AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems  (Read 917 times)

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 990
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 05:35:51 PM

Just found this:

https://jalopnik.com/oregon-admits-violating-the-constitutional-rights-of-re-1821086560#js_discussion-region

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/12/state_board_concedes_it_violat.html

I think at least a few of you will find this interesting. Make sure to watch the video on it as well. Shows how idiotic Oregon is.

However I want to bring up Oregon's use of red light cameras as it is very popular and with Oregon wanting to put speed catching detection devices in there. If any member wants to talk about traffic signal timing, feel free but I'll also be posting this over in Traffic Control on an already existing thread.

I am highly opposed to red light speeding cameras until we get our speed limits in check. Portland has been decreasing them left and right. In my city, we are adding two in very underposted roadways. 99W through Sherwood should be 55-65 and the current speed limit is 45. I go 55 and I keep getting passed. There is a major problem with that in which these speeding cameras won't solve.

Message to judge, DO NOT DISMISS THIS CASE

Edit: Added the last line and the video:
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 11:53:10 PM by Hurricane Rex »
Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

TheArkansasRoadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 954
  • The Dude

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 05:36:01 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2017, 12:20:04 AM »

I'm sorry, but this just goes to show how (in some cases) our government is all "hush-hush" about certain things. This issue (if ever resolved) could save people time and money, but of course a state wants to grab at any change it gets to rake in dough, so it is unlikely something like this will ever be looked at seriously.
Logged
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8498
  • Age: 43
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 09:40:18 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2017, 12:55:41 PM »

Let's separate out the two things:

The 1st Amendment:  No matter what the judge decides, it's not going to have an effect on the red light/speed cameras.  This guy can speak until he's blue in the face; no doubt those that will allow the speed cameras already know what's going on.

The Red Light/Speed Cameras: As numerous jurisdictions have gotten rid of one, the other, or both, there is hope.  However, it usually comes down to the citizens electing politicians who want to see them gone.  If the citizens keep re-electing people that are in favor of these cameras and devices, they're not going to be removed.
Logged

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 990
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 05:35:51 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2017, 09:06:31 PM »

Let's separate out the two things:

The 1st Amendment:  No matter what the judge decides, it's not going to have an effect on the red light/speed cameras.  This guy can speak until he's blue in the face; no doubt those that will allow the speed cameras already know what's going on.

The Red Light/Speed Cameras: As numerous jurisdictions have gotten rid of one, the other, or both, there is hope.  However, it usually comes down to the citizens electing politicians who want to see them gone.  If the citizens keep re-electing people that are in favor of these cameras and devices, they're not going to be removed.

Maybe, just maybe, ODOT will start looking into this because of this case. If they do, they'll probably botch it though like all the other studies they do.
Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1287
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 09:31:15 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2017, 09:53:47 PM »

The states I see moving against red light cameras are ones where the GOP presence is strong.  Oregon is run by the Demos. 

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11593
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 11:15:25 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2017, 02:10:45 AM »

The states I see moving against red light cameras are ones where the GOP presence is strong.  Oregon is run by the Demos. 

Rick
Demogorgons? Our country has been upside-down lately...
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1179
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: Today at 01:08:25 AM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2017, 09:46:15 AM »

The states I see moving against red light cameras are ones where the GOP presence is strong.  Oregon is run by the Demos. 

Rick

Albuquerque, which is a liberal-leaning city, has gotten rid of its red light cameras. Although nexus73 probably has a point, there is likely more to that discussion than politics alone.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444
US clinch: 491

Flickr

SP Cook

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1577
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 02:47:50 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2017, 11:14:39 AM »

All traffic enforcement, done by machines or men, is illigitmate. 
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5126
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2017, 11:38:50 AM »

Let's separate out the two things:

The 1st Amendment:  No matter what the judge decides, it's not going to have an effect on the red light/speed cameras.  This guy can speak until he's blue in the face; no doubt those that will allow the speed cameras already know what's going on.

The issue is much broader than traffic cameras. IIRC, this isn't the first time a state licensing board has gone after a citizen activist for being too good at presenting a technical analysis without help from (and paying for) a licensed professional.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11593
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 11:15:25 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2017, 11:48:50 AM »

Let's separate out the two things:

The 1st Amendment:  No matter what the judge decides, it's not going to have an effect on the red light/speed cameras.  This guy can speak until he's blue in the face; no doubt those that will allow the speed cameras already know what's going on.

The issue is much broader than traffic cameras. IIRC, this isn't the first time a state licensing board has gone after a citizen activist for being too good at presenting a technical analysis without help from (and paying for) a licensed professional.
*while claiming to be a licensed professional...
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5126
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2017, 12:09:33 PM »

Let's separate out the two things:

The 1st Amendment:  No matter what the judge decides, it's not going to have an effect on the red light/speed cameras.  This guy can speak until he's blue in the face; no doubt those that will allow the speed cameras already know what's going on.

The issue is much broader than traffic cameras. IIRC, this isn't the first time a state licensing board has gone after a citizen activist for being too good at presenting a technical analysis without help from (and paying for) a licensed professional.
*while claiming to be a licensed professional...

In this instance, and the others I recall, there was no such claim AFAIK. Only in this case to know something about engineering, from foreign military service.

In my own profession (law), which has its share of fussy licensing boards, there is no dispute that people can represent themselves in court, even if licensed nowhere or only in another jurisdiction. Ditto for general commentary on legal issues.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9358
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 41
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 10:16:36 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2017, 09:46:51 PM »

The states I see moving against red light cameras are ones where the GOP presence is strong.  Oregon is run by the Demos. 

Rick

Albuquerque, which is a liberal-leaning city, has gotten rid of its red light cameras. Although nexus73 probably has a point, there is likely more to that discussion than politics alone.

They're even banned completely in states that run "purple" and swing back and forth like Wisconsin and Michigan. Both states have serious constitutional questions regarding the automated enforcement cameras and require a police officer to witness the offense.  Personally, I'm in agreement with them.  A camera merely catches someone running a red or "speeding".  An officer can note how reckless the driver is on the road.  Case in point: Last Saturday, I was on IL-59 in Plainfield.  I had to stop for a signal and had this Dodge Charger behind me.  He was rather impatient and pissed that I stopped for the signal (would've been red when I got to the stop line).  So he decided to stop in the striped off area between the left hand lane (where I was) and the left turn lane.  Now, this particular signal at IL-59 and 135th Street has a red light camera for IL-59 (https://goo.gl/maps/SVa2rExNAkK2).  The twit then entered the intersection as soon as opposing traffic was clear from the left turn signal, but while our through signal was still red.  The camera only would've seen him go through the red (however, there was no flash).  An officer would've seen the twit's recklessness and gotten him off the road.

All traffic enforcement, done by machines or men, is illigitmate. 

Not always - see above why enforcement is necessary, but done the wrong way currently.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4395
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 12:05:30 AM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2017, 12:24:00 AM »

All traffic enforcement, done by machines or men, is illigitmate. 

You think you should have license to endanger yourself and others as much as you want with no consequences?  Life doesn't work that way.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7546
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 05:00:23 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2017, 12:54:58 PM »

All traffic enforcement, done by machines or men, is illigitmate. 

You think you should have license to endanger yourself and others as much as you want with no consequences?  Life doesn't work that way.

(playing the Devil's advocate)

But traffic enforcement works differently than the rest of life.  Police officers don't go walking around looking for people who have the potential to injure someone else by their behavior in other areas of life.  Like, if I'm playing catch in the front yard with my son, an officer would never stop and issue me a citation for throwing the ball too fast and too close to my son's head.  But that's basically analogous to getting a speeding ticket.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4395
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 12:05:30 AM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2017, 09:25:23 PM »

Well, it can though.  There is a crime called child endangerment.  There can be tickets and/or criminal charges for not putting a young child in a carseat or booster seat or seatbelt.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7546
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 05:00:23 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2017, 01:41:56 PM »

Well, it can though.  There is a crime called child endangerment.  There can be tickets and/or criminal charges for not putting a young child in a carseat or booster seat or seatbelt.

...which is traffic enforcement.   ;-)
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8498
  • Age: 43
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 09:40:18 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2017, 01:50:59 PM »

All traffic enforcement, done by machines or men, is illigitmate. 

You think you should have license to endanger yourself and others as much as you want with no consequences?  Life doesn't work that way.

(playing the Devil's advocate)

But traffic enforcement works differently than the rest of life.  Police officers don't go walking around looking for people who have the potential to injure someone else by their behavior in other areas of life.  Like, if I'm playing catch in the front yard with my son, an officer would never stop and issue me a citation for throwing the ball too fast and too close to my son's head.  But that's basically analogous to getting a speeding ticket.

But they do walk around looking for criminals.  Detectives especially do that.  Or if an adult is sitting by themselves in a park using a pair of binoculars watching children.  They are looking for suspicious activity by people that could injure others.

Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4395
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 12:05:30 AM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2017, 04:44:07 PM »

Well, it can though.  There is a crime called child endangerment.  There can be tickets and/or criminal charges for not putting a young child in a carseat or booster seat or seatbelt.

...which is traffic enforcement.   ;-)

Okay... there's also possible negligence charges for operating an industrial plant in an unsafe way.  The prosecutor doesn't have to wait for a disaster to occur before fines can be charged.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7546
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 05:00:23 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2017, 04:53:23 PM »

I'm swiftly running out of Devil's advocate arguments.   :evilgrin:
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4911
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 11:40:53 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2017, 08:58:03 PM »

*while claiming to be a licensed professional...

In this instance, and the others I recall, there was no such claim AFAIK. Only in this case to know something about engineering, from foreign military service.

In my own profession (law), which has its share of fussy licensing boards, there is no dispute that people can represent themselves in court, even if licensed nowhere or only in another jurisdiction. Ditto for general commentary on legal issues.

There's a difference between representing yourself in court and using the word "lawyer" to describe yourself when you are not licensed as one.

Now, being an engineer and being a licensed PE are not inherently the same, colloquially. I am an engineer (my job title given to me by my employer contains the word!) but I am not a licensed PE, and there are many other similar people out there.

That said, the law in question does appear to be written broadly enough that merely using the term "engineer" to describe oneself is a prohibited action if you do not have a PE license.

The problem is, I don't think the law is regularly enforced to that degree. My employer has staff in Oregon with similar job titles to mine that are not licensed PEs. Clearly they haven't had problems with the state coming after them for calling themselves "engineers" or else that would have changed.

The guy has a legitimate beef because when he, in good faith, pointed out a real problem with the way a government agency was doing something, said agency responded by finding a way legally attack him while ignoring his legitimate criticism. It was a blatant act of retaliation, and the state AG's office has admitted the man's rights were violated.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7546
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 05:00:23 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2017, 02:00:57 PM »

I am an engineer (my job title given to me by my employer contains the word!) but I am not a licensed PE, and there are many other similar people out there.

Train drivers.   :nod:
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5698
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 10:56:38 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2017, 12:09:22 PM »

I would want to read the additional documents in the case file before I reached any judgments as to what went on here.  I did read the Oregon licensing board's complaint when an earlier phase of this case was being discussed on the road-related Facebook groups, and it appeared that part of the motivation for the board going after Järlström was the latter trying to get the board to revoke the licenses of other engineers, specifically the ones responsible for the signal at which he received a ticket.  Moreover, he was not fined at first; he was merely warned that it was illegal to practice engineering (which in Oregon can apparently include any fact pattern that involves application of engineering knowledge and technique, even if this is available to anyone regardless of licensure) without a license.  Then Järlström turned around and submitted new documents to public agencies that (in the board's view) represented themselves as engineering work product.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1287
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 09:31:15 PM
Re: Red light speeding camera discussion plus Oregon's 1st admendment problems
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2017, 06:32:37 PM »

What is funny to me is that Oregon's 1st Amendment is broader than the US Constitution's.  That is why our state has so many strip bars!  Protected speech indeed.  Now one thing we do have that is not so good is a bureaucracy that the Vogons would be proud of.  Offend them at your peril!  Sure, you might be in the right but how much is it going to cost you to prove the point?

Over here in my home area I wanted SR 540 signs placed up on the route. ODOT's local office resisted.  I went over their heads to the state representative and she took care of making the dominos fall the way I wanted.  Result: The signs went up.  You have to be prepared to wrestle with the bureaucratic bear and one great tactic is to get someone higher up to wield the cudgel.

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.