I find it funny that the article describes him as a "Swedish-born electronics engineer". This is all dumb and is the result of the public not being informed or knowing what a PE or being chartered is. Everyone who is chartered or a professional engineer should be compelled to identify themselves as such to avoid confusion. Everyone knows a doctor has a medical certificate and every lawyer has a license to practice law. Engineering does a terrible job in educating the public as to what being licensed means by trying to bogard the term "engineer".

I did find this interesting and have had numerous discussions regarding use of the term engineer throughout my career. I became an "engineer" when I got my BSCE in 1972. I became a PE when I passed the exam in 1977 or 78.

Late in my career one supervisor would not let the new engineers use the term "Engineer" on their cards or emails because of his strict interpretation of the State's position. I felt the restriction should be on PE not engineer in its generic definition.

Where I did get upset was throughout my career in the paper industry where people without engineering degrees where given titles such as Process or Production Engineers, Safety Engineer, or even Mechanical or Electrical Engineer. The first three may have had degrees in Paper Science or other "technical" disciplines, while the last two often had no degrees at all; having worked up though technical trades.

gjc

He lost out because Oregon has no industrial exemption: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060.

Seemed to me that he was blatantly pushing the envelope. Had he keep to something like "BSEE 1982 Uppsala University" he could have gotten away with it. He's pi$$ing into the wind, since it's Oregon law, and the board is probably indemnified for following the law.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

#5 in the link is Oregon's industrial exemption.

I find it interesting that an attorney, presumably a member of the Oregon Bar, is arguing the matter this way.

sorry, I missed that, but it's still very restrictive and open to interpretation. Based on #5, he still shot himself in the foot, since the industrial exemption is negated when public safety is involved, which was the subject of his original letter.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

The other examples in the article sound even worse. One guy just mentions his past work as an engineer in a political add, which he was, albeit in an exempt industry, and they opened an investigation. This sounds overly restrictive to me.

He /said/ he's an engineer, but was he "practicing" engineering without State registration? Where's the danger to the public? He /commented/ on what should be done, and showed his research. He didn't /enact/ any policy or provide any designs. He told the resident engineers that they should change things, in detail.

Seems to me like they're pretty far out of line.

There are gobs of engineers who never even sat for a P.E. exam, whom are in no way deceitful in having 'engineer' on their business card.

This is so extremely stupid.

The guy's attorney says this:
""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."

1. The government (state of Oregon) did not take his speech and declare it false.

2. The guy's argument that the traffic signal timing was off is not the issue. He is and always was free to criticize the government for that.

3. The state simply fined him for claiming to be an engineer when, in the state of Oregon, he was not. He was simply trying to bolster his argument by laying claim to a regulated profession.

4. "wittingly or unwittingly"..... in all areas of the US and all states - the law generally denies the defense of ignorance of the law makes you innocent.

5. No one took away any free speech rights...unless you want to argue, as the attorney seems to arguing, that you could run into NORAD, claim you are president of the USA, and push the red button whenever you want.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

The free speech angle is interesting. The California statute states that just calling oneself "electrical engineer" means that they "practice" electrical engineering, and are in violation of the law, presumably aside from the industrial exemption. Presumably, since "sanitation engineer" is not specifically referenced in section 6732 of the California code, one could claim to be a sanitation engineer without getting into trouble.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

This article - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fin... - provides more detailed information, including links to relevant documents, making clear that the engineering board in Oregon says he should not be free to publish or present his ideas.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

So there were two examples from politicians, one published by the government in the form of the Voters Pamphlet. (I guess they don't vet) To alter JAE's answer #3 above to apply to the politicians: The state simply investigated/warned him for claiming to be an engineer when, in the state of Oregon, he was not. He was simply trying to bolster his political credibility by laying claim to a regulated profession that operates under a code of ethics.

What's the danger to the public? Might get some braggart in office that's way under-qualified. A remote possibility, of course.

IRstuff, I can vaguely recall an Oregon case where the term "domestic engineer" (for a maid service) was determined not to be confusing to the public, and therefore not subject to a fine.

Unfortunately, over the ages, the term "engineer" has been genetically modified as it were to the point that the term has become very generalized - colloquialized as it were.

This generalized use is very different than the term "Attorney", where the perception is automatically one of a person who is licensed to practice law. A law school graduate is not considered to be an Attorney until after passing the bar. This is not true for engineers, some of whom do not need to be licensed to "practice" engineering, specifically in the industrial arena.

Although the case seems to be ridiculous, even if it is thrown out for lack of substance, which I doubt here, the public's perception and use of the term "engineer" will not change.

In my mind, the use of the term "engineer" without specifying the discipline or license qualification, is acceptable so long as there is no monetary interest or claim to fame as it were involved. Not all will agree with this...

There are undoubtedly additional qualifications to this too...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

Quote:

sorry, I missed that, but it's still very restrictive and open to interpretation. Based on #5, he still shot himself in the foot, since the industrial exemption is negated when public safety is involved, which was the subject of his original letter.

So non-licensed colleagues should be prosecuted if they share any concern for public safety? Sounds like a great way to stop whistleblowing!

Quote:

The state simply fined him for claiming to be an engineer when, in the state of Oregon, he was not. He was simply trying to bolster his argument by laying claim to a regulated profession.

No one took away any free speech rights...unless you want to argue, as the attorney seems to arguing, that you could run into NORAD, claim you are president of the USA, and push the red button whenever you want.

The problem with your argument is that there is no room for ambiguity, sadly there are many rulings that support this and contradict the many that do not. Depending on the judge, you could walk into NORAD claiming to be president and there may/may not be impersonation/fraud/other such charges used bc you didn't state what you were president of. OTOH had you claimed to be POTUS there's little doubt of such a charge sticking. Personally I don't see as engineers why we cannot make distinctions between the two given that other professions and our own professional societies (including NSPE) very commonly and clearly do. From what I have read he never claimed to be a PE so I believe the Oregon board greatly overstepped their ethical bounds.

I feel that as long as someone has a degree in engineering and is not otherwise misrepresenting their credentials, they should be able to call themselves an "Engineer"

I agree that the perceived "overreaching" by the Oregon State Board of lawfully stipulated regulations and terminology will be an issue here, with the courts setting some limits, limits that will not benefit the reputation and public perception of registered and licensed practicing engineers. That will still be our endeavor as professionals.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

CWB1 - the guy could easily, and legally, criticized the traffic signals without claiming to be an engineer. No speech would have been denied him - and from what I read, no speech was EVER denied him even after his spurious "engineer" claim - they just fined him for his credential enhancement actions - not his speech about the signals.

XR250 - I sort of feel that way too - but this simply shows that there are two realms of argument here:
1. If it is illegal on the books - then it is simply illegal to claim "engineer" status in some states. You can't claim that he didn't violate the law.
2. Should the state have laws that prohibit the use of engineer? Or Professional Engineer? Valid question but doesn't change the law unless you can get legislatures to change the law.

One is a legal realm and one is a "what-ought-to-be" realm.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

If the law is deemed unconstitutional, then the phrasing of the law is very important.

Here is the article in the regular newsletter to engineers in Oregon

http://www.oregon.gov/Osbeels/docs/Newsletters/201...

Page 6

I concur that the board is going a bit overboard,
when I read the newsletter, it looked to me like he was HIRED to tune traffic lights
and lacked qualifications to do so, hence I was surprised by the low fine.

Now it looks like the the guy was out there with a stop watch and a tape measure looking to get out of a traffic ticket, and the calculation is taught in any physics class.
Of course the real situation it is probably someplace between the two extremes.

In the past few decades the intersections in the Beaverton area have grown from the 2 lane country paths they were when I was learning to drive. And I can see where yellow light duration's may not have changed to accommodate a larger intersections, the book says the yellow light is X seconds long so they make it that way. Now the City has a revenue source with red light cameras. There is a real lottery revenue stream, if you are the unlucky one you get a ticket in the mail. (The State has the monopoly on the normal lottery.)
But I also see car after car going through even though the light is red, especially on a left turn signal.

I too also recall the domestic engineer case by the Oregon Engineering Board several decades ago.

Got all the above typed up then read the Motherboard article
from the Motherboard article, it looks like City (in the full color chart) is not following ORS 811.260(4) a state law.

but then you look up 811.260(4) it has no such calcs or chart

And that chart was drawn up by Jarlstrom, and that chart looks like a very detailed engineering calculation and now that chart is published.

Humff
Again the real situation is between

Hydrae

I think the state of Oregon is being too precious. If the guy were practicing as an engineer, or offering his services as an engineer, fair enough. But he was merely calling himself an engineer. By Oregon's definition, I am not an engineer, since I am retired and no longer registered to practice anywhere. But by their definition, I was never an engineer, because I was never licensed in that state.

As far as I am concerned, once an engineer, always an engineer. And I will continue to call myself an engineer, and Oregon be damned.

Operating Engineers Local 701 out of Gladstone, OR can expect a similar 'cease and desist' letter any time now:

Quote (IUOE 701 Local)

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701 represents heavy equipment operators, heavy duty repairers, technical engineers and stationary engineers throughout Oregon and Southwest Washington.

Technical and stationary engineers?

Link

Ingenuity,
That will not happen it "The Peoples Republic of Oregon".

It all started with the concept of locomotive "engineers" way back when.

Here the term is a euphemism for an "operator".

So, by that logic, Al Capone was an engineer too. He was a real operator!

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

I don't know how Oregon defines and regulates "engineer", "Engineer", and their derivatives, but I think—from a philosophical point of view—they are on the wrong side of the issues raised in the article.

IMHO, a graduate engineer is a little "e" engineer. Period. Then, professional licensure makes one a big "E" Engineer of whatever type the license is for. As I understand the article, it appears that Mr. Järlström only called himself a little "e" engineer, which he is. My dad has a BS in petroleum engineering, but never worked in that field. Instead, he worked as a general engineer at Dow Chemical for a while after getting out of the Air Force, so he would have come under the industrial exemption here in California. He later became a high school chemistry teacher. He still correctly refers to himself as a little "e" engineer.

IMHO, Mr. Järlström was NOT practicing engineering. Hokie66 said it well: "If the guy were practicing as an engineer, or offering his services as an engineer, fair enough. But he was merely calling himself an engineer."

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

JAE,
While it may not be important or even relevant, many folks appreciate knowing a bit about the person they are interacting with as the first part of open and honest communication, introductory small talk if you will. Sure, he could have omitted his engineering experience however omitting even vaguely relevant details often quickly turns folks mistrustful when they're discovered, people always look for personal agendas in govt/politics. Regardless, he disclosed this info protecting the public's welfare to the board appointed with interpreting and enforcing these laws as necessary, the board did have a choice and made one of questionable ethics. Personally I have never understood how these boards can repeatedly denigrate senior engineers in this manner while promoting junior engineers with almost no experience.

"Personally I have never understood how these boards can repeatedly...."

Because they are the arm of the state, it is the law, and no one in the legislature is moved (by their constituencies) to change that law.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

The board made it pretty clear that they had no dog in the hunt with respect to his subject material. They objected to his describing himself as an "engineer" and as an "excellent engineer." He seemed to go out of his way to push the legal envelope that's already established case law. He was neither registered nor covered by the Oregon industrial exemption, since this was a personal project and his occupation wasn't even as an exempted engineer.

I think his lawsuit will crash and spectacularly burn. He reads like Don Quixote.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote (IRstuff)

The board made it pretty clear that they had no dog in the hunt with respect to his subject material

Actually they do.

Look into document titled "NOTICE OF INTENT TO ASSESS CIVIL PENALTY". It says just so:

"By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineering ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon’s and “worldwide” traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation and design in connection with public equipment and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering…
…
By engaging the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) AND oar 820-010-07370(3)(c) on a second occasion.

So his crime was not just in calling himself "engineer", but "reviewing, critiquing, and submitting the critique to members of the public".

Not to mention he attempted to "advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing" (from the same document)

It's more like you see bridge that is about to collapse but are gagged by local authority to prevent making your knowledge public without proper licence.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

"No good deed goes unpunished", does it, CheckerHater? Sometimes the law is an ass.

hokie66...you need to be more assertive in your opinions. You're getting too mellow in retirement!

On one hand, I can see the point of the board....to prevent the erosion of the profession. Most state boards in the US have similar prohibitions, though perhaps not as aggressively pursued.

Actually, the guy was practicing engineering. He was opining on the timing of traffic lights....a purview of traffic engineering as a subset of civil engineering.....and he was doing so in a public forum.....even if you set aside the term "engineer", he was "practicing" outside his area of expertise....he's not a civil engineer with traffic engineering expertise. While he might be correct, he usurped the term "engineer" in an effort to add credibility to his argument. That is precisely what the law seeks to prevent.

Most of the articles I've seen about this claim the Board is responsible for the what is referred to as the "title act" in Oregon and is trying to use it to suppress his speech. This is simply wrong. The "title act" is in the Oregon Revised Statutes (laws), meaning the state legislature made it a law that a person cannot refer to themselves as an engineer unless registered as a professional engineer.

If I understand things correctly, the Board has responsibility for directly creating and amending the Oregon Administrative Rules (rules) related to engineering, but cannot directly change the Oregon Revised Statutes. They sometimes propose legislation changes, but anyone can do that - the legislature still has to enact the changes they propose.

They do, however, have responsibility for enforcing both the laws and the rules. They do so without interpretation. I can't believe he found an attorney to take his case - oh wait, yes I can - he found an attorney to take his case money. I doubt that he'll win.

xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Hypothetical:

Maybe there is an unwritten part of the story that includes the guy pestering and being a nuisance to the city employees while trying to get out of paying for his wife's ticket. They finally got fed up and and used his engineer proclamation as an opportunity to slap him on the wrist.

Could you believe that a guy who spends his spare time trying to prove or disprove engineering behind a yellow light time could have irritated some people along his journey towards a bunch of news story?

Naw!

On a side note; how legitimate is his claim about yellow light times? I thought traffic engineers (real ones) accounted for light timing and a lot of other statistical data to time lights for traffic flow. Is the timing of the light color itself not even considered as this guy purports?

If the State of Oregon is going to focus on the public voicing of criticism of the engineering ITE formulas, then I do believe it's a LEGITIMATE objection on the basis of free speech. If the focus is on that paragraph of the complaint/charge, the State is saying that only registered (by the State) engineers have permission to even criticize State-implemented practices of law.

I find that particularly applicable to the purpose of Free Speech, protected so very, very, very specifically for reasons of petitioning the government. To require a State issued license before one may address the State in complaint, making arguments of technical content, is to me, pretty illustrative of suppression of Free Speech with an intent to suppress critique.


I, at first, thought it appropriate to merely focus on the difference between /practicing engineering/ and merely /claiming/ one is an engineer, and whether or not he /was/ practicing engineering. If we accept the State's assessment that he /was/ practicing engineering, then it certainly becomes a matter of Constitutional violations, imo.

Agree with JNieman.

This IS Free Speech issue.

One should be able to make public statement regarding what he or she believes is wrong.

Such public statement is expected to be made "to the best of person's knowledge and understanding", and "knowledge and understanding" may include Engineering degree, no matter where and when received.

And about legitimacy of the claim. From the article:

"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."

So, he submitted his findings to peer review no less.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

Quote (Terratek)

I thought traffic engineers (real ones) accounted for light timing and a lot of other statistical data to time lights for traffic flow

Think again: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/10/16/...

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

@Terratek,

The amount of thought that goes into the timing of lights varies by municipality and as lawsuits have shown, some are very intentionally and maliciously reduced for purposes of revenue. Those, being the outliers, are grouped in with those who merely don't put much thought into their lights and make it up as they go along. Some municipalities may lump 'traffic lights' responsibilities onto an engineer already overburdened by civil engineering tasks, and, unable to prioritize the lights, just sort of throws a canned response at it that may not fit the situation. Regardless, the police have equal authority to enforce compliance with bad designs.

Quote (the police have equal authority to enforce compliance with bad designs.)

But the police can also ignore enforcement by their own judgement, whereas a photo ticket just generates revenue without the review of the situation. If it was the last car in the line and the line of cars suddenly slows down forcing the last car to violate, the Police may let that one go, but the photo ticket sends out the ticket anyway.

The short yellows and photo tickets become a cash cow for the city without much cost. It also becomes a cash cow for the company that put up the photo ticket generator who is a contract company.
There is a quick review by an officer before sending out the ticket, but in order to properly fight these tickets it takes legal help.

Hydrae

Everywhere I've lived (small sample size) the camera-ticketing systems had to have real traffic officers review each and every one to ensure validity. One major city in Louisiana I lived in had 'x' seconds of video recorded with the photograph of the offense, so there was additional context included. I don't know how universal that is. Seems reasonable to me if you're going to use the camera systems. They're far from my ideal law enforcement tool, but that's just my opinion.

But like @Terratek suggested about the 'offender' in the story... the law can also be abused to "punish" someone for being annoying if they just don't like him and want to retaliate with police/court power.

I read through the State Board of Examiners Final Order By Default.

The board took exception to the use of the word engineer. OK, the law says you can't.

But they also took exception to him reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula. They claimed that by doing so it constitutes "purporting to be able to perform engineering services or work". In simple terms, the board said he was claiming to be a PE or offering engineering services simply by critiquing and alternating a formula written by a PE. This is wrong no matter how you try to spin it, and would be the basis of his case.

I wish I could find a direct link. I found it here, but you have to click on the explore case in depth link and then go to the bottom to find the report.

http://ij.org.ln.is/yE0uE?ref=patrick.net

Not sure how I should feel, seeing Lionel Hutz agree with my opinions on the law.

I think the distinction needs to be made between engineer and Professional Engineer and not over who is and who is not an engineer. Engineer is a very loose term that can mean anyone who is a problem solver (typically with an engineering degree). There are many engineers out there in industries that don't require a PE but they perform the same analytical tasks as a PE. The fact that they do not possess a PE license does not make them any more or less of an engineer. I have worked with several non licensed engineers that were more technically capable and more well versed in codes than engineers with a PE. In my opinion, the term "engineer" should not be regulated but rather the term "Professional Engineer" which implies that you generally have 4 years of experience and passed a test.

I always thought the only prohibition to the general use of the term engineer was in the naming of a business or hiring yourself out as a professional engineer. I've got a BSME, took the EIT but never saw any reason to take the PE exam. Every job title at every company I've worked for says I'm some kind of engineer. This gut was not misrepresenting himself as a professional engineer and was not soliciting money from the populace for his engineering skills. I don't see the Oregon state board as having any standing and wish the guy well in his campaign against red light cameras.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

Should someone be a doctor before completing residency, or a lawyer before passing the bar? I think we should hold the title of engineer to a similar standard. Granted, I'm in Canada, where this is the case.

Quote (canwesteng)

Should someone be a doctor before completing residency?

Yes, PhD. You don't have to be a Doctor of Medicine to call yourself a "doctor"

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

And this is how msn spins it...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/oregon-fines-m...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

Sorry for the little offtopic here, I am just curious...
I am an engineer (because of degree / experience / professional registration) but I am not "practicing" engineering as such due to the fact that I am unemployed (on long leave or whatsoever). Am I still allowed to call myself an engineer ? say my question applies to the US context / regulatory for the practice of engineering.

By everything you have stated, of course. No worries. Current Employment status matters not...

If that were true, then every time you were laid off, you could not say that you were an engineer to a potential employer - ridiculous thought.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

Quote (rotw)

Am I still allowed to call myself an engineer ?

In Oregon you better not.

Here is the screenshot from the site that is a bit difficult to navigate (but you can go and try: http://ij.org/case/oregon-engineering-speech/ )

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=41078d0d-fc89-49c9-a43c-4a

"I am an engineer (because of degree / experience / professional registration) but I am not "practicing" engineering as such due to the fact that I am unemployed (on long leave or whatsoever). Am I still allowed to call myself an engineer ? say my question applies to the US context / regulatory for the practice of engineering."

If the /s above are ORs, no. But there is no requirement to be employed as an engineer to use the title. Keep your PDHs and Oregon registration up to date and you are good.

Did anyone notice that he called himself an engineer to the very board that regulates the profession in Oregon? And after being warned the first time he continued to do so? The man was looking for a fight, got what he wanted, and even paid the fine. While the board claimed that providing the calculations constituted engineering without a license, I don't believe they would have fined him or anyone else for doing math as long as they don't refer to themselves as engineers while unregistered.

I concur that the yellows are too short. If I happen to blink at the wrong moment, I've missed the change and compensate by either over hard braking or by pushing the yellow.

I suppose if he had called himself a mathematician or a physicist, he would have been fine. Makes no sense. I hope he wins the free speech claim. How wide is this protection of the word "engineer" in the lower case? In Australia, you have to be licensed to practice the profession, but "ABC Engineering" can be a welding shop. In my experience, there is no damage done to the Profession of Engineering by the use of the word in this manner. Conversely, here the folks who drive trains are not called "engineers", but rather "train drivers".

And "ABC Engineering" does have to be licensed as a business, where, on the application for licensing, the nature of the business is identified. The critical word here is "licensed" to be legal.

When I was a young child my first perception of the word "Engineer" pertainied to my train set locomotives, and the fact that my grandfather was a locomotive engineer for Southern Pacific on a run from Plains to Savannah.

It was only in the late fifties that I assigned another meaning to the word.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

Oregon's law makes it very clear that anything that relates to public safety requires licensed engineers.

> calling himself an engineer, when unlicensed, is a violation of the law
> performing AND publishing an analysis of a safety-related issue, when unlicensed, is a violation of the law.

His suit should be more about the safety imperative that's inherent in the law; there should an obligation to report hazards to public safety, regardless of whether he's licensed or not. If the board is truly intended to protect public safety, then they are shirking their public responsibility as protectors of the public by punishing someone who potentially has pointed out a valid issue with the timing of the lights. The board, at no time, has claimed that his argument has no merit, therefore, they simply punishing him for being ethical and safety-conscious.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

How long ago (or do they still) prevent motorists from putting gasoline in their own cars?

I only visited Oregon with a car once and the guy definitely filled far above the fill-no-more level.

IRstuff,

I had similar thought as you have summarized. I felt I needed to "hold my horses" when I realized that the board (to their credit) has given a first warning. I guess a "smart" engineer who is genuinely concerned by public safety would have heard the message (their was a traffic signaling light saying "be careful") and corrected their attitude accordingly - I'd say as bare minimum - in order not to jeopardize by himself the process and the claim at once. In this case tI suppose it was just a matter of tweaking a bit his title, "technical expert, auto-claimed specialist, etc." all of these are example of non controlled titles which can provide alternative, if I am correct.
PS: I am not working in US, so I took the latitude to share a philosophical opinion on the subject, hope its OK ;)

If you respect your profession and want to continue to make a living at it, it is important to keep standards at the highest level possible. It is as much a marketing concern as anything else. Engineering today, in spite of board efforts, which have been extremely poor, has become little more than a commodity. If this trend continues, things will degrade to levels seen in England, where anyone that can pick up a screwdriver is an engineer. If you think that's good for your pay grade, you've got a real surprise coming. If you want to know how to do this right, aspire to duplicate the AMA. They've got the cat in the bag. Would you even think to go to just any doctor in training for your bypass surgury? Even at 25% of the cost? No you want insurance, lots of it, so you can afford to go to a real doctor. One with plenty of experience.

Technology is stealing American jobs. Stop H1-Bs for robots.

Quote:

If this trend continues, things will degrade to levels seen in England, where anyone that can pick up a screwdriver is an engineer.

I mostly agree with your point as I firmly believe that in the US we have made it far too easy to become a PE, however having started on the shop floor I also need to point out that many overseas including the British have commonly used "engineer" to mean a machinist for centuries.

@BigInch

I wouldn't ever sacrifice the ability to criticize the government. Some repeat that the board is /only/ against him for using the title 'engineer' but that is simply not true. Their writing has been directly linked to multiple times in this thread. I suggest reading them in their entirety. Especially this gem:

Quote (http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-J...)

18 By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the
19 critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public
20 for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and "worldwide" traffic signals,
21 which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge
22 of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation,
23 evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. J arlstrom
Page 6 - FINAL ORDER BY DEFAULT
1 thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). By doing so through
2 the use of algorithms for the operation of traffic control systems, and through the use of the
3 science of analysis, review, and application of traffic data systems to advise members of the
4 public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom
5 engaged, specifically, in traffic engineering under OAR 820-040-0030(1 )(b) and (2)(a). By
6 engaging the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration,
7 J arlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1 ), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3 )( c) on a second
8 occas10n.

To rephrase the verbiage:

By applying knowledge of mathematics and logic, Jarlstrom was engaging in unlicensed engineering.

If this does not get challenged and overturned, this is a dangerous precedent. If upheld, this supports a State employing a monopoly on the practice of mathematics, physics, or logic and prevents anyone not licensed by the same State from legally being able to criticize or evaluate the engineering of the State.

Their suit goes far beyond someone simply professing themselves as an engineer without appropriate licensing.

This isn't about free speech. It’s about an egomaniac and a couple of ambulance chasers who agree with him to turn this into a media spectacle.

If this guy were half an “engineer”, he would have filled out the paperwork and paid the nominal fee to get licensed in Oregon. Then he could have engaged in this argument in a professional, respectable manner.

I think we decided, long ago, with poll taxes, that you can't impose "nominal fees" on Constitutionally protected rights, including free speech. Redressing Government practices is one of the basic tenets of free speech.

He might be an egomaniac - that's completely moot. His lawyers might be ambulance chasers. That's completely moot. All that matters are the facts and whether or not they're right. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. In fact, this isn't even about /him/ anymore but rather about all Oregonians and possibly Americans.

To say that anyone mailing in some mathematical proofs and illustrations is "performing engineering" in a manner requiring registration and license with the State Board is ludicrous. The requirements are not "nominal" seeing as how you must have a degree, years of work under a P.E., and then sit for a test (in most States) so I don't see how that's something to so easily brush off.

"If this does not get challenged and overturned, this is a dangerous precedent. If upheld, this supports a State employing a monopoly on the practice of mathematics, physics, or logic and prevents anyone not licensed by the same State from legally being able to criticize or evaluate the engineering of the State."

This is hardly a precedent. I would guess that the basic wording is from the national board.

Quote (California PE Act)

“Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged in the professional practice of rendering service or creative work requiring education, training and experience in engineering sciences and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences in such professional or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning or design of public or private utilities, structures, machines, processes, circuits, buildings, equipment or projects, and supervision of construction for the purpose of securing compliance with specifications and design for any such work.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

If he's suing on the grounds of civil rights, and is heard, and a ruling is made, that's exactly what a precedent is, and exactly what future cases can base judgment upon.

Again - the Oregon board made it into more than simply an issue of whether or not he's a licensed engineer. They made it into an issue of what constitutes performing engineering work which requires a license, and quite broadly overstated their case, imo.

JNieman - I am in the general view that the guy was fined for only claiming to be an engineer when he was not licensed.

But in reading your posted quote there it sets up an important question.

I can see on one hand that the state could come in and fine the guy for his claim as an engineer. Whether it SHOULD be "engineer" or "Professional Engineer" can be debated.

However, most states that I am licensed in (and I used to be in Oregon) limit the PRACTICE of engineering to cases where the person is trying to get employed and make money as a consultant of some sort....i.e. holding oneself out to the public for hire.

In this case, the guy doesn't appear to have been hoping to get paid for anything - just expressing an opinion on an engineering issue.

I would then agree that a state denying someone's ability to state an opinion is wrong, engineering or otherwise, where the person is just talking, vs. promoting for hire.
So is the "Practice of Engineering" only truly a regulated activity if there is paid compensation or the hope of paid compensation as an engineer?

So in summary, if you are not licensed:
Holding yourself out to be an engineer to the public - illegal
Holding yourself out to be an engineer for hire - illegal
Expressing an engineering opinion in an effort to secure engineering work - illegal
Expressing an engineering opinion with no hiring or monetary compensation anticipated - legal...free speech

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

It appears Oregon law is very aggressive on the matter, allowing fewer exceptions to the use of "engineer" and "the practice of engineering" than found in other states. One key exception I wish he took advantage of is 672.060(9)(b).

Quote (https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/o...)

672.060 Exceptions to application of ORS 672.002 to 672.325. ORS 672.002 to 672.325 do not apply to the following:
. . .
(9) An individual, firm, partnership or corporation offering to practice engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping if:
. . .
(b) The offer includes a written statement that the offeror is not registered to practice engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping in the State of Oregon, but will comply with ORS 672.002 to 672.325 by having an individual holding a valid certificate of registration in this state in responsible charge of the work prior to performing any engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping work within this state.

If it were me, after the first warning from the board, I would have researched the law and responded with an apology and asked for guidance in selecting a valid certificate holder, or taken the position that my correspondence was in an effort to secure responsible charge services. It sounds like he had garnered significant support from the engineering community, "hiring" a professional to work his numbers and take responsible charge seems to be the path of least resistance.

I used to count sand. Now I don't count at all.

I not disagreeing with the notion that the state should not create a monopoly on engineering calculations, but that is what's in probably any state's PE law, and is therefore going to be protected by the NCEES and other organizations with vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The Board, however, has overstepped its authority in one regard, because the acts in question don't violate the law, as written

672.005 Additional definitions. As used in ORS 672.002 to 672.325, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) “Practice of engineering” or “practice of professional engineering” means doing any of the following:
(a) Performing any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training and experience.
(b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects.

Since the lights already are past "construction, manufacture or fabrication" his analysis does not violate subparagraph b. His claim that he is an "excellent engineer" and that he's qualified to do the analysis does violate other parts of the law.

Obviously, no one has really probed the wording, since it implies that even stating that he has a degree in (electrical) engineering violates subparagraph c in this section. There's plenty of bad grammar in the law, and should have a complete re-write to clarify the scope of "or" used in various parts of the law.

672.007 Acts constituting practice of engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping. For purposes of ORS 672.002 to 672.325:
(1) A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of engineering.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I hope all the Oregon high school physics teachers are registered engineers :)

JNieman...good one!

IRstuff...I think you missed the word "any" in 672.005(1) and "or" in (1)(b).
It doesn't have to be during construction so if it is after construction you would still be violating the Oregon statute.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

I agree the definition of the practice of engineering is a bit grey and seems to cross into some other professions. Note however, that Jarlstrom is not arguing that he was not engaged in the practice. By referring to himself as an engineer, he admitted to practicing while unlicensed.

The "any" refers to a) or b) or the others I didn't include, and not to parsing below the subparagraphs.

which "or" in b) are you referring to? 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?

My parse:
Applying [blah] to such professional services or creative work as [blah] during [construction, manufacture or fabrication] for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any [blah].

So any professional services or creative work that's NOT during [construction, manufacture or fabrication] seems fair game.

professional service or creative work is problematic
Does "professional" apply to [service or creative work] or is it [professional service] or [creative work]. I take it to be the former

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

IRstuff...I think I take it to be the latter. I've never heard of the term "professional creative work" in an engineering law context.

Me trying to boil it down visually:

“Practice of engineering” means doing any of the following:
Then it lists (a) and (b) so any of either (a) or (b) so I agree with you there.

(b)Applying special knowledge of the ... (various) ... engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as
consultation
investigation
testimony
evaluation
planning
design
and
services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design
Note that this whole last line makes sense as one unit.

in connection with any public or private
utilities
structures
buildings
machines
equipment
processes
works
or
projects.

So the "services during construction" doesn't apply to this particular case since the traffic system was already in place.
But the investigation and evaluation part does.

And in the second part this is definitely a public utility/equipment so that applies as well.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

As much as bed yellow light timing irritates me, I'd just put infrared LED's around my license plates so the camera can't see them, and move on.

All of this interesting debate and I just realized I miss-spelled speech in the title.

I'm an:

Enginere
Ingineer
Enginer

I'm good at math.

Let's just be careful about how insistent we are about interpretation of the law; the Oregon State Bar may be monitoring this thread.

I used to count sand. Now I don't count at all.

The most effective way to get a bad law overturned is to start enforcing it.

"...the Oregon State Bar may be monitoring this thread."

I heard they have their own SWAT team.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Politicians are always looking for new ways to raise money.

I wonder what would happen if one of the pinheads who fined Järlström had a medical emergency in a restaurant, would people yell "is there a doctor in the house" or "is there an Oregon licensed doctor in the house"? If only a non-Oregon doctor were present, would he refuse the service?

BB:

In that is the conundrum: Both medical doctors and structural engineers deal with life safety issues. Go figure...

Actually, service would not be refused due to the Good Samaritan law... unless there are no Good Samaritans in Oregon.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

While "services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design" may make sense as a unit, it's absurdly unbalanced in the context of the paragraph. Particularly since the items before this are also needed "for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design."

Moreover, the entirety of PE law is "for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design," since that's what ensures public safety, which is the ostensible goal of the law.

Otherwise, even ignoring what we do here, every student in college doing engineering is in violation of the law, as parsed that way, as are the professors.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I think a lot of us would be violating the Oregon state law by our participation in Eng-Tips. If I ever visit, I will try to keep my mouth shut.

But Eng-Tips Isn't in Oregon. It's a place in Cyber Heaven!!

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

We don't know where all those electrons have been, do we?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote (hokie66)

If I ever visit, I will try to keep my mouth shut.

Muzzle hokie66?? Say it ain't so......

Reason are listed in the Law

Quote (480.315 Policy. The Legislative Assembly declares that, except as provided in ORS 480.345 to 480.385, it is in the public interest to maintain a prohibition on the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
(1) The dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by dispensers properly trained in appropriate safety procedures reduces fire hazards directly associated with the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids;
(2) Appropriate safety standards often are unenforceable at retail self-service stations in other states because cashiers are often unable to maintain a clear view of and give undivided attention to the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by customers;
(3) Higher liability insurance rates charged to retail self-service stations reflect the dangers posed to customers when they leave their vehicles to dispense Class 1 flammable liquids, such as the increased risk of crime and the increased risk of personal injury resulting from slipping on slick surfaces;
(4) The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility;
(5) The dangers described in subsection (3) of this section are heightened when the customer is a senior citizen or has a disability, especially if the customer uses a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, walker, cane or crutches;
(6) Attempts by other states to require the providing of aid to senior citizens and persons with disabilities in the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail have failed, and therefore, senior citizens and persons with disabilities must pay the higher costs of full service;
(7) Exposure to toxic fumes represents a health hazard to customers dispensing Class 1 flammable liquids;
(8) The hazard described in subsection (7) of this section is heightened when the customer is pregnant;
(9) The exposure to Class 1 flammable liquids through dispensing should, in general, be limited to as few individuals as possible, such as gasoline station owners and their employees or other trained and certified dispensers;
(10) The typical practice of charging significantly higher prices for full-service fuel dispensing in states where self-service is permitted at retail: (a) Discriminates against customers with lower incomes, who are under greater economic pressure to subject themselves to the inconvenience and hazards of self-service; (b) Discriminates against customers who are elderly or have disabilities who are unable to serve themselves and so must pay the significantly higher prices; and (c) Increases self-service dispensing and thereby decreases maintenance checks by attendants, which results in neglect of maintenance, endangering both the customer and other motorists and resulting in unnecessary and costly repairs;
(11) The increased use of self-service at retail in other states has contributed to diminishing the availability of automotive repair facilities at gasoline stations;
(12) Self-service dispensing at retail in other states does not provide a sustained reduction in fuel prices charged to customers;
(13) A general prohibition of self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by the general public promotes public welfare by providing increased safety and convenience without causing economic harm to the public in general;
(14) Self-service dispensing at retail contributes to unemployment, particularly among young people;
(15) Self-service dispensing at retail presents a health hazard and unreasonable discomfort to persons with disabilities, elderly persons, small children and those susceptible to respiratory diseases;
(16) The federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336, requires that equal access be provided to persons with disabilities at retail gasoline stations; and
(17) Small children left unattended when customers leave to make payment at retail self-service stations creates a dangerous situation. [1991 c.863 §49a; 1999 c.59 §160; 2007 c.70 §276)

]

I do not know of a fuel pump union, Pumping gas typically pays minimum wage ($9.75) but some stores have store unions such as the big department stores (Safeway, Albertsons, Fred Meyer (Kroger)) which I assume also covers the pump jockeys

I particularly like reason 12 and 13 in the law

The rural areas which allow self service at night are not in the wet area of the state (which is 9 months of the year) hence the justification for reason 4 being not applicable

As for it being voted down it happens at both the referendum level and in legislature

That is also a $500 fine to the Station for a violation.

All that verbiage about potential hazards, and not a word about the dangers of dispensing fuel when under the influence of a drug.

hydrae, this is a joke right? This can't be serious?

(1) The dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by dispensers properly trained in appropriate safety procedures reduces fire hazards directly associated with the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids;
I've never heard of a self-service crisis of exploding cars in other states.

(2) Appropriate safety standards often are unenforceable at retail self-service stations in other states because cashiers are often unable to maintain a clear view of and give undivided attention to the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by customers;
Yes my local quick-shop cashier would be able to ensure safety by having a clear view of me filling my tanks...lol. And they are typically soooo much more intelligent than I am.

(3) Higher liability insurance rates charged to retail self-service stations reflect the dangers posed to customers when they leave their vehicles to dispense Class 1 flammable liquids, such as the increased risk of crime and the increased risk of personal injury resulting from slipping on slick surfaces;
Properly broom finished concrete is rarely slick - even with oils on it. And I'm sure those "highly" trained quick-shop employees are much better than I am at keeping my balance on slick surfaces. And finally - those damn high insurance rates are driving all those self-serve stations out of business all over the country....NOT.

(4) The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility; Hey Oregon – try northern Minnesota in the winter. Pansies

(5) The dangers described in subsection (3) of this section are heightened when the customer is a senior citizen or has a disability, especially if the customer uses a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, walker, cane or crutches;
(6) Attempts by other states to require the providing of aid to senior citizens and persons with disabilities in the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail have failed, and therefore, senior citizens and persons with disabilities must pay the higher costs of full service; Wait…I thought that self-service caused all sorts of higher costs (see (3) above). And those that need help – seem to be fine in the 49 other states.

(7) Exposure to toxic fumes represents a health hazard to customers dispensing Class 1 flammable liquids; So let’s have the quick-shop cashiers do this over and over again all day since they aren’t as important.

(8) The hazard described in subsection (7) of this section is heightened when the customer is pregnant; So any cashier getting pregnant – tough luck to you.

(9) The exposure to Class 1 flammable liquids through dispensing should, in general, be limited to as few individuals as possible, such as gasoline station owners and their employees or other trained and certified dispensers; Again – they aren’t as important so let them breathe the fumes as much as possible – they can be easily replaced without much cost to society.

(10) The typical practice of charging significantly higher prices for full-service fuel dispensing in states where self-service is permitted at retail: (a) Discriminates against customers with lower incomes, who are under greater economic pressure to subject themselves to the inconvenience and hazards of self-service; So many are dying across the country from filling their own tanks that somebody, anybody…please do something!!!

(b) Discriminates against customers who are elderly or have disabilities who are unable to serve themselves and so must pay the significantly higher prices; and Full service isn’t a significantly higher price where I am located. But in order to keep all things in this country level and equal, let’s force everyone to pay more.

(c) Increases self-service dispensing and thereby decreases maintenance checks by attendants, which results in neglect of maintenance, endangering both the customer and other motorists and resulting in unnecessary and costly repairs; So charging those who are not handicapped more is not discriminating against them? And when does a full service gas filling ever result in “maintenance checks by attendants”? What utter stupidity.

(11) The increased use of self-service at retail in other states has contributed to diminishing the availability of automotive repair facilities at gasoline stations; …but has increased the number of automotive repair facilities with much higher specialized mechanics…. If there’s adequate repair facilities at non-gasoline stations what is the problem?

(12) Self-service dispensing at retail in other states does not provide a sustained reduction in fuel prices charged to customers; Wait a minute…just wait a minute. The points made above keep stating that there’s a HUGE increase in costs associated with full service that discriminates against those who must use full service. You can’t have it both ways.

(13) A general prohibition of self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by the general public promotes public welfare by providing increased safety and convenience without causing economic harm to the public in general; It’s only economic harm if you are elderly or disabled and have to pay more. But if everyone has to pay more then it’s not economically harmful.

(14) Self-service dispensing at retail contributes to unemployment, particularly among young people; …except during school hours. But if they can skip school and work, I’m sure they will be way more qualified to pump gas than I am and just don’t worry about all the fumes those young people will breathe in each day….just don’t worry.

(15) Self-service dispensing at retail presents a health hazard and unreasonable discomfort to persons with disabilities, elderly persons, small children and those susceptible to respiratory diseases; But young people need the work so if they get sick from the fumes that’s OK.

(16) The federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336, requires that equal access be provided to persons with disabilities at retail gasoline stations; and So let’s have everyone pay more for full service instead of providing for identified full service islands.

(17) Small children left unattended when customers leave to make payment at retail self-service stations creates a dangerous situation. [1991 c.863 §49a; 1999 c.59 §160; 2007 c.70 §276)
There’s things called credit cards, that get inserted into the pump for payment. Customers rarely leave the car like that…and if they do there’s other laws on the books that govern that. Making everyone pay for full service won’t fix stupidity.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

It will be interesting then, the intersection between PE engineers and attendant manned electric car charging stations.

Most of the parts of the attendant-based service apply to electrical vehicles. They also apply to buying groceries and other shopping, so it's not clear why any of that is allowed.

I had better be careful. I wouldn't want censure from the Oregon PE board.

Back to the issue at hand....

I've given this some thought and cannot conceive that this is even remotely a "free speech" issue. When professional licensure is involved, that licensure should be respected....including the laws that govern it. The "engineer" involved here gave an opinion, which he has a right to do; however, he gave it in a public forum without appropriate experience and education; thus violating provisions of the engineering law. Further, he held himself out as an engineer in the public realm....infringing upon one of the disciplines of engineering that requires licensing.

Nowhere in the article is there any provenance of his opinion. Did he compare to established AASHTO traffic standards? There are actually criteria available for signal timing. Did the municipality violate those? If so, why? Was the City Engineer or Public Works Director informed prior to his public outcry?

I cannot support the premise of a violation of his free speech when he clearly violated several aspects of engineering laws within his state. I am also of the opinion that the state law does not inhibit free speech....it just protects the public from potentially invalid public statements with respect to learned, validated engineering opinion.

I happen to enjoy being an engineer. I also believe in the laws to which engineers must comply with respect to licensure and protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public. I get extremely concerned that our profession is being eroded to the point that anyone can practice "engineering" in any form they want.

"And when does a full service gas filling ever result in “maintenance checks by attendants”? What utter stupidity."?

Perhaps Oregon is a throwback to the 1955 segment of Back to the Future. There once was a time that the service station would check your fluid levels and check your tire pressure.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

"Increases self-service dispensing and thereby decreases maintenance checks by attendants, which results in neglect of maintenance..."

This is a primary example of nitwit nanny state laws that think they are doing something good and valid. If the quick-shop hire checks your oil (if they know how) then voila! Your car is maintained and thank-the-state we have avoided "endangering both the customer and other motorists" Yay!

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Ron,

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

I think large sections of this law, if this case is appealed to a high enough court, will be thrown out for being vague in what actions are prohibited.

"Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects."

If nothing else there are multiple interpretations of which actions are interdependent based on the poor sentence structure and punctuation. It's possible there is some legal means to parse that word salad, but it seems written to create confusion.

Whether it is gasoline pumps or engineering services, it certainly looks like Oregon is protectionist in excess of actual public need and leans more toward special interests in these areas. Even making a sandbox falls under prohibited activities.

Quote (Ron)

I've given this some thought and cannot conceive that this is even remotely a "free speech" issue. When professional licensure is involved, that licensure should be respected....including the laws that govern it. The "engineer" involved here gave an opinion, which he has a right to do; however, he gave it in a public forum without appropriate experience and education; thus violating provisions of the engineering law. Further, he held himself out as an engineer in the public realm....infringing upon one of the disciplines of engineering that requires licensing.

You seem to think "engineering law" trumps constitutionally protected rights, but it is (and should be) the opposite. You say he has the right to voice his opinion and criticize government procedure, however you add an "EXCEPT" in regards to engineering law, however the debate is whether or not such a law can trump one of the basic tenets of our constitutional framework. That is the source of disagreement, I believe, and what really comes down to a difference of opinion, as none of us are Supreme Court Justices and likely not Constitutional Scholars. I know I'm just a Monday Morning Quarterback on the topic, at best. I have a particular outcome I'd like to see win out, but I understand the opposing viewpoint as well. I simply think it would do society greater harm to stifle the ability to criticize anyone applying mathematics principles to criticize the government publicly.

Quote (JNieman)

I simply think it would do society greater harm to stifle the ability to criticize anyone applying mathematics principles to criticize the government publicly

I think there is more potential for harm by letting just anyone spout off in public that they are an engineer and start making design recommendations. And no, a degree is simply not enough to qualify one as an engineer! This guy might have gotten an A in calculus, but does he know all the subtleties of traffic engineering? Is the actual traffic light timing even something controlled by licensed engineers? Or could a city employee with nothing more than a GED read this “engineers” analysis and start changing the timing?

This guy’s criticism of the traffic lights is not what is in question here. It is his repeated attempts to add credential to his analysis by claiming he is an engineer that earned him a fine. He was warned several times, and pointed to the specific statues he was violating. He could have chosen to take the professional route and either get licensed himself, or engage a licensed engineer that agreed with him to interface with the public/government.

For the record, I am a big proponent of smaller government. There are far too many things our government sticks their nose into. Oregon and the entire Left Coast are some of the worst offenders. However this is one case where I think the state is correct.

@PMR06, I feel like I'm repeating myself, however, did you see the post from 28 Apr 17 13:18?

They took it far beyond "he called himself engineer" which I honestly wouldn't have cared about them fining him over.

They purported that anyone using math or attempting technical analysis is engaging in engineering, as a completely separate accusation from him claiming an allegedly-false title.

To reiterate: I wouldn't disagree with Oregon fining him for claiming 'engineer' status even though I don't think it should only apply to those registered. (There are simply too many legitimate engineering professions that do not require or benefit from State licensing) I only disagree with the dangerous idea that only a licensed P.E. shall submit mathematics-based ideas for public discussion. The guy even consulted a progenitor of the formula he critiqued, who SUPPORTED his efforts. He sought peer review. He was supported by the actual professionals. Yes, it would have behooved him to have someone sign off on his analysis to avoid conflict, however, I see no danger to the public.

When you start criminalizing ideas spoken publicly, it's dangerous. They should stick to controlling the use of 'engineer' as a title. They should avoid attempts to lump general applied mathematics into their control.

ETA, I couldn't refrain from commenting on this:

Quote (PMR05)

Is the actual traffic light timing even something controlled by licensed engineers? Or could a city employee with nothing more than a GED read this “engineers” analysis and start changing the timing?

So it's ok for any person with a GED to be in control of a city's traffic control devices but the danger is in someone proposing peer-reviewed ideas for discussion regarding yellow light timing? I think your prioritization of dangers is a bit upside down.

The whole mess started because the OR PE board didn't like that he called himself an engineer so it should have ended with the OR PE board fining him for calling himself an engineer.

Trying to drum-up extra violations to seemingly just make the claim longer and better justified is wrong. They chose to completely ignore the intent of the word practice in the laws. Despite how anyone argues it, the intent of the word practice is to mean that you're getting paid or compensated in some manner for doing the work by others who believe you're licensed to perform that work.

Quote (JNieman)

did you see the post from 28 Apr 17 13:18?

Yes, I've read it several times, along with all the documents presented here: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fin...

"submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification"

He wasn't holding up a banner in front of city hall saying he doesn't like the traffic lights. Had he received a fine for that action, I'd be right there with you fighting for his 1st amendment rights. In this case he apparently analyzed the current system, critiqued it, came up with what he thinks was a better way to do it, and presented it to the city with the end goal that they change the timing.

Quote (JNieman)

I see no danger to the public

Quote (JNieman)

So it's ok for any person with a GED to be in control of a city's traffic control devices but the danger is in someone proposing peer-reviewed ideas for discussion regarding yellow light timing?

My example is a plausible event that could result from this. Some city worker reads this and starts tweaking the light timing because an engineer said it was a better way. I'm not justifying who has keys to the timing controls, I'm just presenting a real life scenario of how someone in the public could place faith in the recommendations of an "engineer" and start making changes to a system directly linked to life safety.

Quote (JNieman)

Yes, it would have behooved him to have someone sign off on his analysis to avoid conflict

Thank you.

"Some city worker reads this and starts tweaking the light timing because an engineer said it was a better way. I'm not justifying who has keys to the timing controls, I'm just presenting a real life scenario of how someone in the public could place faith in the recommendations of an "engineer" and start making changes to a system directly linked to life safety."

Two issues here.
> Tweaking traffic light timing is a non-trivial exercise, as changing a single light can have ripple effects all over the city which the traffic light workers know.
> While we may presume that these traffic light workers are idiots, swayed by alt-engineering, they're smart enough to know that CYA demands approval and direction from higher-ups. And those, in turn, require blessing from a validated traffic engineer.

There's no doubt in my mind that the laws, as written, overstep PE boards' legal mandate to protect the public. However, there are entrenched interests who think the laws don't go far enough. Unless there's a rogue judge, it's unlikely that much will change.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote:

I think there is more potential for harm by letting just anyone spout off in public that they are an engineer and start making design recommendations. And no, a degree is simply not enough to qualify one as an engineer!

Realistically there is no danger in anyone making design recommendations. Danger only exists in the final design approvers being unqualified, therefore there is exactly no danger in anyone calling themselves an engineer doing exactly as this man did. If you look to the medical and other professions there are many instances such as "doctors (Phd) of holistic XYZ" that the public and professional boards have little issue with.

I do agree with you however that a degree alone should not be qualification enough to sell engineering services to the public, there needs to be enough experience to have good judgment and know one's own limitations. Sadly, our modern licensing process is a joke and many seem hell bent on protecting the system. Four years and a test gives us many 25 year old junior engineers who can legally sell services with virtually no experience, scary thought that is preferable to someone like Mr Jarlstrom openly telling his unrelated degree and experience in other fields, and giving a research-based opinion. I have worked with many titled "engineers" with physics, math, business, and engineering degrees outside their working niche, also been responsible many times for PE consultants and design contractors. The former are much like interns in that they tend to stay within the limitations of their own experience. The later OTOH often are CAD jockeys with a fancy title.

What does someone call themselves if they have an engineering degree and engineer but don't have a license? What do others call them?

Trained but not certified

"What does someone call themselves if they have an engineering degree and engineer but don't have a license? What do others call them?"

Probably something that starts off with, "BS"

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

JAE
No Joke, that is quoted directly from the Oregon Revised Status
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/o...

As for other states, I think New Jersey also does not allow self service
In other states you have self service and full service with a significant price difference
In Oregon a similar price difference at AM/PM Arco as mini service and Chevron as full service

Again back to issue at hand

How can anybody fight the City and red light camera contractors in their attempts to generate revenue via the red light cameras without spending more money on consultants and lawyers than the fines?

Has the city tweaked the yellow duration to a shorter time to increase this revenue? they might have by default when the intersection size increased, and if they did so, did they consult an engineer with specifics to the durations?

So, if I attempt self-service AND also attempt to calculate how much fuel I need, that's probably GULAG?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

In my professional opinion, as a former licensee in the State of Oregon, the State Board of the State of Oregon has over-reached its authority, and needs some firm limits set by the courts. I believe this censuring will also be found to be unethical.

Pumping gas is another issue, but has nothing to do with first amendment rights. Censuring free speech does.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

hydrae…

Every time I travel to Oregon, I am frustrated by the law prohibiting self-service gasoline pumping. In my 42 years of driving--mostly in California, but also in more about 35 other states--I have never once set myself on fire performing self-service gasoline pumping. Nor have I set myself on fire when I poured gasoline into the tank of my lawnmower or my edger.

So, if I may translate:

§480.315 "The State of Oregon hereby make a bunch of false and unsubstantiated claims about the hazards of self-service gasoline pumping, discrimination, etc. If we make the list long enough and we whine enough about the fools in other states, maybe someone will believe us."

§480.341 "If you live in a low population county, we don't care about you. You are free to personally tackle the extremely hazardous task of self-pumping your own gasoline. If you set yourself on fire, good luck. Low population counties have limited emergency services."

§480.349 "We care a little more about motorcyclists than residents of low population counties, but not a whole lot more. You can self pump your own gasoline, but only after the 14 IQ attendant hands you the pump handle."

Fred

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

"maybe someone will believe us"

The law got passed, so someone believes that crap.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I wasn't aware that you could get full service at a gas station anywhere in the lower 48. do they wash your windows too? with the extremely adverse weather in Oregon, dirty windows are a serious safety risk and self service clerks cannot be held responsible for maintaining a squeegee in working condition especially with the slick pavement and when they get stolen all the time.

Gasoline, bureaucratic red tape, ethical dilemmas in engineering... Reminds me of a story. This is the mamby-pamby side of the story:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Plus+station+o...

What the article does not tell you is that the operator of the gas station tried to respond immediately to the leak as soon as the leak was detected, but they were blocked by city of Calgary administration, who would not issue a permit to dig. The excavation required a road to be dug up, hazardous waste management, and the gas station operator got wound up in red tape, forbidden from digging out the leaking fuel tank. Months later, the tank was still underground, the leak was still spreading, and neighboring houses were starting to smell it in their basements. They had the equipment on site ready and waiting to go all that time.

STF

Wow, just wow.

The scariest words in English language: "I am from the government and I am here to help"

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

So, no police, fire, military, or even water, sewage, or road repair, then?

You know what's even scarier, it's when an airline tells you they're committed to a "great passenger experience."

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

"You know what's even scarier, it's when an airline tells you they're committed to a "great passenger experience.""

Yeah, they will throw you off the plane if you don't like it.

It sometimes works both ways.

A very interesting guy in Saint Louis built a museum called the City Museum. It started out as a collection of building details from demolished buildings but soon became an increasingly wide collection of those things people develop a nostalgia for plus recycling of industrial discards in a most interesting fashion. The most impressive part is that it is all very much hands-on and containing many items no committee would approve.

He eventually got himself a Ferris wheel which he assembled on the roof (former heavy industrial building). The Saint Louis city hand-wringers didn't like it much, mostly I think because the City Museum had become a huge attraction that, unlike the Zoo and other such facilities, had no city control. Anyway, the city issued an order to tear it down. His lawyers looked at the order and found the city required a permit to tear it down, so the city issued a permit. Then his lawyers found that the permit was not issued properly because the demolition permit required (IIRC) a reference to the original building permit. So the city was forced to issue a building permit to complete the demolition permit. Ooops. Now that he had a building permit the city had no authority to force him to take it down.

The Ferris wheel is still there.

Sadly the guy who started it is dead, most likely murdered, but crudely staged to look to the incurious as an accident. Interesting people get interesting enemies.

I'm a practicing engineer in Ontario for 30 years and I take absolutely no offense at this guy's actions. I heard a radio interview with the man himself. (Full disclosure: I own a vehicle, which I drive on public roadways, frequently encountering red lights.)

Common sense: this guy was acting in the public interest; he was not offering engineering services to the public nor passing himself off as one.

Reality check: if Oregon Engineers are really so concerned about this problem they should go after the many thousands of computer code writers tacking the word 'engineer' onto whatever it is they do. Call up the architects association while you're at it. There are plenty of non-engineers stealing my bread every day practicing welding engineering. Charging this guy just reeks of bureaucratic vindictiveness. They should instead thank him for drawing attention to an ongoing deficiency.

That said, I'm not sure a free speech angle was the best approach for his defense. (The 'free speech' argument has been used to excuse almost anything, from superpacs to hate radio to unlimited access to porn for children.)

"he was not offering engineering services to the public nor passing himself off as one"
>> He did that at least twice in written communications with the board. Moreover, as the law is written, he was clearly doing both. That is the crux of the lawsuit.

Quote (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007)

2015 ORS 672.007¹
Acts constituting practice of engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping

(1) A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering.

" they should go after the many thousands of computer code writers tacking the word 'engineer' onto whatever it is they do"
>> They are most likely covered by the industrial exemption

Quote (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060)

(6) The performance of engineering work by a person, or by full-time employees of the person, provided:
(a) The work is in connection with or incidental to the operations of the person; and
(b) The engineering work is not offered directly to the public.

According to below, if he did the work at home, then his fine was illegal.

Quote (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060#annotations)

Individual who sends letter containing professional engineering advice does not practice engineering on prop­erty owned or leased by individual. Topaz v. Board of Examiners for Engineering, 255 Or App 138, 297 P3d 498 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I think he should have been warned to not use the name, but his claims should not be dismissed.

the fact is bad design of lights costs many lives. putting cameras in place gives this city revenue but actually discourages fixing the problem, costing more lives. the city and its engineering department are basically now on notice for wrongful death suits, and even if they win the suit I personally hold them accountable, and you should too.

1. light timings are often too short, more cycles is more likely hood of crash but more money (more cycles more red light tickets, conflict of interest).
2. there becomes much less incentive to promote traffic circles or flashing red solutions, which remove cameras.
3. lagging reds do not get promoted even though they are shown to save lives (and decrease tickets...)
4. green light cycle times do not increase during snow events, which improves efficiency (and again reduces tickets)
5. cameras are too seldom used to improve traffic flow by adjusting cycle times based on actual conditions. (somewhat decrease in tickets)

the crux of the issue is the ticket on red +0.00 seconds and you have to have cleared the intersection, other countries use red +0.5 seconds(or other times) with no requirement to clear. to me usa law is crazy because it seems inefficient(though likely intended to be more safe).

to stop discussion on lights is wrong, maybe this guy should not lead the discussion but neither should the city (conflict of interest) or the media. the NHS or some body should set the rules and the cities follow them.

disclaimer i have never gotten a red light ticket or a speeding ticket.

here is all my comment karma
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/67jqj...

Well with that many reddit internet points, he can't be wrong.
/s

As a sometimes motorcycle rider, red light cameras are problematic to safe riding practices (better to be "wrong" and alive). Disclosure: I'm an "engineer" but not an "Engineer".

"the crux of the issue is the ticket on red +0.00 seconds and you have to have cleared the intersection, other countries use red +0.5 seconds(or other times) with no requirement to clear. to me usa law is crazy because it seems inefficient(though likely intended to be more safe)"

Or, it's intended to generate revenue. Note that the "LAW" is actually a bunch of "laws," none of which specify details like "red +0.00 s." Prior to red-light cameras, it was solely at the discretion of the officer(s), resulting in total variability in ticketing. Red-light camera timing is primarily a revenue generation tool in most cities, particularly when it's offered for free by the camera suppliers, with a revenue-sharing arrangement. Setting the timing to "red +0.00s" simply ensures that the camera supplier gets their return on investment faster.

On the other side of the coin, yellow lights, today, tend to be ignored, as red-light enforcement is quite rare.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

So the "correct" way to go about this would be for the dude to say, "I'm a physicist, and I caught you guys dorking with the stoplight timing to fleece the public with your stoplight cameras. Here's the math." And then Oregon probably would have said, "your math doesn't count because you're not a traffic engineer."

At that point, what's the guy to do? He caught the government red handed extorting the public. Nobody is even questioning that. But the state's response is simply to poison the well. If he claimed "physicist" instead of "engineer" on his business card, the state still has the option of poisoning the well, just in a different way.

In my mind, being critical of engineering, using sound science, absolutely should be free speech.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

But to play Devil's advocate, using the term engineer to describe yourself in a state where engineer is a protected term is asking for trouble. I don't think he's the silliest one in this sorry tale, but no one looks like a genius either.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (GregLocock)

I don't think he's the silliest one in this sorry tale, but no one looks like a genius either.

So would you say he's like: "an RPN calculator with no Enter key"?

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Or an RPN calculator with an Equals key?

STF

Looks like he won.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/07/licensing-board-...

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

Looks like he's not done chasing them. Now that they are no longer bullying him, he's still going after them to never bully anyone else.

Good on him.

Professional Engineering is helpful and of benefit, but needs to be confined to matters of contract, not public statement. If someone makes an accurate assessment, they should not need a license to be able to share it.

Quote (3DDave)

...but needs to be confined to matters of contract, not public statement.

I think this is a crux of the issue. In all of the 24 states that I'm licensed in, most have regulations on using the term "engineer" or "professional engineer", etc.

The goal of these regulations, in my view, has always been to help protect the public against charlatans seeking to have people hire them to do engineering type services when they may not actually have the credentials to do so. This is a good thing.

But limiting the use of "engineer" when folks are just making public statements, campaign ads, or doing math, is an attempt to protect the engineering profession's reputation, not the public safety.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Or even inaccurate assessments.

As I said before, here's a guy looking for a fight. He won, but he's still fighting on. He even wrote the proposed judgement seeking to declare the Oregon statutes and rules forbidding the unregistered practice of engineering unconstitutional on their face. Link Public safety be damned and free speech prevails.

Good outcome. Hopefully this movement will spread across the country.

I think the real winner here is Holiday Inn Express. A night's stay there, coupled with no rules on who can claim expertise and suddenly everyone is a surgeon, an engineer, whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCTaUFXpP8

Well...a "good" outcome if there is still a level of protection against people claiming to be engineers and selling services to the public when they are not licensed engineers.

This guy perhaps showed that this particular board got a bit out of line but I could see the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction - which would not be good.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

I have no problem with regulating the use of "Licensed Engineer". But fining people who for using the term "Engineer", which has been in common use for hundreds of years before these boards came along, has always struck me as asinine. Some of these boards appear to be living in an alternate universe where they think they are the supreme rulers.

Thanks beej67 for posting the link. I am glad they guy won.

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

"Licensed", "registered", "certified": Apparently all forms of protected speech under the first amendment and available for all to use however they wish.

I've a different perspective on this and regret Jarlstrom's win. Amendment 10 empowers states to regulate themselves where the federal government doesn't. Therefore, I see Jarlstrom's win as a loss for the ability of states to regulate themselves. Each state has the right to make its own laws to govern the people of that state.

By the 1920's, dentistry was a regulated profession in Colorado. In the 1920's, a California dental company was expanding its business into Colorado. They hired 5 dentists, who claimed to have the proper education and licensure from the state. When complaints were lodged with the Board regarding botched oral surgeries, etc., an investigation was launched. They discovered that none of the 5 dentists in Colorado were educated or licensed. That prompted the State of Colorado to declare all professions, which included engineering. Can just anyone claim to be a dentist, Medical Doctor, JD, CPA, etc.? Why should engineering be any different? Most states define engineering and what constitutes the practice of engineering just as they do for other professions. Constitutionally, that is their right.

In Old Town San Diego, the sheriff's office has a lot of history dating to the early 1800's and the establishment of laws to prevent unfair, dishonest, etc. behaviors and these were established long before California was a territory of the USA.

Given that history as well as recent history with the Peanut Company of America, Blue Bell Ice Cream, Con Agra, Imperial Sugar, BP, etc., I think engineering needs to be regulated to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Public means everyone by definition and is the Board's usage of public. We act as those public somehow means people we don't work with but "someone else" or "others" such as those in public works.

Engineering needs to up its game. The AMA bit the bullet about 10 years ago, which was not a popular act, to require all Medical Doctors to be licensed by the state thereby negating their version of the industrial exemption practiced in hospitals. Attorneys, per mine, fought a similar battle, primarily against Big Insurance, regarding who qualifies for the designation of "attorney" and their right to use "attorney." Per my attorney, it was a long, hard fought battle but they won. Good for them!

Laws don't grow in vacuums. They grow because people cannot regulate themselves enough to not harm others. That is one fundamental purpose of government, i.e., prevent harm.

When my cousin was Speaker of the House in Louisiana, I went to a committee meeting with him. Some of his constituents were trying to establish a different kind of bank and had to get a new bill passed to do it. They were not successful because it would have negated a previous bill that was established after some of the financial meltdowns that harmed a lot of people. That law protected the depositors in banks and they couldn't, in good conscience, allow consumers to be exposed to harm. They followed my cousin out of the committee room to press their case further. He patiently listened and explained to them again what just happened and why. Louisiana has 5 committees that prospective bills have to wind through before reaching the House floor for a vote. That tells me due diligence is done for each bill passed.

Everything needs checks and balances because people are fallible and we drive everything. I don't see government as any more corrupt than businesses, charities, etc.

History is important. Knowing how government works is important.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program: http://nspe-co.org/events.php

I am an engineer. I trained as one, I'm educated as one, and I work on a daily basis as one. I am not a LICENSED engineer, but I am an engineer nonetheless. If I hold myself out as practicing engineering in public safety-related projects, then I expect to be fined, arrested, etc. But if I perform any engineering process that is NOT public safety-related, stay out of my business.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

While I understand Pam's position, I think that the issue has to do with how a perceived problem is being solved.

I think we can all agree that the primary problem occurs when unqualified/incompetent people attempt to extract money from the public for services not really rendered. This occurs in a number of professions, such as engineering, medicine, law, etc. In all cases, licensure has been the "solution" and a cadre of laws have been created to define who should get licensed, and how. That's all fine and good.

However, only in engineering is there a possibility of performing engineering, such as for my own employer, where licensure is neither needed nor desired. Therefore, it's clear that the one-size fits all approach to licensure is really not applicable to engineering, particularly since the industrial exemption encompasses probably 3 to 4 times the number of actual licensed engineers. That makes it a case of the tail wagging the dog.

I think that PE laws need to be completely overhauled so that ONLY people who are attempting to sell services to the public without licenses are violating the law. All other engineers should be allowed to call themselves engineers, as befitting their education and experience, and so long as they're not selling their services to the general public, all should be good.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

"If you are writing engineering software that computes engineering parameters, you are practicing engineering without a license in my opinion. That's actionable in most states as a statutory violation. As engineers who use software, we are REQUIRED by law to verify that the software is computing proper engineering parameters based on our input."

This is absolutely not true. In California, we, the unwashed, are exempted for work performed for our employers. I'm certainly not arguing against licensure, but, I am arguing that the laws, as written, are overly burdensome, as I am clearly an engineer, both by education and experience. I don't sell my services to the public, so I should be allowed to call myself "engineer" and refer to my work as "engineering." The prohibition of which is a violation of my 1st amendment rights.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

IRstuff...I should have been more clear about the software....software that does independent design of engineering works constitutes the practice of engineering. Not all engineering software does so. States variously decide what constitutes "engineering works". There are many "exempt" engineering functions that do not require licensing, but as you have correctly implied, if certain engineering services are sold "to the public", then licensing is required. I'm not sure that licensing laws are necessarily overly burdensome, but in many instances they are somewhat misguided.

I agree that you and many others on this site are engineers by education and experience and rightly deserve to be designated as such. You have chosen a career path that does not put you in a position of directly offering certain engineering services to the general public. Absolutely nothing wrong with that in any respect. You are certainly no less an engineer for choosing that path.

Conversely, there are those who want to practice engineering without appropriate qualifications or experience in a "public" capacity, that often puts the "public" at risk. The "public" is not capable of discerning appropriate qualifications of an individual to perform such services, so licensing (with all of its inequities, foibles, and problems) is one step in the process of protection of the health, safety and welfare of the "public".

I was very happy to hear of Mats' success in arguing his case as that particular board's overreach was simply unethical IMHO.

Personally I believe the system of engineering licensure in the US needs a drastic overhaul to reinstill lost competency and ethics. Our present system and testing might've worked in 1967 but in 2017 its somewhat of a bad joke. Folks act as if passing an easy general test or earning a bachelor's was a monumental undertaking. In reality they're both only the utter basics, maybe 10% of what you should know before engaging the public as competent at anything. The only thing worse IMHO is when these same folks deem their work too good for standard peer review or their abilities sufficient to sell without proper experience. The old joke does apply to many of the most ardent defenders of the title - yesterday I cudnt spell injuneer today I is one. Along a similar vein - I drew planes/houses/power lines for 10 years, lemme draw cars/skyscrapers/ICs next bc I saw them in a book once, no worries I can checks my owns werk! Yup, we need to "protect" the public from those unlicensed folks using the word engineer...

Public means everyone. That is the definition and the way state's use the word. At least Louisiana's Board uses it that way. In other states, perhaps the word public means certain categories of people.

Licensure is not a cartel even though there are many who claim that across many occupations and professions. There is a recent Congressional hearing on this some of you may find interesting. I wish all engineers chose to become PEs, which does not fit the definition of cartel.

When you've moved around some and run your own company, you see abuses. You see all kinds of things.

And as far as competition, every professional attack I have endured came from unlicensed engineers.

There is more to a profession than getting the education, taking the professional exams, and getting board licensed. Those are the first steps for entry into many professions. I've been thinking about this for a few years now due to my involvement with NSPE. I've been reading the law, in view of my experiences, code of conduct, etc. and learning more of the history behind professions. I'm distilling my thoughts. Had I done these exercises years ago, my thoughts would be even more divergent than many here. I don't mind my efforts or the results of them.

I don't see licensure as a competition or engineering as a competition. I see it as a profession and one that needs to grow.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program: http://nspe-co.org/events.php

"IRstuff...I should have been more clear about the software....software that does independent design of engineering works constitutes the practice of engineering. Not all engineering software does so. States variously decide what constitutes "engineering works". There are many "exempt" engineering functions that do not require licensing, but as you have correctly implied, if certain engineering services are sold "to the public", then licensing is required. I'm not sure that licensing laws are necessarily overly burdensome, but in many instances they are somewhat misguided."

That's sort of machts nichts; I seriously doubt that any of the CAD tools that MEs use are written by PEs. Moreover, most states don't necessarily even have a PE license for software, or systems engineering, in my case. Furthermore getting a group of SEs or CEs to write code is likely to be a non-starter, simply because SEs and CEs are even trained in writing software, and certainly wouldn't have necessarily entertained writing GUI code in college.

As there are plenty of engineers that Excel and Matlab to solve their engineering problems, I suppose you'd require every engineer who works at Microsoft or Mathworks to be a PE?

The Constitution is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Nothing there about unless it's not "overly burdensome."

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

IRstuff,

What about the people who write code for FEA software. All Matlab needs to do is get its arithmetic right. The person using Matlab needs to write their code correctly.

--
JHG

@drawoh,

My opinion on the FEA code is that a license shouldn't be required to write it. Licensure happens to protect the general public because without specialized training (the same training required to make them an engineer), they have no way of evaluating an Engineer's claim of competence. That's not true about a licensed engineer using an FEA tool. Someone who is competent, particularly a licensed engineer, can run through a few calculations that they've calculated solutions for and check whether the software is performing correctly. Whether the programming was done by a PE or not, mistakes are still made, so this is the duty of a professional anyway, regardless of how much no one likes having to do it.

Again, licensing is to protect the general public who has no means of checking competence of an engineer, which is why in many states, there is industrial exemptions because even though there are a lot of non-PE engineers in Aerospace and Automotive type industries, they are better equipped to check whether a consultant is competent or not that the general public, and so they don't need the same protections via licensing.

I also agree with IRstuff about the practicality of of getting PEs to program. The problem is that currently you won't find that many PEs writing the software. Which means someone who goes straight into writing code, even if they have an engineering degree, can't get a PE. Until there are many PEs in that field, or we grant some form of "amnesty" to anyone who has been doing it for 4 years and passes the PE exam, it requires someone to first practice in a different field then switch. While their engineering skills may be better as a result, their programming skills may not be. A mistake in either the math or the programming still ends up with software that doesn't function correctly. So, in my opinion the industry will need some change/temporary relaxation of licensing requirements related to the experience portion if they want engineering softwares to be written by PEs.

Maybe we should license the cafeteria's lunch lady too since she has a bigger impact upon engineering than the software tools' developers.

Realistically, selling to the public really isnt much different from a legal perspective than selling to private industry. Every project has a responsible engineer and they need to do their diligence. If they dont they run the risk of being sued and/or going to jail depending on the downstream results of their actions/inactions.

lacajun,

I wonder what it is we are discussing here. The people at Reason magazine are libertarians. They oppose regulation, and restricting work opportunities to guilds, societies and such. This incident is just the sort of thing that pisses them off.

On the other hand, Mats Järlström is accused of taking on the title of "Engineer". That horse escaped the barn a very long time ago. I don't think the Oregon professional engineers or any other professional engineers have a right to restrict the use of that word. I see no evidence that Järlström used the term "Professional Engineer" or PE/PEng, which is protected by law, and for which there is no need for a grandfather clause. The hard-core libertarians probably oppose that too. The Free Market will weed out incompetent bridge builders, along with the idiots who trusted them.

Maybe the engineering community should chose its battles carefully.

--
JHG

This is going to drag on for a while - and perhaps the "dragging on for a while" can help distill:
1. The limits of the state in guarding the public against charlatans that would diminish public safety, and
2. The limits of individuals in making exaggerated and/or false claims about their credentials for the purpose of self-gain.

Here's the status taken from a December 5th Oregonian:
The judge said she will issue her findings in two to three weeks.
Both sides can then challenge the findings, and the matter would be referred to U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, who would decide whether to adopt the magistrate judge's decision.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Many here are expressing the opinion that engineering licensure laws should be restricted to those who sell their services. Should unlicensed engineers medical doctors and lawyers all be allowed to practice pro bono without restriction?

"Should unlicensed engineers medical doctors and lawyers all be allowed to practice pro bono without restriction?"

>> They still offer their services to the public at large. This is different than the industrial exemption for engineers.

"What about the people who write code for FEA software."

>> What about ANSYS and NASTRAN? I doubt they have licensed software engineers for doing that, nor would they necessarily have licensed MEs for doing the algorithm description documents, particularly since detailed FEA math isn't something one might necessarily expect to find on a PE exam.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I keep seeing "engineering services to the public", but that's an over-encompassing statement, IMHO. If I design and build a wind-up widget, say a clock, then I am performing "engineering" services and should therefore be fined. No public was harmed or will likely ever be harmed by said clock, unless it fell from a shelf onto their head... yet it still falls (no pun intended) under that guise of "engineering" and requires a license.

I would prefer if the requirement for a license be limited to those engineering tasks in which a minimum level of harm might result as of the malfunction of such a design (buildings, power supplies, fuel-powered equipment over some small HP rating, etc.). I'm sure we could slowly carve out fine details and exceptions, but I believe my overall intent is clear.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

Dan -- your description is covered in California's industrial exemption, since you are not offering to do a custom design for each customer, but rather, you are selling a physical product that was engineered. There product liability laws that cover things like getting electrocuted by your clock if it were wall powered, for example.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

"You can design buildings, bridges and pressure vessels to your hearts content, and you can write books about it."

Actually, in most states, such as in the OP, the boards disagree with that statement. In California, "Any person practices electrical engineering when he professes to be an electrical engineer or is in responsible charge of electrical engineering work." Therefore, the mere act of performing engineering, and declaring oneself as only, "electrical engineer," even without "professional" is illegal:

Quote (California PE Act 2016)

or in any manner, use the title “professional engineer,” “licensed engineer,” “registered engineer,” or “consulting engineer,” or any of the following branch titles: “agricultural engineer,” “chemical engineer,” “civil engineer,” “control system engineer,” “electrical engineer,” “fire protection engineer,” “industrial engineer,” “mechanical engineer,” “metallurgical engineer,” “nuclear engineer,” “petroleum engineer,” or “traffic engineer,” or any combination of these words and phrases or abbreviations thereof unless licensed under this chapter.

Note, however, "software engineer" is not a proscribed title, nor is licensure required.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Meanwhile bear in mind you are far more likely to die in a vehicle accident than a building collapse, but vehicles are engineered by non PEs.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Rick:

Quote (Rick)

In my business, I may perform some level of the structural calculations and...

I don't disagree with this post. I might have slightly different opinions on a few points but otherwise I'd say I agree.

Quote (Rick)

Under no intent would I suggest you work for less than your expenses but...

A few parts in this post I want to reply to, see below:

Quote (Rick)

Clients aren't their for you to buy yourself a $100 Million super yacht. If you are serving predominantly clientele market with average income of around $50,000 a year then YOU need to operate and control your costs so that you can live and operate on a similar level income on the day to day....

Again, only speaking for myself, but I balance my approach between what I am willing to do a job for, the risk and complexity of the job, and the market value of the engineering services provided. So, a 2 mile skyscraper will be billed a lot differently than designing a few post for Mrs. Henderson's new deck. If someone is willing to pay me $100 million for an engineering job then I wont turn it down but I wouldn't ask for it.

I don't know about you but most engineers aren't making bank of their clients. I drive a 8 year old Ford Focus, wife drives a 17 year old Toyota Corolla, I live in a modest house, about my only luxury is I fly a small Cessna private plane that I share with a club. I could chase the money but I like what I do and I have enough to be happy and comfortable.

Quote (Rick)

Even in architectual/engineering firms, most employees has to pay for their own licenses or certifications, professional liability and E&O insurances and other things from their own base salary.

They are bad at negotiating with their company if they are paying for them out of pocket (if they're not self-employed). These are business expenses, make the business pay. It's better for everyone financially if they do.

Quote (Rick)

...That's only about $12,000. Some years, that maybe only 10% disposable income. That is about $6,000....

Rick, you keep making these calculations asserting essentially that one should live within ones means and not charge more than a market can bear, but there is a flip side to this. You don't get to hire a doctor or lawyer for $10/hr (unless they're generous or working probono of course). Why? Because there is an investment in time and money to become and maintain those professions. Same for engineering.

For example, pretend I didn't go to college and intern to be an engineer. For me personally this would have saved 10 years and about $40,000 (most engineers are probably in for a lot more money, too). Let us also include the hours spent studying for my licensure exam (lets do this at $10 per hour for my time); 600 hrs x $10/hr = $6,000. Assuming I make the average income for my age/education in a field like IT (or similar technical field), I'd make on average ~$46,000 x 4 years = $184,000. Let's say 80% of that is after tax = $147,200.

Summing all that I get $193,200 and lets subtract frugal living expenses of $25,000 per year for 4 years. We get $93,200.

So, if I had $93,200 when I would have graduated college 10 years ago, at a 4% monthly compound interest rate we end up with $138,945 of lost profit that I could have right now if I worked instead of going to college, and lived frugally while investing money at a mild return rate.

The fact of the matter is I invested time and money to learn my profession rather than go into a trade right out of high school. I was actually getting payed $12/hr to do IT work in high school and could have easily made a career out of it but decided to invest my time and money in a college education to become an engineer. I would hope to be compensated for this investment of my time and money.

If the market can't support it then I've lost my investment. Fair enough. But if the market can support it then like heck I'm going to design a house for a few hundred bucks. You need to pay me for my time invested and if you can't I'll just move on to the jobs that will.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that you incur a lot of liability by doing engineering. Assuming I will eventually be sued I need to ensure that the work I do during my career was worth it for this added risk of a lawsuit.

Bringing this all back around to the original topic. Engineering is a profession; literally. You "profess" your expertise. Thus, we invest this time and money to learn and earn that title. But if any old snake oil salesman, person with a BS in engineering, sales "engineer", or whatever other title self-imposed, tries to muddy the water then we've lost the trust in the profession. Thus, the reason for licensure. You need to have benchmarks to hold out that can be trusted by those outside the profession.

Car designers (IMO) don't need to be licensed, their profession stands out based on quality alone. People can quickly find out if a car if poorly designed and the designer of the car will be punished by the free market. There are also government oversight and other regulations and standards imposed, it's even more restrictive than engineering licensure. But the cost of this engineering is distributed over hundreds of thousands of cars. We can only distribute our engineering overhead to a few hundred jobs at most.

Regarding the original topic, some guy calling themselves an engineer in various circumstances is a tough question without an easy answer. Licensure tries to ensure that nobody can muddy the waters of the engineering profession. Licensed engineers can and should charge for their engineering overhead and liability.

In summary, engineers have to charge what a market can bear but the playing field needs to be level. Licensure helps to ensure that someone isn't competing unfairly because our industry relies so heavily on professing ones competency. That's why we get licensed and that's why we can and should charge more than an unlicensed person. If the economy gets so broken that our services can't be afforded then so be it. But then you'll get shoddy engineering, failures, loss of life and property, and the end result will be a push for oversight and, you guessed it, licensing of engineers.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

Quote (Rick)

Even in architectual/engineering firms, most employees has to pay for their own licenses or certifications, professional liability and E&O insurances and other things from their own base salary.

Wait... what?

Quote (Rick)

The way the lending market works... even at best, it is likely to cover only 80% of the amount needed for construction based on national (not local) cost standards

Huh?

Quote (Rick)

we are not going to be charging more than about $10,000 or so for 200 "billed" hours and yes, the total hours spent might actually exceed 200 billed hours because that maybe the amount of time explicitly towards the project in drafting.

Really?

Quote:

We are a hard working profession that works 12 to 16 hours a day.

We do?

Quote:

You don't make it rich doing a "professional/personal service" business/career. You do that by being making products that you can sell on a global market.

Whoops.

Sorry, it sounds like you've had a rough path in your career and business. But I don't think that's indicative of the profession as a whole.


----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.

Quote:

Car designers (IMO) don't need to be licensed, their profession stands out based on quality alone.

Comparing building design to automotive design is largely apples and oranges for many reasons but the comparison does raise an interesting question - Are we all as members of "public" truly protected by engineering licensure or is it the legal and monetary repercussions that limit bad engineering? In the auto industry its the second, I've known quite a few non-PEs who've refused to release work due to noncompliance with govt regs and the ever-present threat of fines and/or spending a few years in prison. In those cases licensure really wouldn't protect anybody. Along a similar vein, reading the professional society rags it always seems like when someone is caught faking a PE its after theyve done so for years, never in the permitting and early planning stages of their first design. Admittedly, even the professional media is a bit sensationalistic so maybe those are overlooked for more dramatic stories.

Quote (IRstuff)

Dan -- your description is covered in California's industrial exemption, since you are not offering to do a custom design for each customer, but rather, you are selling a physical product that was engineered.

But what if I am designing a custom clock for each client? It's a harmless product, but it's still considered engineering, and therefore a fineable offense.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

drawoh, some of my friends and political acquaintances are Libertarians so I understand what irritates them. They may get upset and that's OK. I'm in a think tank run by a libertarian. That experience has enlightened me a great deal to the libertarian perspective. I'm not libertarian because of too many of the experiences I've endured. I know people have a great deal of difficulty regulating themselves. Some go to extremes of non-regulation and harm others.

Rick, I understand business competition. There is a broader point.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program: http://nspe-co.org/events.php

Quote (I know people have a great deal of difficulty regulating themselves.)

Wouldn't that be a Libertine as opposed to a Libertarian?

Quote (CWB1)

Comparing building design to automotive design is largely apples and oranges for many reasons...

Cars, aeroplanes and clocks generally are not built to code. Prototypes are built and tested. If you design an aeroplane wing and they put it in the whiffle tree and it survives and you tell them your wife's hairdresser did the structural analysis, nobody cares. When you build bridges and tall buildings, you have one shot at it, with awful consequences for failure. You manage risk by only allowing qualified people to do the work, and by requiring them to follow tested, accepted design methods.

--
JHG

Quote:

I've a different perspective on this and regret Jarlstrom's win. Amendment 10 empowers states to regulate themselves where the federal government doesn't. Therefore, I see Jarlstrom's win as a loss for the ability of states to regulate themselves. Each state has the right to make its own laws to govern the people of that state.

Amendment 1 supersedes Amendment 10, by the raw language in Amendment 10.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

Dan -- I think you are still exempted:

Quote (California PE Act 2016)

6747. Exemption for industries
(a) This chapter, except for those provisions that apply to civil engineers and civil engineering, shall not apply to the performance of engineering work by a manufacturing, mining, public utility, research and development, or other industrial corporation, or by employees of that corporation, provided that work is in connection with, or incidental to, the products, systems, or services of that corporation or its affiliates.
(b) For purposes of this section, “employees” also includes consultants, temporary employees, contract employees, and those persons hired pursuant to third-party contracts.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote (bridgebuster)

Wouldn't that be a Libertine as opposed to a Libertarian?

Could be and could not be. I like the distinction.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program: http://nspe-co.org/events.php

We're discussing the restriction on the term "engineer" and the anyone's ability to make use of engineering concepts, math, etc., and the ability to publicly lay claim to both.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Freedom of speech means that you have the freedom to say anything you want without government censorship.

It DOES NOT mean freedom from the repercussions of your statements.

For example:

If someone exercises their right of free speech to tell a police officer "Yesterday I robbed the First Trust Bank on Main St." that does NOT provide immunity from prosecution for the crime committed.

This is exactly equal to the engineer thing.

IRstuff,

The term "professional engineer" establishes your ability to make use of engineering concepts, math, etc. Some engineers drive trains. I suggest you spend some time on Reason's website to see why this issue interests them.

--
JHG

"The term "professional engineer" establishes your ability to make use of engineering concepts, math, etc."

No, my 4 years in an engineering university establishes that, as does my 40 yrs in the industry and my job title.

"Professional engineer" means that they're licensed and under the purview of the licensing board.

I have neither desire nor need for either, but I do want to reclaim "engineer" as my title and "engineering" as my job description without fear of persecution by a licensing board.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Ickzackerly. The boards co-opted an existing title and are now engaged in mission creep trying to stamp out its use by other people. Oh except for Microsoft because Microsoft would win by spending cubic dollars.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

To summarize:

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future