We have similar issue here where even professional electrical engineers with their advanced qualifications and decades of experience are banned from installing a power point or a light switch in their own home. From my experience some of the licensed electricians are incompetent and dangerous, and should not be in the business. Except for one electrician I know, I trust my skills in electrical wiring much more than most electricians.
where even professional electrical engineers with their advanced qualifications and decades of experience are banned from installing a power point or a light switch in their own home.
Quotewhere even professional electrical engineers with their advanced qualifications and decades of experience are banned from installing a power point or a light switch in their own home.sounds like the uk.
We have similar issue here where even professional electrical engineers with their advanced qualifications and decades of experience are banned from installing a power point or a light switch in their own home.
From my experience some of the licensed electricians are incompetent and dangerous, and should not be in the business. Except for one electrician I know, I trust my skills in electrical wiring much more than most electricians.
Wrong side of the equator.
This time it's North Carolina & Wayne Nutt:
This time it's North Carolina & Wayne Nutt:
Seems like a clear-cut case to me. One might require a license to offer engineering services and charge for them. There may also be a license requirement if you want to perform engineering and act upon the results -- e.g. build a house or a bridge. Both are reasonable requirements to protect the general public from scams or from potentially dangerous buildings or products.
But I struggle to imagine any legal system where it is prohibited to practice scientific studies, calculations, technical design work etc. for your own pleasure, or to give non-binding and free advice to others.
Quotewhere even professional electrical engineers with their advanced qualifications and decades of experience are banned from installing a power point or a light switch in their own home.sounds like the uk.Wrong side of the equator. It's Australia.
You can have all the knowledge and qualifications under the sun, but if you don't have an Electricians Licence, you can't touch a power point, light switch or any other fixed wiring. Even then, there are classes of licence, depending on where the required work is within the network (think Cat ratings on your meter).
Quotewhere even professional electrical engineers with their advanced qualifications and decades of experience are banned from installing a power point or a light switch in their own home.sounds like the uk.Wrong side of the equator. It's Australia.
You can have all the knowledge and qualifications under the sun, but if you don't have an Electricians Licence, you can't touch a power point, light switch or any other fixed wiring. Even then, there are classes of licence, depending on where the required work is within the network (think Cat ratings on your meter).
lol, the usual reactionary crap from 4th hand retellings that have wandered from the actual situation.
Expert testimony is in no way normal public speaking or a passive pass-time, this guy didn't put an opinion on a blog or chat to someone at a party, but was put into court to provide an opinion. Which is something that only registered professionals can do (for various reasons) and no amount of disclaimers along the lines of "I'm not a registered engineer, but.... " avoid it.
This time it's North Carolina & Wayne Nutt:
Seems like a clear-cut case to me. One might require a license to offer engineering services and charge for them. There may also be a license requirement if you want to perform engineering and act upon the results -- e.g. build a house or a bridge. Both are reasonable requirements to protect the general public from scams or from potentially dangerous buildings or products.
But I struggle to imagine any legal system where it is prohibited to practice scientific studies, calculations, technical design work etc. for your own pleasure, or to give non-binding and free advice to others.
lol, the usual reactionary crap from 4th hand retellings that have wandered from the actual situation.
Expert testimony is in no way normal public speaking or a passive pass-time, this guy didn't put an opinion on a blog or chat to someone at a party, but was put into court to provide an opinion. Which is something that only registered professionals can do (for various reasons) and no amount of disclaimers along the lines of "I'm not a registered engineer, but.... " avoid it.
Where did you read or hear that he testified in court as an expert? Not saying that you are wrong, but I did not see that mentioned anywhere. Can you please provide a reference to your source?
Here's an update: https://www.wect.com/2021/06/10/retired-wilmington-engineer-files-federal-lawsuit-against-state-board-claims-first-amendement-violations/
@Someone
In the US, in order to testify as an expert witness, the court must accept your qualifications. That can be done before or during a trial. Of course, if the expert lies during that examination he/she commits perjury. As for limiting such testimony to "registered" professionals only, being currently registered or licensed may help establish expertise, but is not required per se, at least not every instance.
There is a distinction between being an expert witness and practicing. For example, an individual can represent himself in court, but he cannot give an expert opinion on the law.
QuoteWrong side of the equator.I was pointing out the similarity in the rules not the geographical location. As an example on a previous job i was regularly playing with much larger supplies than found in your average house , often outdoors,either from the mains,generators or a combination of the two and was my name on the paper work that said it complied to the relevant regulations,however back at home, unless i pay one of the cartels an annual bung im legally unable to change a light fitting in the bathroom.Seems the years i spent at collage studying along with the final practical exam as part of a proper 5 year city and guilds apprenticeship was a waste of time.
As the case makes clear, the previous court accepted the witness as an expert, but a different set of laws restrict engineering practice. By giving expert testimony the regulatory board says that is undertaking engineering practice which is restricted,...
You can change a fitting in the UK without any qualification if its your own house,
I'm sure the people who made laws barring even competent individuals from doing their own electrical work thought they were making the world a safer place, but it comes with unintended consequences, and being treated like an incompetent child by a government entity is something I find absolutely intolerable and oppressive.
QuoteYou can change a fitting in the UK without any qualification if its your own house,unless its in a special location,such as a room containing a bath or shower
By giving expert testimony the regulatory board says that is undertaking engineering practice which is restricted, while the other side has jumped at free speech as a populist position to gloss over all the complexities. There has to be a line somewhere between practising that impacts the public, providing testimony in court is pretty clearly something that impacts the public.
lol, the usual reactionary crap from 4th hand retellings that have wandered from the actual situation.
Expert testimony is in no way normal public speaking or a passive pass-time, this guy didn't put an opinion on a blog or chat to someone at a party, but was put into court to provide an opinion. Which is something that only registered professionals can do (for various reasons) and no amount of disclaimers along the lines of "I'm not a registered engineer, but.... " avoid it.
Where did you read or hear that he testified in court as an expert? Not saying that you are wrong, but I did not see that mentioned anywhere. Can you please provide a reference to your source?Here is the "free speech" side of the story:
https://ij.org/press-release/north-carolina-board-tells-retired-engineer-he-cant-talk-about-engineering/
Where you can see the actual legal document they submitted.
lol, the usual reactionary crap from 4th hand retellings that have wandered from the actual situation.
Expert testimony is in no way normal public speaking or a passive pass-time, this guy didn't put an opinion on a blog or chat to someone at a party, but was put into court to provide an opinion. Which is something that only registered professionals can do (for various reasons) and no amount of disclaimers along the lines of "I'm not a registered engineer, but.... " avoid it.
Where did you read or hear that he testified in court as an expert? Not saying that you are wrong, but I did not see that mentioned anywhere. Can you please provide a reference to your source?Here is the "free speech" side of the story:
https://ij.org/press-release/north-carolina-board-tells-retired-engineer-he-cant-talk-about-engineering/
Where you can see the actual legal document they submitted.
Thanks. The factual history included in that filing states that he prepared a "preliminary draft" opinion in writing and was deposed as a witness. It seems that he never got to actually testify, since the opposing party immediately threatened to report him to the Board.
Next time you express an opinion, it would be great if you could skip the "LOL"ing at other forum members and calling their posts "reactionary crap". And if you want to scold others for relying on "4th hand retellings", it would be more convincing if your own facts were fully correct, not just directionally.
By giving expert testimony the regulatory board says that is undertaking engineering practice which is restricted, while the other side has jumped at free speech as a populist position to gloss over all the complexities. There has to be a line somewhere between practising that impacts the public, providing testimony in court is pretty clearly something that impacts the public.Sometimes you need outsiders to say the emperor has no clothes and law seems to me the perfect place to do that ... how can judges and juries judge the accuracy of testimony without some board putting on their seal of approval? Well I guess they'll just have to do their best, lawyers for the other side are allowed to attack the credibility of testimony and present their own experts.
The alternative is to have zero recourse in questioning the decisions of incestuous groups of engineers.
I understand you frustration - and I share it to a point, but it comes down to a point where there are people that THINK they are competent ....