council Bluffs' streets are safe than to collect money from the enforcement cameras. That's why eight out of 10 appeals are successful, he said, because citations often will be dismissed if motorists understand their mistakes."

[highnote]

Many traffic departments say it's not about the money, but if that was the case then there should be a big sign near the camera saying that the area is being monitored.

People would see the sign and slow down, or not make a right on red without coming to a complete stop.

If safety was the goal and not making money then a sign next to the camera would do the trick.

Iowa made 58 million dollars off of traffic cameras. That's a lot of temptation for the politicians.

[highnote]

Ohio rules traffic cameras unconstitutional:

http://fox8.com/2014/01/24/ruling-traffic-cameras-are-unconstitutional/

[highnote]

Sioux City, Iowa made $40 million from traffic cameras!

South Dakota law tells SD residents to ignore the tickets!

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/28/316728734/south-dakota-to-drivers-ignore-those-pesky-iowa-speeding-cameras

[JustRalph]

I don't have a chance in hell if I was to fight. It's an obvious violation. I knew I was doomed when I did it.

I'm in the Tundra pickup

Only my second ticket in 40 years. The other one was a speed trap coming out of Charlestown Race track. Martins Ferry got me.

[Dave Schwartz]

Over the years I have come to love the city that I live in (Reno). Sure, we've got lots of issues in this state - did you know that Nevada ranks 3rd in tax revenues from gaming? THIRD! LOL

We've got more suicides, bankruptcies, alcoholism, teen pregnancies, cigarette smoking... you name it and we are the worst. More Las Vegas than Reno, but still.


One thing they have done right is stuff like the traffic ticket cams.

How it works is that a company comes in and says, "We'll install these cameras and take a percentage of the revenue generated from the tickets."

What actually happened here was that the company said that the yellow lights were too long and would have to be shortened or else they wouldn't make enough money!

And the city said, "NO!"

Crazy, huh?


Dave

[PaceAdvantage]

They tried putting in some "speeding cameras" where I live. I think they were active for about 5 minutes before something or someone shit-canned the idea...must have set the county back a pretty penny and then to have it all go to hell like that...left me so sad...:(:lol::lol::lol:

I'm sure my taxes will go up just enough to pay for the loss...

[highnote]

At least it was only $75. I wouldn't have fought it, either.

2 tickets in 40 years is good. The second one wasn't even issued by a human being, though. So it shouldn't count. :D

I don't have a chance in hell if I was to fight. It's an obvious violation. I knew I was doomed when I did it.

I'm in the Tundra pickup

Only my second ticket in 40 years. The other one was a speed trap coming out of Charlestown Race track. Martins Ferry got me.

[johnhannibalsmith]

We had them around where I lived for years and it was comical. People would drive up at 80 through the 55 until they got to within earshot of the camera and then lay on the brakes in unison at highway speed on a jammed four lane road. Then lay on the accelerator the moment you got past it. If that thing was promoting safe driving, I'd hate to see what they'd come up with to promote unsafe driving.