Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speech 62

[Terratek]

This article popped up in my google feed. I thought it was interesting, a little funny and a little ridiculous.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/beaverton_man_claims_oregon_st.html

Being familiar with licensing laws, and being an engineer, I agree with the city. I can see how easily a lay person could buy the spin, though.

 

[Ron]

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

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

 

[hydrae]

Reason are listed in the Law

]

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.

 

[hokie66]

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

 

[JAE]

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

[blue](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; [/blue]
I've never heard of a self-service crisis of exploding cars in other states.

[blue](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; [/blue]
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.

[blue](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; [/blue]
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.

[blue](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; [/blue] Hey Oregon – try northern Minnesota in the winter. Pansies

[blue] (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; [/blue] 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.

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

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

[blue] (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; [/blue] 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.

[blue] (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; [/blue] So many are dying across the country from filling their own tanks that somebody, anybody…please do something!!!

[blue] (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 [/blue] 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.

[blue](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; [/blue] 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.

[blue] (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; [/blue] …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?

[blue] (12) Self-service dispensing at retail in other states does not provide a sustained reduction in fuel prices charged to customers; [/blue] 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.

[blue] (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; [/blue] 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.

[blue] (14) Self-service dispensing at retail contributes to unemployment, particularly among young people; [/blue] …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.

[blue] (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; [/blue] But young people need the work so if they get sick from the fumes that’s OK.

[blue] (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 [/blue] So let’s have everyone pay more for full service instead of providing for identified full service islands.

[blue] (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) [/blue]
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

 

[3DDave]

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.

 

[Ron]

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.

 

[IRstuff]

"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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JAE]

"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

 

[3DDave]

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.

 

[JNieman]

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.

 

[PMR06]

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.

 

[JNieman]

@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:

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.

 

[LionelHutz]

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.

 

[PMR06]

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/...-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government

"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.

I see no danger to the public

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.

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

Thank you.

 

[IRstuff]

"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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[CWB1]

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.

 

[HamburgerHelper]

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

 

[1gibson]

Trained but not certified

 

[IRstuff]

"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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hydrae]

JAE
No Joke, that is quoted directly from the Oregon Revised Status

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors480.html

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?