A Beaverton man who has a bachelor of science degree in engineering and has repeatedly challenged Oregon's timing of yellow traffic lights as too short was investigated by a state board for "unlicensed practice of engineering'' and fined $500. 
 
 Now, Mats Järlström has joined with the national Institute for Justice to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against members of the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying. 
 
 He contends state law and the board's actions that disallow anyone from using the word "engineer" if they're not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer amount to an "unconstitutional ban on mathematical debate.'' 
 
 "It's important in my mind we can share ideas freely in Oregon to promote innovation,'' the 56-year-old said. "I feel violated at this point in time.'' 
 
 Eric Engelson, a spokesman with thestate board, declined comment Tuesday. 
 
 For the state board to initiate an investigation against Järlström is a direct attack on his free speech, his lawyers argue. Järlström identified himself as an engineer in emails he sent to city officials and the Washington County sheriff challenging the timing of Oregon's yellow traffic lights. 
 
 The state law that defines "engineer'' violates the First Amendment, their suit contends. 
 
 They also say Järlström isn't alone in getting snared by the state engineering board's aggressive enforcement of its interpretation of the word. 
 
 "The government does not have the power to take speech that is objectively true, declare it false and then punish speakers who -- wittingly or unwittingly – deviate from the government's idiosyncratic definition,'' wrote attorney William Ohle in the suit. 
 
 "Järlström thus brings this federal civil rights lawsuit," Ohle wrote, "to vindicate his and others' constitutional right to speak out on any topic – however complex it may be – and to describe themselves truthfully using the word 'engineer.' '' 
 
 This isn't Järlström's first foray into federal court. 
 
 In 2014, a judge tossed out Järlström's civil rights lawsuit against Beaverton that claimed the city's yellow lights were too short at intersections where the city had installed cameras to catch motorists running red lights. 
 
 His interest in the matter stemmed from a red-light-running ticket that his wife received in the mail in 2013. Since then, Järlström has conducted his own studies, presented his findings to local media and "60 Minutes" and even to the annual meeting last summer of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. He's currently working on an article to submit to an academic journal. 
 
 Järlström is a Swedish-born electronics engineer. After serving as an airplane-camera mechanic in the Swedish Air Force, he worked for Luxor Electronics and immigrated to the United States in 1992, settling in Oregon. Currently, he's self-employed, testing audio products and repairing and calibrating test instruments. 
 
 "The First Amendment guarantees to every American their right to debate anything and everything,'' said attorney Samuel Gedge, of the Institute for Justice. "And nobody needs a government permission slip to talk.'' 
 
 According to the suit, the state board has initiated similar "outrageous'' investigations against others for using the word "engineer,'' including Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman: 
 
 -- In 2014, the board received a complaint that the Voters' Pamphlet described Salatzman's background as "environmental engineer.'' Saltzman earned a bachelor of science degree in environmental and civil engineering from Cornell University, a master of science degree from MIT School of Civil Engineering and membership in the American Society of Civil Engineers. He isn't, however, an Oregon-licensed professional engineer. The board investigated, and nearly a year later, voted to warn Saltzman against using the word "engineer" in incorrect ways, according to board meeting minutes. 
 
 -- In 2010, an activist told the city council in La Pine that a new power plant would be too loud for nearby neighbors. The board fined the activist $1,000 for "illegal, unlicensed practice of engineering,'' according to board minutes. 
 
 -- More recently, the board initiated an investigation into the subject of a Portland Monthly article -- a woman immigrant and entrepreneur featured in an online story titled "The incredible story of an engineer behind Portland's newest bridge.'' The board opened an investigation because the woman wasn't a professionally licensed Oregon engineer. The board questioned the writer, who said the woman profiled didn't use the word "engineer" but her editors included it in the headline. The board ultimately found the allegation unfounded. 
 
 -- A board investigation was launched into Republican gubernatorial candidate Allen Alley based on a complaint that he misused the word "engineer'' in one of his political ads. In the ad, he said he'd take a different approach, noting, "I'm an engineer and a problem solver.'' He earned a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering from Purdue University and worked as an engineer for Ford and Boeing and holds a string of engineering-related awards. But because he's not an Oregon-registered professional engineer, the board launched an investigation that's ongoing 10 months later. 
 
 Järlström's suit doesn't seek monetary damages, but an order prohibiting the state board from continuing to censure nonlicensed engineers from speaking out, Gedge said. The attorneys will be seeking a preliminary injunction against the state board. 
 
 "We're just trying to protect Mats' rights going forward,'' he said. 
 
 "Criticizing the government's engineering isn't a crime; it's a constitutional right,'' Gedge said. "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 Institute for Justice is a national public interest law firm that advocates for First Amendment rights. It has filed similar types of lawsuits against occupation-licensing boards. 
 
 In Kentucky, for example, it filed a suit in federal court after the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology tried to censor the parenting advice of nationally syndicated columnist John Rosemond for "unlicensed practice of psychology.'' A federal judge in 2015 found the state board had "unconstitutionally applied'' state regulations to Rosemond's advice column and barred the board from pursuing such enforcement. 
 
 -- Maxine Bernstein 
 
 mbernstein@oregonian.com 
 
 503-221-8212 
 
 @maxoregonian ||||| An Oregon man's public criticism of the mathematical formula used by red light cameras got him in trouble — not with the police but with the state engineering board. 
 
 So he's suing, claiming a violation of free speech. 
 
 After his wife got a ticket based on a red light camera in Beaverton, Oregon, Mats Järlström, a Swedish-born electronics engineer, studied the calculations used to determine the length of the yellow light cycle. He concluded it was too short, because it failed to account for the longer time a driver needed to turn a corner, rather than go straight through the intersection. 
 
 Convinced the cameras were using an out-of-date formula, he took his message to practically anyone who would listen — local TV stations, a conference of traffic engineers, and even the state board of engineer examiners. 
 
 Mats Järlström in Beaverton, Oregon was fined $500 by speaking about engineering issues without a license, according to the board of engineer examiners, when he studied the calculations used to determine the length of the yellow light cycle after his wife received a ticket based on a red light camera. Institute for Justice 
 
 That's what got him in trouble. 
 
 The board fined him $500 and said he was violating a state law by speaking about engineering issues without a license. 
 
 "By providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations," the board said, "Järlström engaged in the practice of engineering." And since he didn't have a license issued by the state, he was violating the law, it said. 
 
 Now he’s suing in federal court, accusing the state of violating his First Amendment right to speak about a public issue. 
 
 "Criticizing the government's engineering isn't a crime. It's a constitutional right," said Samuel Gedge of the Institute for Justice, a conservative public interest law firm representing Järlström. "You don't need to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights." 
 
 Mats Järlström in Beaverton, Oregon was fined $500 by speaking about engineering issues without a license, according to the board of engineer examiners, when he studied the calculations used to determine the length of the yellow light cycle after his wife received a ticket based on a red light camera. Institute for Justice 
 
 As many states do, Oregon prohibits a person from practicing engineering without a license. But the state's board of engineering examiners equates publicly talking about engineering issues with practicing engineering. 
 
 "I was fined simply for speaking out and was told that I can't truthfully call myself an engineer. People should be free to debate any topic, including technical topics like math and traffic lights," Järlström said. 
 
 A spokesman for the state engineering board had no comment on the lawsuit, and the state has not yet responded in court. 
 
 Järlström paid the $500 fine. But he isn't suing to get his money back. 
 
 Another Institute for Justice lawyer on his legal team, Wesley Hottot, said the state is essentially requiring a permission slip to debate government policy. "This board and licensing boards across the country think the First Amendment doesn't apply to them. They couldn't be more wrong." ||||| Last fall, I accepted Mats Järlström’s invitation to spend a morning watching the traffic signals change at Southwest Allen Boulevard and Lombard Avenue. 
 
 Keep a close eye on the yellows, he said. 
 
 That, of course, is the location of one of Beaverton’s four busiest and unforgiving cops -- automated red-light cameras that have generated about 25,000 tickets since 2001. But because of that city’s imperfect yellow-light timing, many of those mailed citations, including the one for $260 issued to Järlström’s wife last April, were unjustified, he insists. 
 
 “Basically, they sent a ticket to the wife of the wrong guy,” Järlström told me as we watched the camera flash its way through the morning commute. 
 
 Maybe. But given Oregon’s often-misunderstood “restrictive” rules about how drivers should treat yellow lights, I’m worried that he may be spinning his wheels. 
 
 A Volvo-driving native of Sweden, Järlström is as sharp as a needle. He’s an engineer with expertise in calibration and electronics. His livelihood is built on precision. So, when his frame-by-frame video analysis of hundreds of yellow-light cycles at Allen and Lombard showed variations in timing, it makes sense that he would be outraged. 
 
 Typical of a yellow light on a flat 30 mph street in the Portland area, the one at the red-light camera on Allen is set to last 3.5 seconds, the city of Beaverton says. However, Järlström found some yellows last only 3.35 seconds. 
 
 A fraction of a second difference. We're talking 150 milliseconds. Big whoop, right? Actually, at 30 mph, a car can travel about seven feet in that eye-blink of time. 
 
 Judging from the citation video that Järlström shared with me, seven feet could have made the difference between his wife being forced to write a $260 check to the city or keeping that money to put gas into her white Volkswagen. 
 
 In recent months, Järlström has shown up at 13 Beaverton City Council meetings and made a load of appearances on local radio and TV news, demanding that the city increase the timing of its yellow lights -- even if it would knock the signals out of sync with those in surrounding jurisdictions. 
 
 “Not all Beaverton drivers are being treated equally under the law,” he said. 
 
 I admire his drive. But I think this is where I should thank Järlström for his work on the behalf of Portland area commuters and wish him good luck on what is looking like a quixotic campaign. 
 
 Beaverton’s yellow lights aren’t the problem. The reality, rather, is that too many Oregon drivers don’t seem to have a full grasp of how they’re supposed to treat yellows. 
 
 You see, the vast majority of U.S. states, including Washington, have what are called “permissive” rules, allowing drivers to enter an intersection during an entire yellow interval. (A violation occurs only if a driver enters after the onset of red.) Not Oregon. It’s one of only 12 states with a “restrictive” yellow-light rule, which essentially translates into “a solid circular yellow means stop and red means stay stopped.” 
 
 Vehicles are only allowed to continue if it’s not possible to do so safely. It doesn’t appear from the video that Järlström's wife was anywhere near that so-called “dilemma zone.” Indeed, last year, a judge watched the video and told her bluntly, “It looks you ran a red light.” 
 
 
 
 Ticket upheld. 
 
 Frankly, a traffic cop at the scene would have likely been less forgiving than the camera. 
 
 
 
 Now, I can’t say that I’m a big fan of the Portland area’s red-light cameras; they look and act too much like a harbinger of a soul-less, revenue-generating Robocop future. But they appear to be improving safety -- locally, at least. Since 2005, Portland’s 11 cameras have been credited with a 39 percent reduction in crashes, especially deadly T-bones, in some of its most-treacherous intersections. 
 
 The ugly truth is red-light runners kill more than 900 people a year in the U.S. A week after two Portland pedestrians were killed in two crashes over a period of 24 hours, I don't think we should be making our streets any less safer, even if we're talking about just 150 milliseconds. 
 
 Certainly, Redflex, the Australian company contracted to operate Beaverton’s redlight cameras, isn’t exactly a pillar of ethics. It has been shaken by several scandals in recent months, including accusations of widespread bribing of government officials and encouraging cities to place cameras in locations to maximize revenue rather than safety. 
 
 But there’s no evidence that Beaverton is cheating drivers out of their money. In fact, every one of the nation’s more than 1.2 million traffic signals is built for endurance, not to be costly high-precision instruments. There are going to be tolerances – allowing slightly longer and slightly shorter yellows. 
 
 Even at 3.35 seconds, Beaverton’s yellow-light intervals would easily meet the Institute of Transportation Engineers' widely followed recommendation of 3.2 seconds for a busy 30 mph street. 
 
 Meanwhile, in the keep-going-on-yellow state of Florida, the department of transportation was recently caught quietly shortening yellow-light intervals by a half second, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red-light camera fines. 
 
 Now that’s scandalous. 
 
 If Beaverton is unwilling to increase yellow-light intervals, Järlström wants the city to give drivers a half-second grace period between when the signal turns red and electro-magnetic camera triggers under the crosswalk turn on. 
 
 That puzzles Beaverton Public Works director Peter Arellano. No one is challenging the calibration of the red-light cameras. 
 
 “I don’t see why we should knowingly allow people to run red lights when that’s the behavior we’re trying to stop,” Arellano said. 
 
 -- Joseph Rose 
 
 
 
 
 
 ||||| In September 2014, Mats Järlström, an electronics engineer living in Beaverton, Oregon, sent an email to the state's engineering board. The email claimed that yellow traffic lights don't last long enough, which "puts the public at risk." 
 
 "I would like to present these facts for your review and comments," he wrote. 
 
 This email resulted not with a meeting, but with a threat. The Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying responded with this dystopian message: 
 
 "ORS 672.020(1) prohibits the practice of engineering in Oregon without registration … at a minimum, your use of the title 'electronics engineer' and the statement 'I'm an engineer' … create violations." 
 
 In January of this year, Järlström was officially fined $500 by the state for the crime of "practicing engineering without being registered." 
 
 * 
 
 An excerpt from one of the letters sent to Järlström by the Oregon engineering board. 
 
 It started in 2013, when Järlström's wife was caught running a red light by a camera near their home. Järlström spent a year looking into the timing of yellow lights and red light camera statistics, and learned that cameras were catching people who were running yellow lights. 
 
 
 
 The original paper that determined yellow light timing, written in 1959, is too simplistic for the modern world, he said. And yet the original calculations in them are still used all around the world. 
 
 A screengrab from the final fine order sent to Järlström. 
 
 "They only looked at a vehicle traveling safely directly through an intersection, however the equation they developed is not used for turning lanes," Järlström told me. "When you make a turn you slow down but that's not accounted for in their solution, so people are getting caught in red light cameras for making safe turns." 
 
 
 
 Järlström, understandably, wanted to get feedback on his findings. And so he reached out to the engineering board, his local sheriff, and 60 Minutes. He was even invited to give a talk about his research in front of the Institute of Transportation Engineers in Anaheim, California. He also spoke to Alexei Maradudin, the last surviving author of that 1959 paper: "He wants me to continue with this, it's amazing that I have his support," Järlström said. 
 
 The engineering board cited each time Järlström used the word "engineer" or "engineering" in emails he sent to them. 
 
 To be clear, Järlström is doing this work in his free time, for free, and does not have any control over the red lights in Oregon or anywhere else. In 2014, he sued the City of Beaverton over the length of its yellow light lengths, but that case was quickly thrown out because a judge said he lacked standing to challenge it because "for purposes of standing, Plaintiff must allege that the short yellow-light intervals create a credible threat of imminent injury to him." 
 
 
 
 "I'm not practicing engineering, I'm just using basic mathematics and physics, Newtonian laws of motion, to make calculations and talk about what I found," Järlström said. 
 
 Some of Järlström's calculations. 
 
 And yet, the engineering board in Oregon says he should not be free to publish or present his ideas. Tuesday, Järlström and the Institute for Justice sued the engineering board in federal court for Violating his First Amendment rights. 
 
 
 
 "Mats has a clear First Amendment right to talk about anything from taxes to traffic rights," Sam Gedge, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, told me. "It's an instance of a licensing board trying to suppress speech." 
 
 Järlström, for his part, said he never expected anything like this to happen when he moved to the United States from Sweden 20 years ago. 
 
 "When I got the first letter, it was this feeling of being violated and shocked that someone can be treated like this in the USA for sharing their ideas," he said. "I've done this freely, self-funded, as a civil service. I want to show these ideas to the public and I'm getting surpassed. It's been a civil rights violation since day one." 
 
 Below is Järlström's correspondence with the Oregon engineering board and the official fine notice it sent him. 
 
 mats4 by Jason Koebler on Scribd 
 
 mats3 by Jason Koebler on Scribd 
 
 mats2 by Jason Koebler on Scribd 
 
 mats1 by Jason Koebler on Scribd
– After electronics engineer Mats Järlström publicly challenged the mathematical formula used by the traffic cameras in his town of Beaverton, Ore., he was slapped with a $500 ticket for practicing engineering without a license. Now he’s suing the Oregon State Board of Examiners for squashing his First Amendment right to discuss public safety issues, reports NBC News. The story began in 2013 when Järlström’s wife received a $260 ticket for running a red light, Oregon Live reported in 2014. He studied the light cycles at various intersections caught by traffic cameras and claimed that the formulas were outdated; he believes the yellow light cycle is too short for turning lanes. He attended more than a dozen city council meetings, did interviews with local television stations, and even wrote to the state’s board of engineer examiners. That’s where his trouble started, reports Motherboard, because he included the words, “I am an engineer” in his email. State law says that engineers must be licensed by the state to practice engineering, which includes speaking on the topic. The automated traffic cameras in Beaverton resulted in 25,000 tickets between 2001 and 2014, many of which the 56-year-old Järlström believes are unwarranted. But for Järlström, who paid the board's $500 fine (his wife's original $260 fine was also paid), the matter is now more personal. "It's important in my mind we can share ideas freely in Oregon to promote innovation,'' he says, per Oregon Live. "I feel violated at this point in time.'' And his work is far from done: He's also working on an article on the subject he hopes to publish in an academic journal.