Maybe part of the problem is that in other industries/professions the ‘ranks’ are perhaps better defined.
In medicine, you have the various 'ranks' of Doctor (consultant, registrar, Senior House Officer, House officer… I can’t remember all the US equivalents, can’t have watched enough ER

), as well as different ranks of Nurses, and the growing range of Physicians Assistants, Nurse practitioners etc.
In the legal system you have similar, in the UK you have Barristers then Solicitors (some of whom are now allowed to conduct ‘minor’ cases in court), in the US Attorneys & Paralegals etc.
I’m inclined to think most of these are fairly well defined and well understood even outside of the relevant industries.
In Engineering, it doesn’t seem so clear cut. Of course, there’s Engineers, which even the members of this site can’t agree to the definition of, then there’s a range of Technicians, Designers, Draftsmen/Drafters, Checkers, Tracers etc. And if you get into small scale Civil you then get to add Builders, Contractors, Tradesmen etc into the mix. And probably others for other specializations that I’ve missed.
And there’s all the separate (at least sometimes) but associated fields such as Architect, Surveyor etc. Given that different Engineering Industries or Specialties don’t have a standardized ‘rank’ structure is it any wonder the public at large confuses Engineers with Train Drivers, Appliance Repairmen and Mechanics.
The oft quoted solution, especially from those in Civil & Structural that deal most often directly (or near directly) with the public, is to tighten up the rules on who can be called an engineer to strictly only those with PE/CEng. While I believe this could and probably should form part of the solution I truly don’t believe it alone is sufficient and with the current rules on getting PE/CEng would exclude too many who in my opinion do have the right to be called Engineers (for whatever it’s worth).
Just my 2 penneth