Man fined for criticizing govt using science, without a license

[basinstreetdesign]

That's freaking ridiculous.    Having to be "registered" to practice engineering is a thing... wow.  I don't want to live on this planet anymore.  Seriously, this kind of stuff pisses me off and it's all over.  So much ridiculous legislation like this everywhere you turn and it's only getting worse.

Its common around the world that civil/structural engineers need to be registered and licenced. Since public safety rests on their work, its not unreasonable, and the licencing rules were often the result of some nasty incidents of poor engineering. Electronics is an oddity. Almost all electronic equipment is designed by people with no professional licencing, but the people doing the simple installation and maintenance of such equipment frequently do require a licence.

I'm in Ontario and a member of Professional Engineers Ontario.  They've been taking my dues money for decades.  I fully understand and agree with Coppice and with the principles involved with making sure that engineers who design buildings, bridges, water systems, vehicles must be verifiably expert in what they do.  There's no way I want to drive across a bridge designed by a hack or live/work in a multistory building designed by guess and by golly.  A couple of years ago we had a case where the roof of a shopping mall fell in because the owners, builders and the project engineers decided to cut some corners and save some money.

On the one hand the PEO do seem to be hyper-sensitive about non-members calling themselves "engineers" I can understand it.  But OTOH they dont seem to know what to do with those who design electronics and generally look the other way.  I think its because they assume that life or property won't be put at risk if a transistor loses its magic smoke.

So I agree with the Oregon chap and his altruistic tilt at this particular windmill but he should have known when and when NOT to claim his status as an engineer.  Or else go get registered THEN go tilting.  I can see the Oregon authorities point but they should also not throw the baby out with the bathwater and completely ignore the safety issue.

[james_s]

Even if it were undeniably illegal to call oneself an engineer without the proper certification, in this case it seems pretty clear the guy was right so they are only doing this to save face and distract from the real issues he has pointed out. Seems like an effort to discredit him and blow off his findings more than anything else.

[langwadt]

In the 20 some years I've been driving I've never hit anything, never had a ticket, never even so much as a parking ticket, but I've lost count of the number of times I've been rear ended. It's frustrating beyond belief.

We all know that correlation != causation, but still, you might want to consider the possibility that there is some cause and effect relationship there. 

You are legally allowed to stop at any moment, without warning. It is ENTIRELY the responsibility of any following vehicle to maintain a separation sufficient to allow them to stop if you do.

yes but, at least here, if you cause an accident by braking for an animal smaller than a dog you will most likely get half the blame

[chickenHeadKnob]

In the 20 some years I've been driving I've never hit anything, never had a ticket, never even so much as a parking ticket, but I've lost count of the number of times I've been rear ended. It's frustrating beyond belief.

We all know that correlation != causation, but still, you might want to consider the possibility that there is some cause and effect relationship there. 

You are legally allowed to stop at any moment, without warning. It is ENTIRELY the responsibility of any following vehicle to maintain a separation sufficient to allow them to stop if you do.

yes but, at least here, if you cause an accident by braking for an animal smaller than a dog you will most likely get half the blame

I apologize in advance for contributing to this of topic thread drift. In Canada there has been a recent test case on exactly this situation:  Woman convicted for stopping for ducks on hiway, her action resulted in 2 deaths.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/prison-on-hold-for-woman-who-caused-2-deaths-while-trying-to-help-ducks-1.2181443

[james_s]

While stopping in the middle of the highway to help ducks seems like a dangerously foolish thing to do, I still don't see how this is her fault. What's the difference between stopping for the ducks and stopping for a person or because traffic ahead is stopped, from the perspective of cars coming up behind? Each person is 100% responsible for driving at a safe speed for the conditions and maintaining a safe distance between vehicles such that they can stop under any circumstances without hitting the car in front of them. Without even seeing the scene, I can say with reasonable certainty that the people who were killed were traveling too fast for the conditions.

[mtdoc]

While stopping in the middle of the highway to help ducks seems like a dangerously foolish thing to do, I still don't see how this is her fault.

It really depends on where in the road she stopped.  If it was in the middle of a blind corner then....

I have to deal with this situation on a regular basis since I live next to a National Park and drive 5 miles on a park road to get home.  During tourist season, it's a regular occurrence to come around a curve and find a car stopped in the middle of the road with the passengers taking pictures of wildlife or scenery.

[james_s]

But it could just as easily be a traffic backup due just to traffic, or a broken down car, or an accident that has not been cleared yet, or a sinkhole or any number of other things. If it really is a blind corner then the speed limit should be set accordingly. Around here corners like that in the highway are rare but where they exist on other roads it's common for there to be a fisheye mirror near the apex of the perimeter or occasionally flashing warning lights that come on when approaching traffic is detected. Even so, it is still the responsibility of every driver to ensure that they are always able to stop in time for any reason.

[Monkeh]

Yes, certainly it is the fault of any oncoming vehicle that can't safely stop or maneuver to avoid a static obstacle in the road.

That does not give drivers the right to randomly create obstacles on a high speed road!

[GreyWoolfe]

When I was hired by my present employer, we were called Field Service Engineers.  After a few years, our titles were changed to Field Service Technician III and were told not to use the title of Field Service Engineer.  It was probably done to avoid some legal dust up as we work strictly with government entities.

[josecamoessilva]

When I graduated EECS (circa the Paleozoic), I got a letter from the Portuguese "order of engineers" telling me about all the great things they would do for me and all the things I couldn't do without joining. They wanted more in yearly dues than the IEEE, ACM, and AAAI put together (all of which I was a member of), so I never replied.

One time some representatives of the order were visiting our school for some even day and on a panel discussion one said that "some of your professors aren't real engineers" (because not members of the order) to which I grabbed a mic and asked a few basic EECS questions. The kind that students knew the answer to.

I'll let you guess what happened. 

Diplomacy, never my forte.

[EEVblog]

When I graduated EECS (circa the Paleozoic), I got a letter from the Portuguese "order of engineers" telling me about all the great things they would do for me and all the things I couldn't do without joining. They wanted more in yearly dues than the IEEE, ACM, and AAAI put together (all of which I was a member of), so I never replied.
One time some representatives of the order were visiting our school for some even day and on a panel discussion one said that "some of your professors aren't real engineers" (because not members of the order) to which I grabbed a mic and asked a few basic EECS questions. The kind that students knew the answer to.
I'll let you guess what happened. 
Diplomacy, never my forte.

 

[EEVblog]

When people buy electronics, they must be assured it is made by a licensed electronics engineer, and not just someone who happened to learn electronics at home and now calls themselves an electronics engineer.

Oregon has no license for "Electronics Engineer".  I have never heard of a licensing requirement in the US for designers of electronics, semiconductors, computers, etc.

Seems there are some naughty employers in Oregon:
https://www.monster.com/jobs/search/?q=electronics-engineer&where=Oregon

Take this example:
Heaps of requirements, but none mention certification!
http://job-openings.monster.com/v2/job/View?JobID=182475293&MESCOID=1700190001001&jobPosition=2
http://job-openings.monster.com/v2/job/View?JobID=183182472&MESCOID=1700190001001&jobPosition=1
http://jobview.monster.com/electronic-electrical-engineer-automotive-job-portland-or-us-182698839.aspx?mescoid=1700169001001&jobPosition=1

[EEVblog]

To the topic at hand:  Of course the state wants him to shut up.  If his calculations are accepted and the previous standards are truly incorrect, the state has considerable exposure.  Not only for excessive citations but possibly for turn lane accidents.  Fining him was not the best way to handle the problem.  Once it gets in the paper, all kinds of things come out of the woodwork.

Yep, stupid move on their part. They should have just ignored it, or if they are legally obligated to reply, send a thank you for your suggestion note and be done with it.

[james_s]

Yes, certainly it is the fault of any oncoming vehicle that can't safely stop or maneuver to avoid a static obstacle in the road.

That does not give drivers the right to randomly create obstacles on a high speed road!

Stopping to allow wildlife (ducks in this case) to safely pass is not randomly creating obstacles. If someone were to stop to deposit ducks or other obstacles in the highway then I would agree that a crime has been committed, but stopping because something is in the road already to allow it to pass or to remove it from the road is not (or should not be) a crime.

[sibeen]

Yeah, the Queensland thing is real in the electrical field. I do quite a lot of designs for a large National company as a consultant. Whenever I do one in Queensland it has to be "actually" designed and signed off by someone who has the relevant certification as a PE.

Just because their designs happen to end up identical to the one that I originally submitted has very little to do with the point. 

The only other time I've ever run across it was when designing emergency lighting in a tunnel system. The university that I was doing the job for required a chartered status engineer to sign off on it. I hired someone for a few days to look over my design and put his stamp of approval all over the drawings.

[josecamoessilva]

In theory, the idea of a professional certification (like the AMA or ABA) isn't that outlandish; the practice of engineering touches several areas where a bad decision can be catastrophic (bridges and buildings, yes, but also operation of chemical plants, utilities, power distribution networks, cybersecurity).

In practice, though, professional certification of engineering raises many issues. Like, for example, whether and how often is recertification required? AFAIK most of these organizations aren't that keen on alienating dues-paying members by making them face up to the fact that their knowledge is obsolete (what little they didn't forget, that is). 

Or, how are the certification requirements set? This is a problem because once there's some power, even limited power, in a given organization, the type of person who's attracted and who succeeds in those organizations tends to be more interested in politicking than in engineering. (I could go on for a while...)

(I'm not a fan of any organization that operates by force or deception, and guilds and state-enforced licensing requirements tend to mix both. Of course, an employer may require this certification or that license, but that's a voluntary transaction.)

As far as I know there was never a case like the OP in Portugal, but one of the things that the "order of engineers" said I couldn't do was to call myself "an engineer." Seriously, the letter said that I had to call myself a "graduate from [my school's] engineering program." So, Oregon isn't alone.

[kaz911]

I would prefer if organisation licensed engineers - was required to put in their license giver - so "Licensed/Certified Engineer by IEEE" or something like that. Right now the title of engineer is so watered down and differs from country to country.

So don't hog the generic title but show the license agency with the title if you need to. Doctors should have to do the same.

And then maybe add when they wore certified. I know many "engineers" where their knowledge have expired long ago - and are still stuck in 1970's. And quite a few "Doctors" as well...??

[Zero999]

I made the comment about being legally allowed to stop.

Of course emergency stops in the middle of the road for little apparent reason might not be prudent. Especially if you're a motorcyclist, as I am (with around half a million km behind me). I keep an eye on who is behind me, and if anyone is closer than I'm comfortable with I pull over and let them past. And then if they drive slower in front of me than they did behind me (surprisingly often) I overtake them again and repeat as many times as necessary until they damn well stop being stupid.

I've been in cars that have been rear-ended twice. Both times as a passenger with the same driver.

I used to work with a guy who had a prosthetic leg due to some idiot running a red light while he was on a motorcycle. That and having been rear ended a number of times in my car has been enough to keep me from getting a motorcycle though they look like a lot of fun. Some days it just feels like the universe is trying to kill me.

Talking of red lights.

As a motorcyclist myself, I often get frustrated because my bike is too small for some traffic lights to detect. This means that I sometimes have to run a red, otherwise wait indefinitely because it will never turn green. I had to do this last night at some temporary lights. I'd been waiting there for over 5 minutes, there was nothing coming the other way and a queue of traffic was building up behind me. In the end I preceded with caution. When I got through the lights and checked my rear view mirror the other side was red too!

[EEVblog]

Yeah, the Queensland thing is real in the electrical field. I do quite a lot of designs for a large National company as a consultant. Whenever I do one in Queensland it has to be "actually" designed and signed off by someone who has the relevant certification as a PE.

So it's only the "electrical" (mains/grid stuff?) field and not "electronics"?
I presume that if it included electronics PCB design then I would have heard about this long ago.

[EEVblog]

As far as I know there was never a case like the OP in Portugal, but one of the things that the "order of engineers" said I couldn't do was to call myself "an engineer." Seriously, the letter said that I had to call myself a "graduate from [my school's] engineering program." So, Oregon isn't alone.

Wow, we just take our "engineering freedom" for granted here I guess!

[EEVblog]

I would prefer if organisation licensed engineers - was required to put in their license giver - so "Licensed/Certified Engineer by IEEE" or something like that. Right now the title of engineer is so watered down and differs from country to country.
So don't hog the generic title but show the license agency with the title if you need to.

The word "engineer" absolutely should not be protected.
By all means make up your certified stuff like CPEng etc and protect that, and then let market forces (or even laws were required) take care of who's allowed to do what.
But trying to protect the generic word engineer is the dumbest idea in history and will never work.

[langwadt]

I would prefer if organisation licensed engineers - was required to put in their license giver - so "Licensed/Certified Engineer by IEEE" or something like that. Right now the title of engineer is so watered down and differs from country to country.
So don't hog the generic title but show the license agency with the title if you need to.

The word "engineer" absolutely should not be protected.
By all means make up your certified stuff like CPEng etc and protect that, and then let market forces (or even laws were required) take care of who's allowed to do what.
But trying to protect the generic word engineer is the dumbest idea in history and will never work.

here engineer is not a protected title, anyone can call themselves engineer, though it generally means a Bsc or Msc in an engineering field.
Civilengineer( not specific to civil engineering) is protected you can only call yourself civilengineer if you have an Msc in an engineering field

[grumpydoc]

I would prefer if organisation licensed engineers - was required to put in their license giver - so "Licensed/Certified Engineer by IEEE" or something like that. Right now the title of engineer is so watered down and differs from country to country.
So don't hog the generic title but show the license agency with the title if you need to.

The word "engineer" absolutely should not be protected.
By all means make up your certified stuff like CPEng etc and protect that, and then let market forces (or even laws were required) take care of who's allowed to do what.
But trying to protect the generic word engineer is the dumbest idea in history and will never work.

Even trying to protect Doctor is difficult - anyone with a PhD can legitimately entitle themselves "Doctor". I believe that the current legally protected term in the UK is "Registered Medical Practitioner".

[coppice]

Even trying to protect Doctor is difficult - anyone with a PhD can legitimately entitle themselves "Doctor". I believe that the current legally protected term in the UK is "Registered Medical Practitioner".

I seem to remember that in the UK it is strictly only PhDs who are allowed to call themselves Doctor, however common it may be for medical people to call themselves that.

[kaz911]

I would prefer if organisation licensed engineers - was required to put in their license giver - so "Licensed/Certified Engineer by IEEE" or something like that. Right now the title of engineer is so watered down and differs from country to country.
So don't hog the generic title but show the license agency with the title if you need to.

The word "engineer" absolutely should not be protected.
By all means make up your certified stuff like CPEng etc and protect that, and then let market forces (or even laws were required) take care of who's allowed to do what.
But trying to protect the generic word engineer is the dumbest idea in history and will never work.

Just to clarify I do completely agree that Engineer should not be a protected title. Only Engineer + ORG should be protected IMHO.