Settingsun
Structural
Maths is restricted by law. I thought this was America...
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
Udate on "traffic light engineer". 9
- Thread starter Compositepro
- Start date
- Status
Settingsun
Structural
I read the OSBEELS statement that stevenal posted. The second-last paragraph is key. They didn't stop to consider whether what they - public servants - were doing was in the public interest. Xnuke suggested that's how they've operated for some time.
Therein lies the rub; you have, often, public service zealots who studiously follow the letter of the law, and ignore the raison d'être of the law. As stated in the Oregon law, the intent is to safeguard life, health and property, so regardless of what the other parts of the law say, there's room for selective enforcement, unless you have zealots that want to use every opportunity to send messages to the cowering masses to not mess with the board. I mean, if they're going to persecute some poor schmuck over revealing the arcane and mystical engineering maths to the general public, just think what they'd to to a real scofflaw. Zealots tend to ignore the greater good and drill down to the minutiae.
[URL unfurl="true" said:
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
LionelHutz
Electrical
Yes, if you asked the people who originally wrote the law why text such as "done for others" and "offered directly to the public" are in the law, I would suspect the response would be along the lines of it being written that way to avoid loophole type arguments. People will find ways to argue that they aren't practicing engineering if the definition for practicing engineering is too specific.
-
1
- #45
I actually had our now no longer working with us Division Manager place that ruling in the lunch room because there was a lot of talk about him signing stamped professional work as "Chief Engineer". The Chief Engineer position no longer existed. It was replaced with the "Division Manager" position with all degree and licensing requirements removed. But the work flow was never changed and still required the review and approval of the "Chief Engineer".
It was basically a legacy that shouldn't exist anymore but he really loved calling himself "chief engineer".
I took the article and wrote on it in my best penmanship
'If you actually read the ruling what matters is context. If you have an engineering degree and are talking about engineering in general you are not representing yourself as a professional engineer to a reasonable person. If you are running an engineering division at a major utility and calling yourself the "chief engineer" now a reasonable person could wrongly believe that you are a professional engineer.
Its like calling yourself Dr. Dre at a rap studio vs. calling yourself Dr. Dre at a hospital. '
It was basically a legacy that shouldn't exist anymore but he really loved calling himself "chief engineer".
I took the article and wrote on it in my best penmanship
'If you actually read the ruling what matters is context. If you have an engineering degree and are talking about engineering in general you are not representing yourself as a professional engineer to a reasonable person. If you are running an engineering division at a major utility and calling yourself the "chief engineer" now a reasonable person could wrongly believe that you are a professional engineer.
Its like calling yourself Dr. Dre at a rap studio vs. calling yourself Dr. Dre at a hospital. '
-
1
- #46
I125-Engineer
Nuclear
I have this argument with my colleagues all the time. The argument stems because our licensing body states that no one can use the title "engineer" unless they are a professional engineer. This is not legally the case. The requirement to be a licensed professional engineer in Canada involves the offering of a service to the public. This stems from our constitution that gives business licence power to the province and also provides something akin to the first amendment (my freedom to call myself an engineer). I am not a licensed engineer, but I don't have to be, neither am I offering my services to the public nor is my employer offering my services to the public. I can call myself an engineer, maybe even a professional one, as long as I am not offering or appear to be offering my services to the public in a business sense.
In ductility we trust.
In ductility we trust.
-
1
- #47
In the US, there are industrial exemptions that cover your particular situation.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
racookpe1978
Nuclear
I don't see it that way. So long as he made clear his qualifications (or lack thereof) and published it as an opinion, I don't see a violation. That would apply even if he said "I am an engineer" so long as he added "but my area of expertise is not in traffic planning or control" or something similar.
Seems like he would be judged completely legal in all regards if he had only said, "I passed a class in algebra, physics, and motion, and here are the calculations that prove the ticket/design/timing are wrong." And getting in trouble with the Board, when that is all the Board can complain about, is a case of the Board being told (by the local bureaucrats in "Traffic and Streets" being told by some politician-bureaucrat in the Police Dept) to harass the witnesses on trumped up charges.
Seems like he would be judged completely legal in all regards if he had only said, "I passed a class in algebra, physics, and motion, and here are the calculations that prove the ticket/design/timing are wrong." And getting in trouble with the Board, when that is all the Board can complain about, is a case of the Board being told (by the local bureaucrats in "Traffic and Streets" being told by some politician-bureaucrat in the Police Dept) to harass the witnesses on trumped up charges.
The NSPE has just such broad language in their model law, which does not require getting or soliciting payment, nor even a profession of "I am an engineer." My interpretation of the model law is the very act of doing an engineering analysis (creative work) is "practice of engineering" and therefore requires a license. The fact that there are not more cases such as in Oregon is simply due to selective enforcement. because the boards know that they would lose in court because of the overly broad language.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
[URL unfurl="true" said:
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
-
1
- #50
I always enjoy the irony of NSPE promoting such a "model law" while pretending it isn't a conflict of interest.
I disagree. Utilities do not sell engineering services directly to the public, so I don't see why anybody would assume they would even have a PE on staff.
I disagree. Utilities do not sell engineering services directly to the public, so I don't see why anybody would assume they would even have a PE on staff.
racookpe1978 said:
I think this is the point I tried to make in an earlier discussion on this. He called himself an engineer to establish the credibility of his traffic light analysis. If he had claimed to be a baseball fan, or an exotic dancer, the engineers would not have cared.
--
JHG
That, and doing the analysis, violates NSPE's model law, hence, the Oregon board fined him. But, he was clearly spoiling for a fight with the board, by specifically baiting them.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question