Yahoo Autos 
Oregon cedes freedom of speech case against red light camera critic
Over 800 people died in vehicle accidents involving red light running in 2016, an increase of over 17 percent since 2012. Despite this, fewer communities across the country are using red light cameras at intersections.
MORE: IIHS faults Uber for deactivating Volvo’s automatic emergency braking in fatal crash
According to a list of guidelines released last month by the IIHS in cooperation with the AAA, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the National Safety Council, there are a list of steps communities and drivers can take to improve safety at intersections, both for motorists and more vulnerable individuals like cyclists or pedestrians, who account for more than half the total deaths.
The checklist includes a list of recommendations for “planning, oversight and sustained public engagement,” and emphasizes that “the public supports red light camera enforcement, but support can erode when programs are poorly run, or perceived to be centered on generating revenue,” according to the release.
Since 2000, the number of deaths in red-light running crashes declined on average until a low of 681 deaths in 2010, but has since climbed back up to 811 in 2016. The harrowing video released by the Institute shows a 2010 Ford F-150 striking a 2007 Chrysler Sebring directly in the side, a simulation of a real crash in Yuma, Arizona, in 2012 in which the Sebring’s driver was severely injured.
A map of state-level red light and speed camera programs across the country shows there’s still work to be done. Over half of all states still fail to use red light cameras, and only 15 make use of both red light and speed cameras. According to the report, only 421 communities across the U.S. had red light camera programs in July of this year, down from 533 in 2012.
As the video goes to show, even if the light is green, use caution at high speed intersections. It could make all the difference.
It is, perhaps, human nature to harbor grandiose dreams of fighting a traffic ticket, even to the point of arguing before a local judge. For the past four years, however, an Oregon man has taken that fantasy to extreme levels, ultimately resulting in the state’s senior assistant attorney general admitting in federal court that the state violated constitutional right to free speech.
What started out as a simple traffic ticket in 2013—issued to the wife of Beaverton, Oregon resident Mats Järlström—resulted in a federal court case involving the first amendment. Ultimately, the Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying capitulated, agreeing that it violated the constitutional rights of a man who had the audacity to critique the timing of red light cameras.
Mr. Järlström, who holds a degree in electrical engineering and served in the Swedish Air Force as an aircraft camera mechanic, wrote to the board in 2014 asking for nothing more than to present his research, which concluded that yellow lights in the state were too short, both creating a public safety risk and increasing state revenue via aggressive ticketing.
The board, however, responded with a $500 fine in accordance with an Oregon law that prohibits anyone from practicing engineering unless they are licensed as such by the state.
According to court documents, senior assistant attorney general Christina L. Beatty-Walters wrote on behalf of the Board of Examiners, “We have admitted to violating Mr. Järlström’s rights,” and acknowledged that the state’s use of its engineering practice law “was not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interests.”
The board has since refunded Järlström’s $500, and the court has now officially ruled in his favor, but he isn’t happy with the result — yet. He and his lawyers intend to seek an injunction against the board from applying the same law to other engineers — licensed or not — when there’s no specific state interest in doing so.
His attorney, Samuel Gedge, from the Institute for Justice, said "The existence of these laws and the way they've been applied time and time again has violated free speech rights. Past history suggests the board can't be trusted on how the laws should be applied constitutionally.”
