Man fined for criticizing govt using science, without a license

[mikeselectricstuff]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government
 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Of course, he committed a thoughtcrime.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

[BrianHG]

  This is the world some of us live in...

[MarkS]

Oregon is #2, just behind California, in messed up nonsensical laws in the U.S. This doesn't surprise me in the least. It will be interesting watching the state defend the regulations. They might have a case if he were offering his services for hire, as then licensing would come into play, but anyone trained, even self-trained, in a field is technically an "engineer" and would be 100% correct in calling themselves as much, even if they cannot work as such.

[RGB255_0_0]

I think hobbyists reading that will have to be careful what they call themselves. I'm guessing "visitors" are exempt from that law?

[MarkS]

I do understand where the state is coming from. I can study medicine on my own and potentially know as much, if not more than, a person graduating from medical school. I still cannot practice medicine without being licensed. This is a very real threat to the public. The same goes for an engineer. There are reasons for mandatory apprenticeships and licensing. No one in their right mind would drive over a bridge designed by some guy in his garage without a lengthy engineering review. Where the state overstepped their bounds is by preventing someone from calling themselves an engineer without being licensed. I can call myself whatever I want, even publicly and officially, without being licensed. I just cannot practice as such.

What happened here is akin to someone being on the receiving end of medical malpractice, researching for themselves what procedures should have been done, presenting that research and their experiences to the medical review board and then getting fined for practicing medicine without a license.

[T3sl4co1l]

Without looking at the particulars of the laws, I would suppose:

For the purpose of making engineering judgements about civil infrastructure, he has no qualification.  That is, he is not a registered PE, for civil engineering purposes, and therefore for legal and civil purposes.

They're free to disregard good advice... that's up to them.

But, fining him for calling himself something he never asserted (namely, electrical engineer != civil engineer) is a bit over the top.

Hopefully the gov't is biting off more than they can chew, and things turn out for the best...

Tim

[T3sl4co1l]

I just cannot practice as such.

So an important question: does this constitute practice?

(I would think not: he isn't being paid for it!)

Tim

[RGB255_0_0]

...

I'd bet good money on if you called yourself a policeman or military personnel of standing you'd be breaking more serious laws than that of a civil fine.

[MarkS]

I'd bet good money on if you called yourself a policeman or military personnel of standing you'd be breaking more serious laws than that of a civil fine.

I can call myself a police officer or even a four star general. It's only once I try to take actions as such that laws come into effect. The Supreme Court recently overturned a law that penalized someone for claiming to be a veteran. You are free to claim to be active duty or retired military, regardless if it is true or not, so long as you do not use this as a ruse to collect benefits (monetary, access to facilities, charity, etc.). It is only after the speech turns to actions that the free speech protections provided by the Constitution cease.

[donotdespisethesnake]

It's clear that he broke the law and continued to do so after it was pointed out to him. It didn't help that he tried to sue the authorities (he lost), all so he could get his wife off of a traffic ticket.

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. This sort of wanton lawlessness should be clamped down upon hard, in any free and open society. You simply cannot have people challenging unelected government officials, that is not democratic!

[MarkS]

It's clear that he broke the law and continued to do so after it was pointed out to him. It didn't help that he tried to sue the authorities (he lost), all so he could get his wife off of a traffic ticket.

Actually, according the the U.S. Constitution, he did not break a law. The Constitution is the document that all U.S. laws are judged on. You cannot enact a law that restricts a person's speech without clear and immediate dangers to public safety (or some legal terminology that escapes my mind at the moment). As such, the law in question, as written, will most likely not stand a constitutional challenge. More over, he only filed the lawsuit last week, so he hasn't lost and will most likely prevail.

[Red Squirrel]

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.

[CJay]

While this case seems to be rather ridiculous and seems to be a way to silence him, I believe engineers should be afforded some sort of professional status and right to use the title, I have heard that they are in some countries, Germany and Switzerland perhaps?

[jpanhalt]

I agree with those who say the difference lies in whether he held himself out to be a professional in a profession or trade licensed and regulated by the state (e.g., physician, lawyer, some types of engineer, electricians) or whether the term was used descriptively.  Whether one gets paid for services rendered as "profession" may or may not be relevant to a violation.  For example, representing another person in court as a lawyer is a violation regardless of whether you get paid as is calling yourself an M.D. and treating patients absent that degree and license. 

In a case in Minnesota with which I am familiar, an individual licensed by the state as a PE needed to sign off on design of a building's foundation.  The building's main structure also needed similar approval and sign-off by a licensed engineer.  However, portions of the building were "engineered" by a contractor who was not a licensed engineer nor did he need to be one.  The state ruled there was no violation in that act.  Of course, it is hard to predict how West Coast judges will rule.

John

[coppice]

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.

[T3sl4co1l]

Let's get some hot tasty reference in here:
https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/state-by-state-summary-licensure-law-exemptions.pdf

Looks like the guy is OK to "practice", given the typical EE activities and market.

Tim

[mikeselectricstuff]

I would have though that any licensing requirements of "practising as an engineer" type regulation should only cover work done for payment or in thecourse of a job, which clearly doesn't apply here.

[BrianHG]

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.

Funny, I'm just that.  I've developed automatic food packaging machine electronics, a CATV converter, a video stabilizer & enhancer for analog VCRs, a 24 bit video card for the Amiga home computer, a 3D stereoscopic glasses and interface, and multiformat video scaler, all which passed UL safety certification and FCC approvals and I sold them.  Now I do not have some sort of license for electronic engineering, I'm self taught at home.  Are you saying I should be put in jail?

What about all the software apps made by self taught programmers with successful software, never earning a software engineering degree, should they go to jail or be fined?  If a poorly developed program crashes a computer system which delegates important stuff, money can be lost, or someone's safety may be at risk.

[BrianHG]

I would have though that any licensing requirements of "practising as an engineer" type regulation should only cover work done for payment or in thecourse of a job, which clearly doesn't apply here.

You are correct.  The key here is 'engineers hired by the state, or an engineer contracted by the state requires the engineer to be licensed...'  This makes more sense, especially from a liability standpoint.  He should have been able to get out of the 500$ fine easily since he didn't do such a thing.  But when it comes to law, and wording, he fell into a trap and without proper legal council in the matter, which would cost more than the 500$ fine, he's sorta stuck.

[boffin]

Now there's also some interesting history in Oregon over names you can apply to yourself. Oregon was one of the 1st states to prevent people from claiming they had a degree when it came from a dodgy "life experience" unaccredited degree granting institutions (like Kennedy Western / Warren National).  Amazing what you come across when you start looking into the credentials of who will become your boss.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20041221005728/en/Oregon-Settles-Federal-Lawsuit-Filed-Kennedy-Western-University

I suspect if this goes further it will be overturned, because the term "engineer" is way too vague for the P.Eng body to enforce that all engineers are licensed by them (what about people who drive trains?).

Also what happens when Dr J comes to play basketball in Portland, or the "Tube Amp Doctor" fixes your classic blackface Fender, or the "Rug Doctor" cleans your carpets etc etc...

[EEVblog]

They're free to disregard good advice... that's up to them.
But, fining him for calling himself something he never asserted (namely, electrical engineer != civil engineer) is a bit over the top.
Hopefully the gov't is biting off more than they can chew, and things turn out for the best...

I hope he fights it, no way I would pay that fine.
Insane.

[EEVblog]

I suspect if this goes further it will be overturned, because the term "engineer" is way too vague for the P.Eng body to enforce that all engineers are licensed by them (what about people who drive trains?).

Yep, no way they can control usage of the name in a general sense, there are countless branches of engineering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_engineering_branches

[tszaboo]

It's clear that he broke the law and continued to do so after it was pointed out to him. It didn't help that he tried to sue the authorities (he lost), all so he could get his wife off of a traffic ticket.

Actually, according the the U.S. Constitution, he did not break a law. The Constitution is the document that all U.S. laws are judged on. You cannot enact a law that restricts a person's speech without clear and immediate dangers to public safety (or some legal terminology that escapes my mind at the moment). As such, the law in question, as written, will most likely not stand a constitutional challenge. More over, he only filed the lawsuit last week, so he hasn't lost and will most likely prevail.

"In the United States, most states prohibit unlicensed persons from calling themselves an "engineer" or indicating branches or specialities not covered by the licensing acts."
"I am allowed to say whatever it is possible to say" is not freedom of speech. He was writing an official letter to the authorities. If he would have signed as Dr. Steve Tailor or Steve Tailor PhD. he could have been fined also, because he is not a doctor.
I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers. I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

[VEGETA]

Anyone can say his opinion but an official degree is only required for payment jobs. However, on the other side, we can't take any word from anyone to be legit... but having a fine for it is just nonsense unless he really causes chaos and stuff.

[T3sl4co1l]

I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers. I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

A degree is not sufficient qualification to represent oneself as a Professional Engineer (P.E.).

For example, I make no such representation of myself, other than my job title, and my given legal name (no additional titles).

If I were a PE, or Dr, or any other legally regulated profession, I would display that title proudly!

Tim

[coppice]

"In the United States, most states prohibit unlicensed persons from calling themselves an "engineer" or indicating branches or specialities not covered by the licensing acts."
"I am allowed to say whatever it is possible to say" is not freedom of speech. He was writing an official letter to the authorities. If he would have signed as Dr. Steve Tailor or Steve Tailor PhD. he could have been fined also, because he is not a doctor.
I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers. I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

Most countries have some set of protected terms for professional skills, although you need to be careful about the exact protected words. For example, in the UK only a registered professional can called themselves a dietician, but any con artist can call themselves a nutritionist. These terms generally have nothing so do with degrees, although certain degrees might be the usual minimum needed for registration. However, few countries have any registration of electronics engineers. There simply is no oath to swear, or title to be awarded.

[Zero999]

They're free to disregard good advice... that's up to them.
But, fining him for calling himself something he never asserted (namely, electrical engineer != civil engineer) is a bit over the top.
Hopefully the gov't is biting off more than they can chew, and things turn out for the best...

I hope he fights it, no way I would pay that fine.
Insane.

You say that now but in reality, it may just be easier to pay the fine. I understand this is matter of principle, rather than money, but the time, stress, legal fees etc. may make it more trouble than it's worth.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"I am allowed to say whatever it is possible to say" is not freedom of speech. He was writing an official letter to the authorities. If he would have signed as Dr. Steve Tailor or Steve Tailor PhD. he could have been fined also, because he is not a doctor.
I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers. I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

"A Beaverton man who has a bachelor of science degree in engineering and has repeatedly challenged Oregon's timing of yellow traffic lights as too short was investigated by a state board for "unlicensed practice of engineering'' and fined $500.

Now, Mats Järlström has joined with the national Institute for Justice to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against members of the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying.

He contends state law and the board's actions that disallow anyone from using the word "engineer" if they're not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer amount to an "unconstitutional ban on mathematical debate.'

[..]

Järlström is a Swedish-born electronics engineer. After serving as an airplane-camera mechanic in the Swedish Air Force, he worked for Luxor Electronics and immigrated to the United States in 1992, settling in Oregon. Currently, he's self-employed, testing audio products and repairing and calibrating test instruments.

"The First Amendment guarantees to every American their right to debate anything and everything,'' said attorney Samuel Gedge, of the Institute for Justice. "And nobody needs a government permission slip to talk.''

According to the suit, the state board has initiated similar "outrageous'' investigations against others for using the word "engineer,'' including Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman:

-- In 2014, the board received a complaint that the Voters' Pamphlet described Salatzman's background as "environmental engineer.'' Saltzman earned a bachelor of science degree in environmental and civil engineering from Cornell University, a master of science degree from MIT School of Civil Engineering and membership in the American Society of Civil Engineers. He isn't, however, an Oregon-licensed professional engineer. The board investigated, and nearly a year later, voted to warn Saltzman against using the word "engineer" in incorrect ways, according to board meeting minutes.

-- In 2010, an activist told the city council in La Pine that a new power plant would be too loud for nearby neighbors. The board fined the activist $1,000 for "illegal, unlicensed practice of engineering,'' according to board minutes.

-- More recently, the board initiated an investigation into the subject of a Portland Monthly article -- a woman immigrant and entrepreneur featured in an online story titled "The incredible story of an engineer behind Portland's newest bridge.'' The board opened an investigation because the woman wasn't a professionally licensed Oregon engineer. The board questioned the writer, who said the woman profiled didn't use the word "engineer" but her editors included it in the headline. The board ultimately found the allegation unfounded.

-- A board investigation was launched into Republican gubernatorial candidate Allen Alley based on a complaint that he misused the word "engineer'' in one of his political ads. In the ad, he said he'd take a different approach, noting, "I'm an engineer and a problem solver.'' He earned a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering from Purdue University and worked as an engineer for Ford and Boeing and holds a string of engineering-related awards. But because he's not an Oregon-registered professional engineer, the board launched an investigation that's ongoing 10 months later.

[..]
"

oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/beaverton_man_claims_oregon_st.html

[EEVblog]

oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/beaverton_man_claims_oregon_st.html

Utter madness:

According to the suit, the state board has initiated similar "outrageous'' investigations against others for using the word "engineer,'' including Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman:

-- In 2014, the board received a complaint that the Voters' Pamphlet described Salatzman's background as "environmental engineer.'' Saltzman earned a bachelor of science degree in environmental and civil engineering from Cornell University, a master of science degree from MIT School of Civil Engineering and membership in the American Society of Civil Engineers. He isn't, however, an Oregon-licensed professional engineer. The board investigated, and nearly a year later, voted to warn Saltzman against using the word "engineer" in incorrect ways, according to board meeting minutes.

I can understand using a title bestowed by the Society of Civil Engineers, like P.E or whatever it is, but simply using the word "engineer" when it's both your vocation and the name of your degreed field of study is crazy.

[tszaboo]

I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers. I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

A degree is not sufficient qualification to represent oneself as a Professional Engineer (P.E.).

For example, I make no such representation of myself, other than my job title, and my given legal name (no additional titles).

If I were a PE, or Dr, or any other legally regulated profession, I would display that title proudly!

Tim

My university diploma declares that I have obtained the "title": "Electrical engineer". This is an official translation.
(There is no electronics engineer or equivalent in my language.)

"A Beaverton man who has a bachelor of science degree in engineering

I did not read this before. If this is true, than probably he just did not register at the  Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering. In fact, I change my mind, Oregon can fuck off. So if I would go there, not register myself, I wouldn't be allowed to use my title?

[EEVblog]

I did not read this before. If this is true, than probably he just did not register at the  Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering. In fact, I change my mind, Oregon can fuck off. So if I would go there, not register myself, I wouldn't be allowed to use my title?

I'd be extending the big middle finger too.
Most practicing EE's in oz are not members of the Institute of Engineers Australia for example, nor is it a requirement for practically any EE job in the country.
They have a fancy Chartered Professional Engineer title, but it's well known that only wankers have that 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

In fact, I change my mind, Oregon can fuck off.

+1

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

They have a fancy Chartered Professional Engineer title, but it's well known that only wankers have that 

That ! Hahaha.

[rrinker]

 It's the case in many states in the US, you cannot practice under the title "Engineer" without passing the state exam. Like any other
 profession. I can't open an office and put a sign out calling myself an engineer without having passed the state exam. Although it may be slightly more lenient now - if you DO pass the exam you can call yourself John Doe, P.E. (professional engineer) so it may be OK so long as you don't call yourself a PE.
 On the other hand, there's a good reason why I never bothered to take the exam here - an an EE, 50% f the test would be on EE subjects, the remaining 50% spread across other engineering disciplines like civil, mechanical, etc. So half of what is 'qualifying' me in my field requires knowledge in other fields of which I have no experience and of which I am making no such claims. Gotcha. I just never bothered and since I never really actually was employed as an EE it didn't matter.
 I wonder if my employer isn't treading on some thing ice - my title is "consulting engineer" which I am pretty sure at one time was not legal in this state but perhaps that has changed. It may be perfectly legal where the company HQ is.

 All in all though, this is really politics, not science. They guy is absolutely right, the officials couldn't let facts get in the way of their revenue generator though. There are numerous studies that implementing red light cameras CAUSE more accidents than then eliminate, on no small part to the deliberate setting of the yellow duration shorter. The are often provided by a third party who then splits the revenue with the local government.

[coppice]

They have a fancy Chartered Professional Engineer title, but it's well known that only wankers have that 

Does that title actually confer anything meaningful in Australia?

[Avacee]

the officials couldn't let facts get in the way of their revenue generator though.

Amen - and if said officials lose the case and it is proven the timing sequences on all traffic lights is wrong then all previous tickets can be challenged, potentially costing the state a lot of dollars.

[EEVblog]

They have a fancy Chartered Professional Engineer title, but it's well known that only wankers have that 

Does that title actually confer anything meaningful in Australia?

Not in the EE field, no. I can't speak for other fields. I'd imagine that if you built bridges and buildings, or were the head aircraft engineer at Qantas or something, then the CPEng might be worth something.
it's basically the stepping stone to becoming a Fellow, at which point you probably get a silly ceremonial hat to wear or something.
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/For-Individuals/Chartered-Engineer

[EEVblog]

This brings up the question:
What if you are say an applications engineer or some such, and you lived outside of Oregon, but part of your service region was Oregon. Would you have to surrender your business card that says "engineer" at the border, lest you were committing an offence giving someone that business card and giving them advice?

[EEVblog]

Of course Wikipedia has a page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering
Australia rightly doesn't have a section for "Registration and regulation" or "Title Usage"

and specifically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineers_Australia#Regulatory_Schemes_.5B15.5D

Regulatory Schemes [15][edit]
There is no formal system of regulation for engineers throughout Australia. Engineering services are regulated under a variety of Acts in ad hoc areas, many of which relate to engineers in the building and construction industry. There are also many pieces of subordinate legislation, such as regulations, by-laws and orders-in-council that impose various prescriptive standards and incur unnecessary costs to the engineering industry in complying.

In Queensland, persons who are not registered with the Board of Professional Engineers Australia are prohibited from offering or providing professional engineering services. The only exception is for individuals who practise under the direct supervision of registered professional engineers.

First time I've heard this about QLD.
They have/had some screwed up rules about Electician Licensing, but first I've heard of EE. Anyone?

[T3sl4co1l]

This brings up the question:
What if you are say an applications engineer or some such, and you lived outside of Oregon, but part of your service region was Oregon. Would you have to surrender your business card that says "engineer" at the border, lest you were committing an offence giving someone that business card and giving them advice?

For the licensed case: you would be unwise to present yourself as, say, a Professional Engineer in the state of Oregon, without holding that qualification.  Quite correct.

Anyone operating in a service region spanning several states, would need to be licensed in all those states.

For the exempted case: it doesn't matter.

Oregon has the usual exemptions for commercial EE style activities:
https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/state-by-state-summary-licensure-law-exemptions.pdf
so this guy is as much an "engineer" (lowercase) as the rest of us here without PEs.  Which is to say, the usual (degreed, job titled) kind.

Tim

[EEVblog]

This brings up the question:
What if you are say an applications engineer or some such, and you lived outside of Oregon, but part of your service region was Oregon. Would you have to surrender your business card that says "engineer" at the border, lest you were committing an offence giving someone that business card and giving them advice?

For the licensed case: you would be unwise to present yourself as, say, a Professional Engineer in the state of Oregon, without holding that qualification.  Quite correct.

Of course. I'm talking about simply using the word "engineer"

For the exempted case: it doesn't matter.
Oregon has the usual exemptions for commercial EE style activities:
https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/state-by-state-summary-licensure-law-exemptions.pdf
so this guy is as much an "engineer" (lowercase) as the rest of us here without PEs.  Which is to say, the usual (degreed, job titled) kind.

So why did the guy get fined for using the title "engineer"?

[T3sl4co1l]

So why did the guy get fined for using the title "engineer"?

They might maintain that the particular way he represented himself in the letters was wrong.  If he sues them over it, their defense isn't looking very good, though.    (Aka they look like assholes)

Tim

[Tom45]

Somebody should get ahold of the company directories of the various silicon forest companies* and file complaints about all of the "engineers" working in those companies. I bet things would change quickly.

My father was a PE and I know that it does mean something.

*silicon forest companies include Tektronix, Intel, HP, Maxim, Microchip, Epson, Mentor Graphics, NVidia, FLIR, Lattice, Linear Technologies.

[Richard Crowley]

To those of us who live here, this isn't terribly surprising. The Oregon state government firmly in the control of the public employees unions who operate the government by and for themselves, the population be damned. They have voted themselves huge pensions so the point where in some cases the cost of retirement benefits exceeds the budget for current working employees.  And facing billion-dollar shortfalls in the pension scheme which they have no hope of meeting.  So the state government using their interpretation of the laws to fight criticism is quite expected here.

Furthermore, those red-light cameras in Beaverton (home of Tektronix) have been notorious since they were installed. The city government has all but admitted that they are simply a revenue-source that has nothing to do with "public safety". The timing of the signals in those intersections is measurably shorter than equivalent intersections in the area.  They have been the subject of reporting and dispute for decades. There are companies who subsidize the installation cost of these robot bandits for a percentage of the "fines" levied by the city. It would be scandalous if it hadn't become commonplace here after decades of corruption. My GPS warns me about these intersections so that I typically plan my route to avoid these traps.

[Richard Crowley]

I can understand using a title bestowed by the Society of Civil Engineers, like P.E or whatever it is, but simply using the word "engineer" when it's both your vocation and the name of your degreed field of study is crazy.

Saltzman is a chronic thorn in the side of the state government.  They hate him and go after him for everything and anything they can dream up.  Politics as usual here in the Silicon Forest.

[iainwhite]

Teslacoil:   I hope Oregon doesn't have a trade body for "Experts" . . . . they may want $500 from you     

[edpalmer42]

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.

In all Canadian provinces, if you call yourself a Professional Engineer without being a member of the provincial engineering association, you will be prosecuted under provincial law.  Unfortunately, it's provincial, not federal law that applies.

Microsoft got into a lot of trouble some years ago with their software engineer degrees.  It went all the way to the Supreme Court.  Microsoft lost.

Ed

[Bud]

J just recently met with some US company rep who had "Sales Engineer" title on his card. That was funny.

[rstofer]

I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers. I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

I must have missed the memo on swearing an oath upon graduation with an MSEE. 

The thing is, my degree is in electronics (computer hardware design) and that is one of the disciplines of engineering that isn't licensed, or, in general, offered for sale to the public.  I could, I suppose, eventually wiggle my way into a PE in Electrical Engineering but there is usually some amount of indentured servitude required (4 years working under another PE) between the time you pass the Engineer-In-Training (EIT) exam and you apply for the PE exam.

The EIT exam highly favors Civil Engineers and electronics engineers are in for a lot of pre-exam study.  We just don't take the proper courses that would make the exam easier.  Yes, I passed it, way back in '76.

How about aerospace engineers?  Are the guys designing the Mars spaceship required to be licensed as some kind of engineer?  Probably not.

Notice in the list of exceptions that most corporations can hire people to do in-house engineering without requiring registration.  I suspect this is because the corporations have a ton of insurance.

It seems to me that if you graduate with a degree in engineering, you are an engineer.  Whether you can practice certain types of engineering involving public safety is another matter.  And this extends to calling yourself an engineer in a field that does require registration.

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.

[T3sl4co1l]

Teslacoil:   I hope Oregon doesn't have a trade body for "Experts" . . . . they may want $500 from you     

Would be state of Wisconsin, actually, for anyone wondering

But no, anyone can call themselves an eggspurt.  It's my knowledge that makes me one.

Tim

[rfeecs]

What about Sanitation Engineers (garbage men)?
Software Engineers (computer programmers)?

On one of my first jobs (in California) my boss told us that we couldn't be titled "Engineer" because we didn't have a professional engineer's license.  So all engineers were called "Member of the Technical Staff".  Possibly it was the policy of the corporation that operated nationally and internationally.

In more than 30 years of working, I have only run into a few licensed professional electrical engineers.

[Iwanushka]

My Diploma says Computer systems engineering, so hw/sw/fw, and I cant use word engineer, but I had to design hw/fw/sw as my final project and present working thing to finish Uni... that's just plain stupid 

Edit: better to move to titles that say Wizard of X

[james_s]

I dropped out of college when I ran out of money but engineering is a passion of mine more so than a career choice so I kept going on my own. My employer calls me an engineer, I do engineering work, so I call myself an engineer. I've designed hardware devices that are out in the field, these are not sealed black boxes that come out of my garage and go straight to the customer, the production units are manufactured, tested and certified by others so it's not as if I could just hack together something without knowing what I'm doing and not have anyone notice. It's not as if I'm designing skyscrapers and bridges or airplanes or radiotherapy machines or something where really specialized expertise is required.

Then of course I've encountered plenty of devices designed by supposedly professional, degreed engineers that were horrid hack jobs. One tends to assume everyone doing that sort of thing knows what they're doing but it's not uncommon that I'm scratching my head trying to imagine what the heck they were thinking.

[Zero999]

I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers.

Since when did having a degree may you an engineer?

Is doesn't. Having a combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience, makes one an engineer. Someone straight out of university, with a highly theoretical engineering degree, yet no practical experience whatsoever is not an engineer. This doesn't mean that they have wasted they're time studying. It's a very good investment, but until they've learned how to apply what they've learnt at university, and probably forgotten over half of it, they aren't really an engineer.

I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

When did you do that?

[james_s]

I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

When did you do that?
[/quote]

That would create an interesting dilemma for engineers that design firearms and military equipment.

[JPortici]

I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers.

Since when did having a degree may you an engineer?

Is doesn't. Having a combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience, makes one an engineer. Someone straight out of university, with a highly theoretical engineering degree, yet no practical experience whatsoever is not an engineer. This doesn't mean that they have wasted they're time studying. It's a very good investment, but until they've learned how to apply what they've learnt at university, and probably forgotten over half of it, they aren't really an engineer.

I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

When did you do that?

well, we have (had) a term for that. perito (latin, means expert), that's what i am: my high school diploma came from what most people in the world call technical school, but i've seen very few fellow with that kind of degree that were something more that an skilled labourer.. no offence intended, it's just that we were trained to be engineers but without an engineering degree, a different kind of education.

fun fact #1: Unfortunately we are being phased out, around the time i graudated a lot of disastrous school reforms, cutting school hours to get in line with EU (sigh) and redistributing the course so more humanistic hours and less technical hours. labs cut in half, they don't even do chem lab anymore. so sad

fun fact #2 on my last day of high school during the first hours we DID have a "swearing ceremony" that my most hated teacher used to put up. me, i wasn't there, i was playing a gig in another school and arrived a few hours late. I wonder what makes of me...
anyway the ceremony was really simillar to the doctor's oath.

[donmr]

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.

[brucehoult]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government
 

He mentions turning, but there is also a problem if you pull out of a parking space near a traffic light and enter the intersection at low speed just as the lights go amber. Most cars don't have sufficient acceleration to exit the intersection before the red.

This can also happen if the intersection exit is blocked and you want to enter it, as you should.

[tszaboo]

I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers.

Since when did having a degree may you an engineer?

Is doesn't. Having a combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience, makes one an engineer. Someone straight out of university, with a highly theoretical engineering degree, yet no practical experience whatsoever is not an engineer. This doesn't mean that they have wasted they're time studying. It's a very good investment, but until they've learned how to apply what they've learnt at university, and probably forgotten over half of it, they aren't really an engineer.

I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

When did you do that?

Since my diploma said exactly that, made by a official institute, having the right to declare that I'm an engineer. I swore the oath at the first school year opening ceremony. It's kinda big deal, the university usually has our President invited. So, you say, other countries dont do this?

[brucehoult]

I just cannot practice as such.

So an important question: does this constitute practice?

(I would think not: he isn't being paid for it!)

He's not being paid for it and moreover no action of any kind has been taken as a result of his claims.

He is merely drawing his calculations to the attention of the licenced engineers for verification or refutation. It is up to them to decide whether or not to take any remedial action with respect to the traffic lights.

[coppice]

Since my diploma said exactly that, made by a official institute, having the right to declare that I'm an engineer. I swore the oath at the first school year opening ceremony. It's kinda big deal, the university usually has our President invited. So, you say, other countries dont do this?

Globally, this is a very unusual practice.

[rstofer]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government
 

He mentions turning, but there is also a problem if you pull out of a parking space near a traffic light and enter the intersection at low speed just as the lights go amber. Most cars don't have sufficient acceleration to exit the intersection before the red.

This can also happen if the intersection exit is blocked and you want to enter it, as you should.

In most states, if you enter on yellow, you're good.  OTOH, if you get stuck in the intersection after the light turns red, you're blocking an intersections and that isn't allowed.  So, you need to enter on yellow and not get stuck.  Accelerating to get into the crossing on the yellow is also an offense.

That's why the chart linked earlier shows a constant speed.

One thing the red light cameras did is cause more rear end collisions.  Nobody wanted to chance a ticket so they jammed on the brakes when the light turned yellow.  The car behind didn't...

[james_s]

As much as I hate it when a bunch of cars stream through a red light, the cameras really did cause more problems than they solved. The final thing that turned me fully against them is when a citizens initiative was drafted to shut then down in a city near me and a representative was quoted as saying "we need the revenue". Ok so they're not about safety, they're about revenue, and coupled with the significantly increased rates of rear end collisions they're just an all around bad idea. 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.

[mtdoc]

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.   

[james_s]

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. 

I'm sure there is, such as living in a densely populated area with a lot of people who can't seem to put their smartphones down and drive. Other than that I don't know, I've been stationary every time I was hit. If you can find some way that I share even a tiny bit of the responsibility of being rear ended while I'm stopped at a light or stopped in traffic I'd love to know so I can avoid doing whatever that is. It's not even like I slam on the brakes in most cases though I did once to avoid a cyclist who darted in front of me and the girl who hit me took off and left the scene when I pulled into a parking lot to inspect the damage. Just a few weeks ago I finally had a serious one, got creamed by a tandem trailer gasoline tanker semi, dunno what the driver was doing but he failed to notice that traffic was backed up and slammed into the car stopped behind me at 50-60 MPH. I was lucky to walk away from that one. In every single one of these the driver who hit me was cited on the spot for causing the accident, well except for the one who fled the scene and a couple of little bumps where there was no damage so I just let them go.

[brucehoult]

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.

[coppice]

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.

While this is true, some people get hit in the back frequently while their neighbours never get hit. There just might be something in their behaviour which confuses other road users.

[mtdoc]

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.

Oh, of course.  But we all know there are plenty of drivers who will tailgate a driver who is driving at the posted speed limit.

I was not saying that james_s has done anything wrong.

If he's always been at a complete stop at a stop light for a short time before being rear-ended then that's just bad luck. 

On the other hand someone who is driving at or under the legal speed limit (and thus being unwisely tailgated) who then stops short at the first hint of a yellow light might be driving perfectly legally but still making themselves more likely to get rear-ended.

[LaserSteve]

In my state, he was justified with the title, as he has a degree from a recognized institution, and was not practicing safety of life work.

I used to be a nationwide  field service engineer for a major company, based out of Ohio, USA  . This frequently resulted in the words, " I am Not a PE in the State of" , or " I am not a degreed Engineer, but I suggest.." when on the road, more or less for my peace of mind.  I found clients liked the honesty if the decision involved minor structural or building infrastructure issues, which it often did.  Some states have poor language, and will not let your company bestow the title on you for internal work.  Ohio really ties the PE title to public works, safety of life, and building work, not so much for other disciplines.  Ohio's language is very clear and easy compared to other states, I quote:

"
A) Except for an individual who, as part of the internal classification system of the individual’s employer, uses the title “engineer” by itself or in conjunction with another term described in division (B) of this section and who does not represent the individual’s self to the public or otherwise advertise the individual’s self as an engineer, no individual shall, in connection with the individual’s name, assume, use, or advertise:

(1) The title “engineer” by itself unless the individual is an engineer;

(2) The title “engineer” in conjunction with another term that modifies the title “engineer” in a manner that conveys the impression that the individual is a graduate of an accredited engineering curriculum unless the individual is a graduate of an accredited engineering curriculum.

(B) Terms used in conjunction with the title “engineer” under division (A)(2) of this section that imply a person is a graduate of an accredited engineering curriculum include the following: “aerospace,” “agricultural,” “civil,” “chemical,” “computer,” “electrical,” “industrial,” “mechanics,” “mechanical,” “metallurgical,” “mining,” “naval architectural and marine,” “nuclear,” and any other term commonly used by an institution of higher learning to apply to graduates of an accredited engineering curriculum.

(C) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting the use, assumption, or advertisement of the title “steam engineer” or “stationary engineer,” by or on behalf of a person licensed under Chapter 4739. of the Revised Code, or the term “railroad engineer” or “locomotive engineer,” by or on behalf of a person authorized to operate a railroad locomotive, or the term “operating engineer,” by or on behalf of a person who operates, maintains, repairs, or manufactures light or heavy construction equipment.

HISTORY: 144 v H 482 (Effective 07-01-1993); 149 v H 337. Effective Date 08-06-2002."

Endeth the Quote...

I'm aware of a test case where a fellow with over 100 patents, and a EE  degree, was sued by his state board for using the title in correspondence.   Considering whom he works for, they are really ticking the tail of the dragon..

Steve

[vodka]

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.

While this is true, some people get hit in the back frequently while their neighbours never get hit. There just might be something in their behaviour which confuses other road users.

There are many subnormal people  who paste( less 3 m) to its ass(back) when you go to 120km\h  on dual carriageway. I have  never seen that any police put a fine by not leave a minnium security distance .

I would really like if people without proper degree would stop calling them engineers.

Since when did having a degree may you an engineer?

Is doesn't. Having a combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience, makes one an engineer. Someone straight out of university, with a highly theoretical engineering degree, yet no practical experience whatsoever is not an engineer. This doesn't mean that they have wasted they're time studying. It's a very good investment, but until they've learned how to apply what they've learnt at university, and probably forgotten over half of it, they aren't really an engineer.

You don't wrong , you are a engineer so  much if you have  experience as if you haven't. And that on front a judge you will always prune versus a redneck without degree.

[james_s]

Much of the problem now I think is people glued to their damn smartphones. Every day I see idiots weaving around with a phone in their hand, texting, screwing with facebook or whatever it is people do now. They say distracted driving is now as dangerous as driving drunk and it is reaching epidemic levels.

I've always tried to provide plenty of warning, slow gradually, creep to a stop, leave plenty of space in front of me whenever possible. I'm not aggressive, don't tailgate, dart in front of/behind other cars or slam on my brakes unless it's a true emergency. These days I'm so paranoid that I'm constantly glancing in my mirror and looking for somewhere to go if the person behind me is not paying attention. I don't drive particularly slowly either, I'm almost always going at least the speed limit or as fast as the car in front of me. In more than 20 years of driving ~200,000 miles I've never caused an accident, never got a ticket, only ever been pulled over once in my life and that was for a burned out light. I don't even know anyone with a cleaner record than that.

This time I bought a bright red Volvo turbo wagon to replace the darker colored sedan that was recently totaled. I generally prefer the darker colors but maybe now people will see me better and not run into me. For the record, the 30 year old 740 performed flawlessly in the accident, the reinforced cage and crumple zones worked exactly as designed. Hats off to the Swedes who designed the thing if any of them are still around, it fully lived up to the legendary reputation for safety despite no airbags or other band aids and I was able to get out and walk away after getting smashed in the rear tremendously hard and then spun around, hit in the side and pushed by the huge truck.

[CatalinaWOW]

All of the states I have lived and worked in required the License to "practice engineering".  In most companies this is well hidden because some small number of licensed engineers are on the payroll and they sign off on all legally required documents.  The vast majority just design away depending on their degree or whatever.  No big deal, the public is protected and most people get to go along with their lives and jobs without interference.

The process to get licensed is fairly involved, and contrary to what others have said, difficult for all branches of engineering.  The civil guys have to learn material properties and power transmission while the electrical guys get to learn grading of curves and properties of beams.  It varies from state to state but usually breaks down into an Engineer in Training exam, followed by a duration in practice, and then the PE exam.  Anyone with sound math and the ability to study can pass, but it takes work and many fail one or both exams.  These tests do not reward creativity, they reward memorization and familiarity with standard solutions.  You can retake them, but it is expensive and time consuming. 

And this leads to the problems.  Those who pass now belong to a difficult and exclusive club, and want get some benefit out of their efforts.  Can't let all that time and effort go down the tubes without something to show for it.  In my observation it is always the more marginal guys who show this character most strongly.  I have rarely seen the brighter and most creative practitioners of our field tout their license (beyond listing it on the resume).  And except for the cases where a company is looking for someone to meet the above mentioned legal requirements I have never seen it looked for when recruiting or hiring consultants.  That alone tells volumes about this.

[brucehoult]

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.

While this is true, some people get hit in the back frequently while their neighbours never get hit. There just might be something in their behaviour which confuses other road users.

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.

[james_s]

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.

[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.

[grumpydoc]

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.

No, it's OK for medical doctors to call themselves Doctor, quite a few will have doctorate level degrees anyway.

[EEVblog]

here engineer is not a protected title, anyone can call themselves engineer, though it generally means a Bsc or Msc in an engineering field.

Here is the rub:
The title engineer (or any other title for that matter) is a vocational title, and as such should reflect what your current vocation is, not what qualifications you hold.

Like someone said before, a freshly minted graduate who has not done a single days engineering work in their life (professional or otherwise) is not an engineer.
They have engineering qualifications, and can probably call themselves an "Engineer by qualification", or "Engineering graduate", but not "Engineer". Engineer implies a vocation to me, and I'd be pretty sure most people if they actually thought about it.

The Institute of Engineers Australia (IEA) seem to agree:
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/For-Individuals
You are a "Graduate Engineer" until you "level up" with vocational experience to be a "Professional Engineer" a.k.a simply "Engineer"
And IIRC, to get certified as a Professional Engineer with the IEA you have to prove substantial work experience, otherwise you forever remain a "Graduate Engineer" if all you have is that bit of paper.

Likewise someone who has a B.Eng and has worked for 30 years as *insert other unrelated profession here* is not an engineer.

I have formal qualifications in personal training/fitness instructing but I have never worked as one, so I don't go around saying I'm a personal trainer. That would misrepresent what I do / have done as a vocation.

At some point, regardless of your qualifications, to most people's interpretation of a vocational title you would become a "former engineer" or back to "qualified engineer" if you haven't worked in anything engineering related for *insert however many years here*.

And this is why it silly to say someone who doesn't have qualifications is not an engineer if they actually work as an engineer as a vocation. And more so if a company or peers have vetted and hired the and given them the vocational title of engineer.

[brucehoult]

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!

If you treat the red light with at least as much caution as you would a stop sign then you will be fine legally, at least in NZ. Certainly waiting more than one minute with no other vehicles in sight is quite unnecessary.

[james_s]

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!

I don't mind that, I've had to do it a few times myself when the system didn't detect my car for one reason or another. The thing that annoys me is when a light turns red and several more cars rush through, or in the case of the guy I knew who got hit, the car didn't bother to stop in the first place. As long as you stop first and carefully assess the situation, go ahead and go through if it's clear that nobody is coming and the light is probably malfunctioning.

[metrologist]

Here is the rub:
The title engineer (or any other title for that matter) is a vocational title, and as such should reflect what your current vocation is, not what qualifications you hold.

I wonder if you still consider yourself an Engineer? Maybe you are now an Actor? Producer and etc, because that's what you do. Maybe you still engineer something? Maybe you are engineering success

[Rick Law]

In the USA, wording of a degree diploma varies.  From web search, I found these examples: (… awarded the degree of: )
+ "Bachelor of Science [not a word about major]" (UC-Berkley),
+ "Bachelor of Science Electrical Engineering [no 'in' here, exactly as show]" (U of Colorado).
+ "Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering" (MIT),

So, it would imply to me the gentleman can legally sign with the title "Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering" but not the title "Electrical Engineer" even in the State he earned the degree.

This is not odd.  Most times I receive letters beginning with "Dear Sir,".   Should I found myself in England writing a complain letter to some government department, and I sign it as "Sir Rick Law"; it is likely I will get into some kind of trouble.  "Sir" has special/legal meaning in England, just as "Engineer" has special/legal meaning in Oregon.

Also, having the knowledge and/or a degree in a craft does not confer the legal right to practice that craft, nor does it confer rights to a title that is defined by the jurisdiction in question.

+ You can have the MD (medical doctor) degree, but until you are certified and licensed in that State, you cannot practice as doctor in medicine in that State.
+ You can have the law degree, but until you pass the Bar exam, you cannot practice law in that State.

So, for example take 1973/1974 Hillary Clinton in Washington DC.    Well, she was not a Clinton yet back in 1973/4, but that is irrelevant to the point here.  She has her JD degree from Yale but failed DC bar exam.   If she write a letter with legal suggestions, she can sign as "Rodham Clinton, JD" but if she sign as "Rodham Clinton, Attorney at Law", she could be in rather big legal trouble.  Bill Clinton on the other hand has the JD and passed the Arkansas bar exam.  He could practice law there up until the time of his disbarment - for lying under oath (2000/2001).

So, with this one, I think the government bureaucrats in Oregon are right.


^{Disclaimer – Law is just my last name and I am not a lawyer.  Further, I am not pretending to be an engineer, nor am I presenting this as legal advice.  However, I am trying to appear smart, insightful, thoughtful, and all those other good things.}

[josecamoessilva]

So, with this one, I think the government bureaucrats in Oregon are right.

I'm sure they're legally covered. Doesn't mean they're right.

[WA1ICI]

I've worked in electronics my whole career - starting off as a design engineer at Intel in 1977, and ending as a part-time consultant, with jobs designing custom LSI, high-speed communications, CPU hardware and much else, as well as management.  I've been a member of IEEE since 1978.  My college degree is "Master of Engineering" from Cornell Univ.  If I can't call myself an "engineer", what can I call myself?  An "actor faking being an engineer"?  "Someone doing engineering-like things"?

In all my work in Silicon Valley, I never once encountered the requirement for a Professional Engineer (PE) license.  If all the people in Silicon Valley who design electronics are not engineers, what are they?  I'll admit that there are plenty of incompetant engineers who shouldn't have been ones (I've had to fire a few), but most are good and some excellent.  I've even worked with several hardware and software engineers that were outstanding but didn't have relevant college degrees.

I can see the need for licensed engineers in areas where there is substantial financial, legal, or safety risks, but usually these have a particular title, such as "Professional Engineer", which probably should be protected by law.  But it seems like Oregon is a victim of "regulatory capture", in this case captured by the professional engineers and/or their unions.  They don't seem to realize that there are lots of people working in, say, Beaverton (Tektronix) or Hillsboro (Intel) that are doing things that are traditionally called "engineering".  Oregon picked the wrong word to legally protect. 

The root of the problem is that, in English, there isn't a convenient word for doing technical design without a license.  There are whole major fields (such as electronics) where licensing is simply absent, at least in the United States.  Usually the gateway requirement is a relevant college degree, but even here it is not always a necessity.

I hope Oregon loses its case, or at least tightens-down what words they are legally protecting.

- John Atwood

[james_s]

Even if they're legally covered, it's still stupid. I don't care if someone calls themselves a doctor as long as they're not actually practicing medicine without a license, and I certainly don't care if someone calls themselves an engineer without being a certified PE so long as they're not designing skyscrapers and bridges and stuff. This guy didn't even design something, he just pointed out that their numbers were wrong and the only thing they could throw at him is inappropriate use of the title. He never claimed to be a PE, just an electronics engineer.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing anyway. I would never say that education or certifications are a bad thing, but throughout my career I have seen rather little correlation between those things and actual practical ability to apply the knowledge they have and do the job. Theory and book knowledge is great, but it takes a lot more than theory and book knowledge to be a good engineer, or any number of other career titles I'd assume.

[Richard Crowley]

Mr. Järlström simply didn't do very good research.  If he had, he would have discovered that he isn't the first to complain and present evidence about those cameras. Or even the 10th. And possibly not the 100th.  People have been complaining, whinging, presenting evidence, timing, publishing, ranting for DECADES about those things.  And the government (city and state) steadfastly ignore all petitions from their customers (us citizens).  And just for spite they throw the book at anyone they can.  Just to get rid of them.

Even if Järlström and the Institute for Justice win in court (which seems unlikely as the court is the same state government) it would make zero impact on the red-light cameras.  Quite to the contrary, other cities in Oregon are seeing $$$ and installing the same robot bandits.  The whole business about the title "Engineer" is a red herring here.  They could just as easily chosen some other excuse to shut him up and make him go away.  We aren't yet at the point where they can send out the SWAT team at 0400 and roust him out of bed and lock him up. But just give them a few years.

But, OTOH, if you crossed the border illegally to enter the USA and you are using a stolen Social Security Number and lied committed perjury about your status to get a job and a drivers license, you are safe in Beaverton because it is a "Sanctuary City".

[EEVblog]

Here is the rub:
The title engineer (or any other title for that matter) is a vocational title, and as such should reflect what your current vocation is, not what qualifications you hold.

I wonder if you still consider yourself an Engineer? Maybe you are now an Actor? Producer and etc, because that's what you do. Maybe you still engineer something? Maybe you are engineering success

My Vocation has changed somewhat (ok, a lot), but considering that I run an engineering Youtube channel and at least do a little engineering every day, I'm most certainly still an engineer.
Just like say someone who moved into engineering management would still be an engineer. They may not get their handy dirty every day, but they are still in the game.

[EEVblog]

I've worked in electronics my whole career - starting off as a design engineer at Intel in 1977, and ending as a part-time consultant, with jobs designing custom LSI, high-speed communications, CPU hardware and much else, as well as management.  I've been a member of IEEE since 1978.  My college degree is "Master of Engineering" from Cornell Univ.  If I can't call myself an "engineer", what can I call myself?  An "actor faking being an engineer"?  "Someone doing engineering-like things"?

In all my work in Silicon Valley, I never once encountered the requirement for a Professional Engineer (PE) license.  If all the people in Silicon Valley who design electronics are not engineers, what are they?

And that right there is what makes this whole thing an absolute joke, and anyone who tries to defend restriction on the simple vocational word "engineer" will never win.

I can see the need for licensed engineers in areas where there is substantial financial, legal, or safety risks, but usually these have a particular title, such as "Professional Engineer", which probably should be protected by law.  But it seems like Oregon is a victim of "regulatory capture", in this case captured by the professional engineers and/or their unions.  They don't seem to realize that there are lots of people working in, say, Beaverton (Tektronix) or Hillsboro (Intel) that are doing things that are traditionally called "engineering".  Oregon picked the wrong word to legally protect.

Yes. By all means invent and protect some specific term like PEng or whatever, and let market forces dictate whether it's required or not.
e.g. The IEA failed with CPeng in Australia for the electrical/electronics field, hardly anyone has it, and it's almost never a requirement for anything, and gains you essentially nothing by having it on your resume.

And in cases where major public safety etc is involved I even support having it as a strict legal requirement.

[mtdoc]

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.

No, it's OK for medical doctors to call themselves Doctor, quite a few will have doctorate level degrees anyway.

FWIW - In the USA, the title "doctor" has very little to do with whether one is licensed or qualified to practice medicine. In addition to medical doctors, PhDs, podiatrists, dentists, chiropractors and others can legally call themselves doctor.

In order to legally practice medicine, one needs to be licensed by a state medical board.  They require proof of passing passing a series of national medical board exams (which require graduation from a medical school to take).  It also requires completions of at least one year of a medical internship.  (It has nothing to do with the AMA which many, many doctors do not belong to. The AMA is really just a medical lobbying association. It's an out of date organization - and I don't know any doctors that have paid the fees they charge to join)

After internship, in order to be a "board certified" physician - which almost all US physicians are, one must complete a medical residency training program and then pass a series of board certification exams administered by the appropriate medical specialty board.

Medical specialty boards require regular continuing medical education and exams every 7-10 years to maintain board certification which is required for most jobs.

[CatalinaWOW]

In the USA, wording of a degree diploma varies.  From web search, I found these examples: (… awarded the degree of: )
+ "Bachelor of Science [not a word about major]" (UC-Berkley),
+ "Bachelor of Science Electrical Engineering [no 'in' here, exactly as show]" (U of Colorado).
+ "Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering" (MIT),

So, it would imply to me the gentleman can legally sign with the title "Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering" but not the title "Electrical Engineer" even in the State he earned the degree.

This is not odd.  Most times I receive letters beginning with "Dear Sir,".   Should I found myself in England writing a complain letter to some government department, and I sign it as "Sir Rick Law"; it is likely I will get into some kind of trouble.  "Sir" has special/legal meaning in England, just as "Engineer" has special/legal meaning in Oregon.

Also, having the knowledge and/or a degree in a craft does not confer the legal right to practice that craft, nor does it confer rights to a title that is defined by the jurisdiction in question.

+ You can have the MD (medical doctor) degree, but until you are certified and licensed in that State, you cannot practice as doctor in medicine in that State.
+ You can have the law degree, but until you pass the Bar exam, you cannot practice law in that State.

So, for example take 1973/1974 Hillary Clinton in Washington DC.    Well, she was not a Clinton yet back in 1973/4, but that is irrelevant to the point here.  She has her JD degree from Yale but failed DC bar exam.   If she write a letter with legal suggestions, she can sign as "Rodham Clinton, JD" but if she sign as "Rodham Clinton, Attorney at Law", she could be in rather big legal trouble.  Bill Clinton on the other hand has the JD and passed the Arkansas bar exam.  He could practice law there up until the time of his disbarment - for lying under oath (2000/2001).

So, with this one, I think the government bureaucrats in Oregon are right.


^{Disclaimer – Law is just my last name and I am not a lawyer.  Further, I am not pretending to be an engineer, nor am I presenting this as legal advice.  However, I am trying to appear smart, insightful, thoughtful, and all those other good things.}

There is even more confusion in degree names than that.  As another example, the degrees I received from my school are:

Bachelor of Arts in Electrical Engineering.
Master of Electrical Engineering.

I am not a lawyer either, but everything I have seen about the law says detail matters.

The Oregon gentleman signed his letter as an engineer, not as a "Registered Professional Engineer", or with the abbreviation PE.  Nor did he affix the seal which is issued in most states to Registered Professional Engineers, or any facsimile of this seal.   I think most of us agree he is not entitled to the latter description, but he didn't claim it so there should not be a problem.  I suspect if he gets an Attorney (not a JD degree holder) with appropriate legal background he will be quite successful in defending himself.  Of course the Attorney will cost more than the $500 fine.

[SkyMaster]

Where I live, the title "Engineer" is a reserved title.

In order to use this title you have to be a member of the "Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec" (commonly known as "OIQ"). This is part of the laws http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-9

It has nothing to do with the type of engineering somebody is doing, or if the person is getting paid or not.

The OIQ is known to come down on individual who use the title "Engineer" illegally.


I think the only persons who can use the word "engineer" in their title are the "forest engineer", and they have to call themselves "forest engineer" and not "engineer".


 

[josecamoessilva]

And that right there is what makes this whole thing an absolute joke, and anyone who tries to defend restriction on the simple vocational word "engineer" will never win.

The problem, as the history of the AMA and the ABA shows, is that first they came for the name, then they start creating restrictions, all in the name of "clarity" or "protection of the public" and eventually you get to a situation where fully-informed transactions are illegal.

Imagine that an hypothetical American Engineering Association existed with the powers of the AMA.  A non-member, Dave, possibly with a degree in EECS but not necessarily, with a long history of building electronic devices for himself and tearing down devices on YouTube, is hired by TinyStartupDotCom to help them with some circuit design. Dave discloses that he's not in the AEA, which doesn't matter to TinyStartupDotCom, so they agree to a schedule of deliverables and payments.

Meanwhile, a very outdated and incompetent engineer, Bill, who's a member of the AEA learns that he didn't get the job (due to incompetence) but a non-AEA member did. Bill tattles, Dave is fined, forbidden from selling his services even to fully informed customers, and has his breadboards confiscated, and TinyStartupDotCom has to hire Bill and his incompetence.

That's the real problem with professional organizations with legal binding power. No matter how well-meaning they start out, history (of the ABA and AMA) suggests they tend to be rent-seeking guilds protecting their members against the competition of the potentially better and cheaper outsiders.

Oh the stories I could tell...

(By the way, there's an AEA, American Economic Association, but it's like the IEEE, ACM, and AAAS, a productive not a restrictive association. Inasmuch as economists can be productive  )

[Tom45]

I hadn't realized that the Institute For Justice had got involved with this until Richard Crowley mentioned it.

See: http://ij.org/case/oregon-engineering-speech/

There they list a number of other examples of overreach by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying.

Given IJ's record of success in many occupational licensing cases across the country over the years, I wouldn't want to bet against them in this case.

[Rick Law]

I hadn't realized that the Institute For Justice had got involved with this until Richard Crowley mentioned it.

See: http://ij.org/case/oregon-engineering-speech/

There they list a number of other examples of overreach by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying.

Given IJ's record of success in many occupational licensing cases across the country over the years, I wouldn't want to bet against them in this case.

Oregon being one of the more liberal jurisdictions, I would have imagined they would be more open with how people behave.  I recall this story:

"The Portland Police Bureau recommends that all riders at least wear a helmet and shoes to avoid any potential injuries. Being naked in public in Portland is legal if it falls within the guidelines of ORS 163.465" - From a Portland Police Bureau press release
_{(reference:https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/17/police-bureau-releases-statement-on-legality-of-naked-bike-ride-55056)}

ORS is Oregon State wide, so it not just a city ordinance applying only to Portland.

Whatever is your stand on legally reserving the word "engineer", this is really schizophrenic behavior of the government bureaucrats in Oregon.  You are so free you run around naked in Oregon, yet you can't call yourself engineer.

That, in my view, shows how government bureaucrats always run wild.  After a few weeks in government, the government bureaucrats begin to think they are Gods.  Teachers led student singing songs of the praise while alive, and after they died, they get temples (train stations, airports, high schools) named after them.

[james_s]

Liberal or conservative is a matter of perspective. My observation has been that it's more about which aspects of other people's lives one fixates on rather than the amount of fixation.

[retrolefty]

The root of the problem is that, in English, there isn't a convenient word for doing technical design without a license.  There are whole major fields (such as electronics) where licensing is simply absent, at least in the United States.  Usually the gateway requirement is a relevant college degree, but even here it is not always a necessity.

 In California worked some with a PE listed engineer at the refinery I worked at that didn't have a college/university degree in any engineering course. He was 'let in' using a 'grandfather' clause that allowed prior work experience and support of his employee to 'get the stamp'. I don't think that
clause is still applicable but I don't really know for sure.

[vodka]

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.

The  "Order of enginers" are seemed to the our "Profesional colleges" but more aggavated due to the  17 kingdom of Taifas with their respective provinces  besides faced among them(inclusive on the same province with other profesional college).

For example, The Engineer technical  industrial college and  Agronomist college terminated on the court for deciding who of the two colleges had the competence for designing the structure building of the a farm.

Here according to Plutocrats or Caste for can to work,you must to sign to college and pay the "PIZZO" monthly or semmiannual. But done the law , done the cheat ,there are many engineering that work without signing projects. When they have to sign the project,there are two options: Sign to college ,pay the pizzo and enter to secta(*) or his boss or companion sign his project.

*secta:Once time that you sign with a professional college , you never never never can sign off or delete, only cease the activity during some time .
             And if you want to work other time, you must to pay the revolutionary tax for the years without working plus the corresponding fee.

[AndyC_772]

The story has made The Register now:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/29/engineer_fined_for_talking_about_math/

[CatalinaWOW]

Part of my response to this was to investigate becoming registered in Oregon.  I had not paid serious attention to the process for nearly four decades since I passed the EIT and then became too busy with family and career to finish the PE license.

First, relative to many of the comments, there is an exam specifically for Software Engineers and one for Electronics Engineers.  Not like when I last looked and those two disciplines were the red headed step children of Electrical Engineering.

In the US many, maybe all, states have normalized on exams performed by a national organization NCEES.  Didn't look too closely into it, but they appear to be a commercial test service.  Tests are given a couple of times a year, and cost $225.  It is a day long, open book test.  Lots of rules which are the obvious bureaucratic response to specific attempts to gain advantage in the past.  Some seem silly.  I would have to buy a new calculator since none of the many I have is on the approved list.  Slide rules are specifically outlawed .  When I took the EIT I brought my slide rule as backup in case of battery failure.  Not an option now. 

If I pass the test (not really worried, I will do some review study) there would be another couple hundred dollars registration fee, followed by a re-up fee every couple of years.  I saw no evidence of a requirement for training to stay up to date. 

One interesting fact.  Only about three quarters of the board controlling registration in Oregon are registered professional engineers.  Apparently you need higher qualifications to perform engineering that to oversee the quality of that performance.

[james_s]

Why on earth would they not let you use a slide rule? Not a whole lot of people left who even know how to use one in the first place.

[Tom45]

Why on earth would they not let you use a slide rule? Not a whole lot of people left who even know how to use one in the first place.

They should give extra credit for people that use a slide rule.

[Elf]

Mr. Järlström simply didn't do very good research.  If he had, he would have discovered that he isn't the first to complain and present evidence about those cameras. Or even the 10th. And possibly not the 100th.  People have been complaining, whinging, presenting evidence, timing, publishing, ranting for DECADES about those things.  And the government (city and state) steadfastly ignore all petitions from their customers (us citizens).  And just for spite they throw the book at anyone they can.  Just to get rid of them.

I have observed this as well, previously having worked in Beaverton. Such an oddball city -- it seems to be owned by Nike in practice, and other than the mega-corporation residents the police department seems to be its main source of revenue. Those red light cameras (either the fixed ones, or that van they always move around) seem make the news almost every year. In a perverse way, I think it does work though. Everyone seems to be so afraid of being robbed by the police that they keep their driving in check.

I am just glad I don't have to go there anymore, besides the bad traffic on US-26 and Barnes/Burnside, and the taxation without representation for WA residents.

[CatalinaWOW]

Why on earth would they not let you use a slide rule? Not a whole lot of people left who even know how to use one in the first place.

The rule against slide rules doesn't call them that.  My memory of the wording is that it disallowed any kind of sliding scale calculation device. 

Reading between the lines people were probably bringing in a bunch of special purpose slide rules which simplified the test questions too much.  Rather than figure out a good wording to allow a slide rule that does math only and then forcing proctors to verify compliance, they just eliminating the whole lot, figuring that it wouldn't hurt much of anyone.  I think the same reasons are why they only allow six model numbers of calculators, two each from HP, TI and Casio.  Reduces the workload on the proctors.

[SL4P]

Here in Australia, in most jurisdictions - I'mnot allowed to replace a power outlet or the plug on a mains cable ---- yet my role in a former job was to design power distribution panels within a national telco's facilities, along with video compression and mux racks...
How does that work?

[Monkeh]

Here in Australia, in most jurisdictions - I'mnot allowed to replace a power outlet or the plug on a mains cable ---- yet my role in a former job was to design power distribution panels within a national telco's facilities, along with video compression and mux racks...
How does that work?

You're not qualified to operate a screwdriver.

[splin]

Here in Australia, in most jurisdictions - I'mnot allowed to replace a power outlet or the plug on a mains cable ---- yet my role in a former job was to design power distribution panels within a national telco's facilities, along with video compression and mux racks...
How does that work?

You're not qualified to operate a screwdriver.

A friend of mine is a Professor of electrical and electronic engineering at a major University; when consulting on power systems at Boeing he wasn't allowed to touch the controls on a scope and had to ask a technician (probably titled Avionics Engineer) to change a setting. 

More of a shop-floor union issue than anything to do with safety of course.

[james_s]

A friend of mine is a Professor of electrical and electronic engineering at a major University; when consulting on power systems at Boeing he wasn't allowed to touch the controls on a scope and had to ask a technician (probably titled Avionics Engineer) to change a setting. 

More of a shop-floor union issue than anything to do with safety of course.

It's things like that which give me a sour opinion about unions. I mean I like the concept of a union, I know they do a lot of worthwhile things, but I can't take all the ridiculous and arbitrary red tape. I'm not going to stand around waiting because the guy who's job it is to perform some menial task is busy doing something else and I'm sure not going to wait for some idiot to adjust the settings on a scope for me. They should focus on the important stuff and not act like obsessive over-controlling parents. 

[WA1ICI]

    "More of a shop-floor union issue than anything to do with safety of course."

A friend of mine from college reported a similar thing when he worked as an intern at Raytheon one summer in Massachusetts.  This was in the late 1970s.  He was always getting union grievances for doing things like rolling a scope from one side of the room to the other.  This is very stifling to design productivity.  One reason Silicon Valley is so dynamic is the lack of unions in most high-tech companies.  I'm not against unions in principle, but they are most needed in manufacturing, mining, and other dangerous jobs - not in holding a scope probe. 

However, there are major defense companies in Silicon Valley, the biggest being Lockheed.  I don't know if it was unionized, but it had the reputation of being extremely slow and stifling.  It's nickname around the valley was "The Lazy L".

- John Atwood

[AndyC_772]

I had a similar experience in my first job. I was a student engineer at a well known medium-sized electronics company.

One job I had involved making a change to a PCB. It needed a couple of pins lifting, and a trace needed to be cut.

I wasn't allowed to actually make the track cut, though. That was the job of one particular operator in the manufacturing dept. A student engineer wasn't allowed to do this, because modifying PCBs was her job.

So, I handed over the board, pointed out the trace that needed cutting, and she set about it with a scalpel.

A minute later she handed the board back to me, and I checked it. The trace was exposed, but hadn't been cut all the way through, so I handed the board back.

She squinted at the board, scratched at it for a while longer, and handed it back to me. The trace still wasn't cut all the way through. (This wasn't a big, fat power track or anything - just an ordinary logic signal, probably 7 or 8 thou).

After the third time, the trace was still intact, but there was a deep gouge next to it, right down to the ground plane. Then it dawned on me.

She didn't know what was the track, and what was the gap between tracks. She'd been scratching furiously at the space between the track I wanted breaking, and the one adjacent to it. Any actual damage to the track itself had been accidental. 

I died a little inside that day.

[CatalinaWOW]

Most of the places I worked were unionized.  I don't really know why, because the union did little for the guys in them (except for the drunks, druggies and lazy bums).  Even to the point of calling a strike once and then after a few weeks of no wages settling for a lower offer than they walked on.  I really don't know how they continued to collect dues after that.

As far as the silly rules about moving scopes and the like, I found that in general if you weren't an ass about it they didn't mind if you did small amounts of that stuff.  So leave the heavy, nasty jobs for them and do what it takes to be efficient.  I certainly didn't mind leaving it to a union guy to pick the potting off of a board.

[james_s]

Like I said, I like the idea of unions, but I just can't stand all the petty red tape that seems to come with them. I'd rather be overworked and underpaid than get fired because I just can't stand to abide by a bunch of ridiculous rules and red tape. I like being versatile and flexible, I can't stand having my hands tied and not being allowed to do something that I'm fully capable of doing.

[CatalinaWOW]

This union stuff seems off topic, but it really is the same thing.  An organization which has as part of its function the protection of members jobs taking umbrage at a non member performing a task that is related in some way to the tasks of members.  While the PE licensing organizations do have a role in maintaining standards and protecting the public, in operation (particularly as promoted by many individual members) they have many of the characteristics of a labor union.  Good and bad.

Unions do have a role in the world, and have protected many folks from abuse.  But just as corporations with great power frequently abuse that power, unions can amass great power and often abuse it.

[vodka]

Here in Australia, in most jurisdictions - I'mnot allowed to replace a power outlet or the plug on a mains cable ---- yet my role in a former job was to design power distribution panels within a national telco's facilities, along with video compression and mux racks...
How does that work?

So here,  i don't allow to install or fix electric installations without  installer card , i can't sign the blue bulletin(warrant which my  electric installation is on rule with the Regulatory company supply company ) ,any
 i can't sign The first habitability certificate and second  without being signed up on a professional college .
We are going to go more taxes and more "pizzo" on noun of the security. Each day I think that with the  Franco's  dictadure("Spain") we are more free and less constraints than now

[vodka]

Well one can complain about union bureaucracy but I imagine there's more to complain about on the other side of the coin.
How about your stories about being overworked, having to put in 60, 70, 80 hour weeks, 20+ hour days, asked to do basically 2+ jobs
without adequate staff / resources, etc.?  Somehow someone else's lack of planning becoming somehow said to be your personal emergency "WE've got to get XXX done today / this week / this month, and it's all up to YOU!".
Getting pressure to work nights, weekends, give up planned vacations, etc. awithout any compensation (or even with, still bad enough to be put into the position for lack of adequate project planning / resource allocation).

I'm always hearing stories about overworked SW engineers in Silicon Valley among others.

And then you hear about the true sweatshop conditions in a lot of the overseas manufacturing plants for electronics, 6-7 day work weeks, 18+ hours/day, etc.

Recent stories about even the most prominent tech. companies in Silicon Valley being found to be highly unfair in compensation and staffing practices to women and minorities.

There seems to be more of a need for more unions in tech rather than less to protect the interests of the employees.

How often do you feel like your company is actually looking out for you and working as hard to take care of you vs. how hard you're asked to work for their benefit?  Some lucky ones do have great respect / treatment at their jobs but I imagine a majority are not so lucky.

That happens on all the world and on all the jobs .  The unique solution that we have for avoiding the abuse and the explotation of the corporations are ourselves. If we can, we have to put limit to eat shit.
I know many cases of the people that they  didn't need money  and they were working  with "NEGREROS"("Person that sold and  bought black sclaves").
For example , a waiter that worked 12 hours per day during all days of the week and only recieved by 3 hour per day ,ergo, he worked 9 hour free per day for the restaurant.
I have  never understand the persons that works free more still when they havent economical troubles.

[thm_w]

Like I said, I like the idea of unions, but I just can't stand all the petty red tape that seems to come with them. I'd rather be overworked and underpaid than get fired because I just can't stand to abide by a bunch of ridiculous rules and red tape. I like being versatile and flexible, I can't stand having my hands tied and not being allowed to do something that I'm fully capable of doing.

Enjoy the 12+ hour days without overtime pay, for less wage than you get now.
http://www.sbctc.org/doc.asp?id=4463

As if all non-unionized jobs are guaranteed to be free from ridiculous rules and red tape.

[Habropoda]

A friend of mine is a Professor of electrical and electronic engineering at a major University; when consulting on power systems at Boeing he wasn't allowed to touch the controls on a scope and had to ask a technician (probably titled Avionics Engineer) to change a setting. 

More of a shop-floor union issue than anything to do with safety of course.

I'm more disappointed in Boeing for letting the union do their job.  If I was in charge of a project at Boeing I wouldn't allow a visiting professor touch anything either.  Imagine the conversation:
"Sure, Professor Roohparvar, feel free to move the equipment around and change anything you want.  Just be careful of the student interns over there carving on the missile guidance and commercial aircraft pcbs.  Don't want to jostle an elbow, amiright?"

Incompetence and abuse of power can happen at all levels of education, corporation and unions.  The important part is to have reasonable rules and procedures to minimize the effect this can have. 

[james_s]

Enjoy the 12+ hour days without overtime pay, for less wage than you get now.
http://www.sbctc.org/doc.asp?id=4463

As if all non-unionized jobs are guaranteed to be free from ridiculous rules and red tape.

If I were asked to routinely work 12 hour days without overtime pay I would quit and find a different job. I've never personally worked a union job and I've never had to deal with particularly unpleasant working conditions. Sure nothing is perfect, but I have not seen these sort of dire issues yet, we have federal protections today for many of the more important things unions fought for and won.

I'm not suggesting we should get rid of unions, nor questioning their value in certain respects, but I there is no shortage of ridiculous things, more ridiculous than I have ever had to deal with from my own employers. I got yelled at once years ago for unplugging and coiling up an extension cord after a trade show, give me a break, I don't care if that's so-and-so's job, he wasn't there and I was just standing around. I'm perfectly capable of unplugging an extension cord and coiling it up and that guy can piss off, I'm not 5 years old and it offends me to be treated as though I'm unqualified to perform such a basic task. Focus on the real issues, employers taking advantage of workers, mistreatment, unsafe working conditions, illegal or unethical behavior, etc. Stop having a cow over trivial stuff or going to great lengths to protect a small percentage of very low performing employees. I don't care for the extreme focus on tenure and seniority either, I mean both are worthy of consideration but IMO the primary focus ought to be on merit. It also irks me when diehard union guys huff and puff and go on as if the union is the greatest thing on earth, can do no wrong and is the sole reason any off them are the least bit competent at their jobs, while looking down their noses at anyone who is non-union, even the best and most well meaning organizations have flaws. The way the unions keep wages high for certain jobs is purely by exclusion, making it very, very difficult for people to get in, even if they are well qualified to do the job. A friend of mine spent some time working for Chrysler back in the 90s and has commented that he viewed his union dues as a tax he paid to prevent his car from getting keyed.

[wkb]

What utter nonsense

I am far more worried by certain people criticising science without a proper brain.. 

[X]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government
 

He was not fined for criticising the government using science without a license.
He was fined for saying he is an engineer when he is probably not. In short, probably misleading behaviour.

Jarlstrom is not now , and never has been, registered to practice engineering in Oregon, or any other state in the United States. Jarlstrom has claimed to be a Swedish engineer. However, engineering is not a regulated profession in Sweden. No licensure, registration, or certification is offered or required to practice engineering in Sweden.

My bold, hence the "probably" remark.

Turns out he was also fined for other stuff:

Jarlstrom runs an audio product design and testing business that is not registered with the Oregon Secretary of State's office.

No mention if he runs his business in Oregon or elsewhere outside that jurisdiction either.

Him criticising the government is not directly the subject of the fine, his claim of being an engineer is what is under scrutiny.

[james_s]

But he is an engineer, he's an electronics engineer, that's his job title. He never claimed to be a PE.

[Richard Crowley]

Him criticising the government is not the subject of the fine, his claim of being an engineer is what is under scrutiny.

And thus endeth the lesson.  The state has successfully deflected the attention from the real problem. Even bamboozling contributors to this august forum.   

[X]

And thus endeth the lesson.  The state has successfully deflected the attention from the real problem. Even bamboozling contributors to this august forum.   

Assuming a real problem existed in the first place, and he wasn't just trying to get his wife out of a ticket. You'll be surprised to the lengths people go to when they want to help those they care about.

That being said, it's difficult to say who's in the wrong without sufficient evidence. There is no evidence he is an actual EE, nor is there any evidence that he is actually involved in producing/designing anything. The mention of running an audio business is not evidence, as anyone with business know-how can run a business. Just because he "runs" the business doesn't mean he actually participates in the work.
Likewise, there's no evidence that he is not an engineer in Sweden since (as it says in the doc) the profession isn't regulated there, and there is no official requirement of registration.

Catchy media titles such as "Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am An Engineer' in an Email to the Government" or "Yellow-Light Crusader Fined for Doing Math Without a License" _(source) are rarely valid conclusions to cases like this.

[james_s]

When it comes down to it though, whether or not he's actually an engineer is irrelevant. He didn't design anything, he's not selling a product, he's not performing professional services. He simply pointed out a problem and rather than acknowledge the problem or defend their position and explain why his claims are incorrect, they chose to deflect and distract by zeroing in on his use of the title of "engineer" in his signature. He could have signed it claiming to be the King of Sweden and it wouldn't really matter because his title or position is for the most part irrelevant. Are his calculations correct or not? That's all anyone involved ought to be concerned with. Did he point out a legitimate problem or is he full of it? Forget his title and look into that.

[T3sl4co1l]

Just because he "runs" the business doesn't mean he actually participates in the work.

Cough.

As has been stipulated, numerous times in this thread, the whole point is that an exempted "engineer" title requires no qualifications whatsoever.

You can run a restaurant and call your cooks "culinary engineers", or "foodie architects", or whatever you like, as long as such titles fit the definition of an exemption.

Like I said before: the only thing that makes me an "engineer" (in the practical sense) is that I deliver on my promise.

Poor troll is poor.

Tim

[Richard Crowley]

When it comes down to it though, whether or not he's actually an engineer is irrelevant. He didn't design anything, he's not selling a product, he's not performing professional services. He simply pointed out a problem and rather than acknowledge the problem or defend their position and explain why his claims are incorrect, they chose to deflect and distract by zeroing in on his use of the title of "engineer" in his signature. He could have signed it claiming to be the King of Sweden and it wouldn't really matter because his title or position is for the most part irrelevant. Are his calculations correct or not? That's all anyone involved ought to be concerned with. Did he point out a legitimate problem or is he full of it? Forget his title and look into that.

Precisely.  There has been a problem with those red-light cameras in that city since the day they were installed. People have been attempting to have a meaningful discussion with the city government for DECADES.  This incident is only one recent example of the stone wall that the city government has maintained.  And it appears to demonstrate a counter-offensive strategy on the part of the authorities.  Alas, something that has become commonplace in this state. 

The programmed timing of the traffic lights at the four intersections with cameras is DEMONSTRABLY shorter than similar intersections across the state and even in the SAME city.  One can only conclude that the intervals are shorter in order to boost revenue from the cameras.  Certainly if they had any real concern for safety, they would INCREASE the intervals rather than DECREASING them.  That is why many (most?) of us simply detour around those intersections whenever possible.  Perhaps THAT is their "safety strategy"?   

[MarkS]

Even bamboozling contributors to this august forum.   

I seriously doubt that anyone here is confused about the facts of this case and the seven pages of posts show that. The thread title is misleading; basically forum click bait. We're smarter than that. Or was that sarcasm?

[Richard Crowley]

Even bamboozling contributors to this august forum.   

I seriously doubt that anyone here is confused about the facts of this case and the seven pages of posts show that. The thread title is misleading; basically forum click bait. We're smarter than that. Or was that sarcasm?

Several people here have expressed doubts about the underlying technical problem and focused on the distraction strategy of the government.  Classic misdirection as practiced by any half-competent magician.

[EEVblog]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government
 

He was not fined for criticising the government using science without a license.
He was fined for saying he is an engineer when he is probably not. In short, probably misleading behaviour.

Nope, he was fined because he used the title "engineer" without being licensed in that state.
That is a very different thing from whether not his vocations and/or qualifications are in engineering.

[EEVblog]

For those who haven't seen it, some of his calcs:


https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government

[MarkS]

Yep. Seen it. Lots of letters and numbers and symbols and squiggly lines and pretty colors.

[james_s]

The important part there is pretty clear from the graph and in fact doesn't even need a graph. The yellow interval for the intersections in question are substantially shorter than standard.

IIRC a city up in my area got busted a number of years ago for doing the same thing.

[josecamoessilva]

For those who haven't seen it, some of his calcs:


https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government

Therein lies his problem: he had a little to much to think. Governments don't like when the subjects consumers tax sources people do that.

[MarkS]

The important part there is pretty clear from the graph and in fact doesn't even need a graph. The yellow interval for the intersections in question are substantially shorter than standard.

I get it. I was having some fun.

[X]

Nope, he was fined because he used the title "engineer" without being licensed in that state.
That is a very different thing from whether not his vocations and/or qualifications are in engineering.

True, I wrote that quite late and should have been more clear. He is probably an engineer somewhere, but isn't legally an engineer in his state, hence the subject of the fine.

He was (apparently) told not to use "engineer" before (suggesting he had previous run-ins with Oregon officials), and agreed to this condition, but still broke this condition. Based on what I've read, it appears he's done this kind of thing before, and even though it is clear he wasn't licensed, it isn't clear whether or not he is actually qualified at all.
My point still stands, he wasn't "fined for using science without a license" and this kind of title has clickbait quality.

Poor troll is poor.

I am not sure who you are accusing of being a troll, but as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not saying the state was in the right, but there is not a lot of evidence that state was in the wrong.

Two possibilities:

1. A man who knows his shit is pointing out an issue with the local traffic lights, and the state is trying to hide their embarrassment, inadvertently resulting in a Streisand effect situation.

2. Some dude just wants to get his wife out of a ticket, and decides to use a clever and dubious method, and the state is fed up with him wasting their time (given his previous run-ins with them).

If his measurements are spot-on, I am inclined to suggest #1 above. I don't have to be a traffic engineer to know that 3 seconds for a yellow light is a load of rubbish.
There is no indication as to how he measured, or got hold of, that information, or whether he is just plonking numbers out from thin air. In this case, the "evil government" statements don't rectify the situation, and potentially give someone an advantage when they do not deserve it.

[Richard Crowley]

There is no indication as to how he measured, or got hold of, that information, or whether he is just plonking numbers out from thin air.

The only variables here could be measured by child with a tape-measure and a stop-watch.  The rest of the parameters are widely published and used even by the same state and city in non-camera intersections.  I have lived here since the lights were installed and this issue has been discussed to death scores of times.

To paraphrase Lilly Tomlin as Ernestine the phone operator:  "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company Government.

[X]

The only variables here could be measured by child with a tape-measure and a stop-watch.

Could be measured, doesn't necessarily mean it was. Another such example is batteriser.
Having said that, you are right here, and I'm not trying to actively discredit his method, just throwing another (somewhat likely) possibility many here haven't considered.

The rest of the parameters are widely published and used even by the same state and city in non-camera intersections.  I have lived here since the lights were installed and this issue has been discussed to death scores of times.

To paraphrase Lilly Tomlin as Ernestine the phone operator:  "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company Government.

This is interesting. In your view, would this accurately describe the situation over there?

(still new here so I'm not sure if I should quote the whole slab of the linked text).

[Richard Crowley]

The only variables here could be measured by child with a tape-measure and a stop-watch.

Could be measured, doesn't necessarily mean it was.

They have been studied, timed, filmed, measured, calculated, ad nauseam for decades.  If Järlström didn't measure it himself, he could have referred to dozens of previous investigations.

Another such example is batteriser.

Yes, another example of common sense measurement and disclosure being rejected categorically by the perpetrator.

This is interesting. In your view, would this accurately describe the situation over there?

Sounds reasonable.  But it doesn't cover the decades of previous history.

[station240]

Here in Australia, in most jurisdictions - I'mnot allowed to replace a power outlet or the plug on a mains cable

What on earth are you talking about ?
Only Queensland has the restrictions on working on plug in appliances. Everywhere else in Australia no qualifications what so ever are needed.

The exact issue being, working on ANY >50V electrical wiring requires an electrician. Yes that includes banning qualified electronics people from replacing a simple plug or repairing mains powered anything.


In a sane world, having an actual engineering qualification should have been enough in this case. But no, they had to turn what was no doubt originally a simple non-profit to keep track of who had proper engineering skills into a huge song and dance. What's next, taking Universities to court for claiming their degrees make people into engineers ?

[Richard Crowley]

In that case, it certainly would help his case to cite these sources. I know if I was in his position and I was actually trying to point out a problem, I would want to cite as much information as I can from external sources too.

Well, considering that the city and state ignored all the previous evidence, citing it would appear to be pointless.

If the situation is as dire as you are suggesting (I have never lived in Oregon so I am not sure) then hopefully this will bring things to light. Perhaps if anything, the state was doing the right thing by essentially invoking the Streisand effect.

Dunno about "dire".  It is simply one of many chronic anomalies we deal with local government constantly. And the list grows longer with time, somewhat diluting the important of this particular annoyance.  I have zero expectation that this will bring anything to light.  It is simply another in a long line of nearly-identical events.   

[james_s]

It's not too unreasonable in the US either. You can get a permit to do the work yourself, then when you finish you have an inspector sign off and then you're good to go. Nobody bothers to get a permit for small stuff like changing receptacles or light fixtures although technically I think you're supposed to. I've done a couple of fairly major projects including replacing the service panel and nearly doubling the number of circuits in a friend's house. The inspector was impressed and asked if I was an electrician which I took as a compliment.

[Richard Crowley]

It's not too unreasonable in the US either. You can get a permit to do the work yourself, then when you finish you have an inspector sign off and then you're good to go. Nobody bothers to get a permit for small stuff like changing receptacles or light fixtures although technically I think you're supposed to. I've done a couple of fairly major projects including replacing the service panel and nearly doubling the number of circuits in a friend's house. The inspector was impressed and asked if I was an electrician which I took as a compliment.

In all the jurisdictions I am familiar with, if you are not licensed, you are not permitted to work on wiring >48V in any public building, or on any private building except the one in which you live.  The inspector could just have easily cited you with a violation if they had the notion.

[james_s]

I dunno, the inspector didn't ask if I lived there or not and I didn't volunteer that information. I did quality work, it was up to code and passed the inspection and I didn't charge money for it, did it for pizza and beer. What justification could there be for citing me in that case beyond another revenue source for the government? I think they're a little more reasonable up here in my area, at least for now. If they start citing people for this sort of thing, it will just drive it all under the radar. Easier to not get a permit at all than to risk getting in trouble. Couldn't reasonably avoid the permit for such an extensive job though, I had to upgrade the whole meter base and mast from end to end to go to the standard 200A service.

[Raj]

Well, at least in India, there's a term for guys that can do an engineer's work. That term is ' juggadi ':p
Maybe English should adopt this kind of term too.

[Raj]

As far as I know and what I think,it's not the engineers who are supposed to choose a delay for the lights, an engineer would get instruction from the municipality and civil architects, to create a street light with so and so long delays. He could give a suggestion but the ultimate decision isn't his

[Raj]

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!

You could attach magnets under your bike to get detected.... Go Google it

[retrolefty]

As far as I know and what I think,it's not the engineers who are supposed to choose a delay for the lights, an engineer would get instruction from the municipality and civil architects, to create a street light with so and so long delays. He could give a suggestion but the ultimate decision isn't his

 More importantly there must (should) be a timing standard for the town, so should be codified in local law or regulation (50 different State laws, sorry that's how it works in US) such that all intersection lights use the same timings for the same posted speed roads.

 I've noticed that the timing is dynamic and on-demand for some major expressways in my area, giving timing preference in commute direction and time of day. Whoever writes the PLC code for the lights must get the timing specifications from the 'customer', it's not a software designer decision.

 This is in reality a PLC software issue not a EE decision.

[Someone]

As far as I know and what I think,it's not the engineers who are supposed to choose a delay for the lights, an engineer would get instruction from the municipality and civil architects, to create a street light with so and so long delays. He could give a suggestion but the ultimate decision isn't his

More importantly there must (should) be a timing standard for the town, so should be codified in local law or regulation (50 different State laws, sorry that's how it works in US) such that all intersection lights use the same timings for the same posted speed roads.

 I've noticed that the timing is dynamic and on-demand for some major expressways in my area, giving timing preference in commute direction and time of day. Whoever writes the PLC code for the lights must get the timing specifications from the 'customer', it's not a software designer decision.

 This is in reality a PLC software issue not a EE decision.

Its typically the work of a Civil Engineer, laying out the shapes and determining the timings. As with most large projects there is a lot of attempts in simulation before actually deploying it.

[ez24]

If someone has a B.S.C.E. degree but not a P.E.  are they an  engineer?

[Richard Crowley]

If someone has a B.S.C.E. degree but not a P.E.  are they an  engineer?

That depends on where you are and who you ask.
If you ask the state of Oregon, then no, you are not an "engineer".

[EEVblog]

IEEE Articles:
http://theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/blogs/blog/mats-jrlstrm-i-am-an-engineer
http://theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/blogs/blog/does-having-a-license-make-you-an-engineer

[james_s]

The timing is not hard coded into the firmware and it's not a generic PLC. Traffic control units are purpose built programmable devices and the timing is configured in the field. My uncle spent a majority of his career as a signal electrician and installed and maintained a lot of these systems and I've still got an old Honeywell controller from the late 70s in my garage that he gave me when I was a kid. I don't know who decides what the timing is supposed to be but it isn't the signal electricians who set the things up. He had some amusing stories, one of his coworkers once programmed a controller that had gotten corrupted after a power outage as happened occasionally with the older ones. He got the timing off by an order of magnitude so the amber light was only 0.3 seconds long instead of 3 seconds, somehow didn't notice until people started complaining to the city. This was of course back before red light cameras were an issue.

[Corporate666]

Precisely.  There has been a problem with those red-light cameras in that city since the day they were installed. People have been attempting to have a meaningful discussion with the city government for DECADES.  This incident is only one recent example of the stone wall that the city government has maintained.  And it appears to demonstrate a counter-offensive strategy on the part of the authorities.  Alas, something that has become commonplace in this state. 

The programmed timing of the traffic lights at the four intersections with cameras is DEMONSTRABLY shorter than similar intersections across the state and even in the SAME city.  One can only conclude that the intervals are shorter in order to boost revenue from the cameras.  Certainly if they had any real concern for safety, they would INCREASE the intervals rather than DECREASING them.  That is why many (most?) of us simply detour around those intersections whenever possible.  Perhaps THAT is their "safety strategy"?   

With all due respect to you, whenever I hear someone complaining about the duration of yellow lights, especially in a comparative sense, it is blindingly obvious that the person complaining is just trying to run through the light when yellow and upset at the prospect of getting caught.

News flash - yellow lights are not "quick, get through before it goes red" lights, they are supposed to give drivers an opportunity to slow down before they turn red.  There are two types of drivers in my many years of driving experience.  The type that notice a yellow light and, if they have time to decelerate at a reasonable rate of speed, will slow down and come to a stop.  The second type will accelerate and try to get through the light before it turns red - often and usually crossing the line after the light has gone red already (and another car behind them does the same).  This second driver is the one who is loud and outspoken about comparative delays between yellow lights and the vileness of red light cameras.

I don't want red light cameras around here.  We don't have them and I generally don't want them - but if we did have them, I don't think I would have ever gotten a ticket from one.  On the other hand, there are a few intersections that get busy and every...single... time the light changes, there would be 2, sometimes three cars that would get tickets.  And it would have nothing at all to do with short yellows or anything of the short - but everything to do with assholes that don't want to wait at a red light and instead try to squeeze through a yellow and don't want to take any personal responsibility for doing so and getting it wrong and the resultant ticket.

I travel a LOT in this country and I drive a LOT and I have never, ever, ever seen any intersection with a yellow that was such that a driver did not have sufficient time to recognize the yellow and slow at a perfectly reasonable rate of speed to a stop.  I challenge anyone to point out that intersection - I wager it doesn't exist.  The problem is people who want to beat the yellow but end up getting a ticket instead. 

[james_s]

Such an intersection was pointed out, that's what started this whole thread. The purpose of the yellow light is to give drivers sufficient time to make a decision then either come to a stop safely, or get through the intersection before it turns red. This duration is going to depend on a lot of factors, a large one being the posted speed limit. If intersections in one particular local are significantly shorter than average then a LOT more people are going to end up getting ticketed and that's the point. If one expects the yellow light to be a certain length and is in a borderline position where they may have to stop more abruptly than they're comfortable doing in a non-emergency, make a decision to go proceed and then get a ticket then they're going to be upset, and justifiably so. There is no reason short of revenue to make the yellow duration any shorter than necessary, it should be long enough that a driver traveling at the posted speed limit can get through the intersection without accelerating, starting from a position far enough back that a heavier or older vehicle with a longer stopping distance could come to a complete stop.

[MarkS]

The purpose of the yellow light is to give drivers sufficient time to make a decision then either come to a stop safely, or get through the intersection before it turns red.

No. The yellow light is a warning that the light is about to turn red. The delay is to give traffic already in the intersection time to clear. It is expected that once the light turns yellow, you are to stop.

[EEVblog]

News flash - yellow lights are not "quick, get through before it goes red" lights, they are supposed to give drivers an opportunity to slow down before they turn red.

[retrolefty]

The purpose of the yellow light is to give drivers sufficient time to make a decision then either come to a stop safely, or get through the intersection before it turns red.

No. The yellow light is a warning that the light is about to turn red. The delay is to give traffic already in the intersection time to clear. It is expected that once the light turns yellow, you are to stop.

 I had to go to 'traffic class' after speed limit ticket in the 90s. At the school (taught by an off duty policeman) he told us what the deal was with the yellow light and what would attract a ticket. He said as long as your vehicle 'breaks the plane' while the light is still yellow, the fact that it turns red while you are still inside the intersection does not warrant a ticket. He did suggest that speeding up to try and catch the tail end of the yellow would probably get a ticket if witnessed by the police.

 

[MarkS]

Yes. Many municipalities have a law staying something to the effect of, "Traffic in the intersection has the right to clear before other traffic can proceed." Running a yellow light, i.e., entering the intersection on yellow can result in a ticket.

[retrolefty]

Yes. Many municipalities have a law staying something to the effect of, "Traffic in the intersection has the right to clear before other traffic can proceed." Running a yellow light, i.e., entering the intersection on yellow can result in a ticket.

 Well as I stated before the policeman at my traffic class said entering the intersection during a yellow does NOT result in a ticket, even if the light changes to red while still in the intersection. He was quite adamant about this law, at least here in California.

 

[orin]

Yes. Many municipalities have a law staying something to the effect of, "Traffic in the intersection has the right to clear before other traffic can proceed." Running a yellow light, i.e., entering the intersection on yellow can result in a ticket.

 Well as I stated before the policeman at my traffic class said entering the intersection during a yellow does NOT result in a ticket, even if the light changes to red while still in the intersection. He was quite adamant about this law, at least here in California.

I agree.  It should be obvious that entering an intersection on yellow (assuming not accelerating as discussed before) cannot result in a ticket.  Otherwise, a municipality could issue a ticket if you entered an intersection one millisecond after the light changed... so where do you draw the line?  One second, two seconds?  In any sane jurisdiction, it is when the light turns red, and the delay between yellow and red is sufficient for someone with a normal reaction time to stop.

FWIW, in WA USA, last time I looked at the law, the yellow is merely a warning that the light is going to turn red.  You must stop whenever facing (whatever that means) a red light.  Of course, IANAL and you should consult a lawyer to interpret exactly what the law means... you could well be surprised.

[MarkS]

Sorry, I was replying on 4 hours sleep. I totally misread your post. In my experience, at least in the places I've lived, running a yellow light can be considered the same as running a red. It depends on the municipality.

[T3sl4co1l]

News flash - yellow lights are not "quick, get through before it goes red" lights, they are supposed to give drivers an opportunity to slow down before they turn red.  There are two types of drivers in my many years of driving experience.  The type that notice a yellow light and, if they have time to decelerate at a reasonable rate of speed, will slow down and come to a stop.  The second type will accelerate and try to get through the light before it turns red - often and usually crossing the line after the light has gone red already (and another car behind them does the same).  This second driver is the one who is loud and outspoken about comparative delays between yellow lights and the vileness of red light cameras.

I am not an outspoken or aggressive type driver, but a yellow light of unsafe and unjust duration will get noise from me.

I've been ticketed by an automatic system before.  In fact, I pulled up safely to a red light, making a complete stop, looked both ways, proceeded into the intersection and conducted a lawful right turn.

Sometimes, machines make mistakes, too.

(Naturally, the totally opaque "appeal process" didn't go anywhere, and I had to pay the $100.)

(Also, FWIW, this was a properly set up light, with yellows of reasonable duration for traffic.)

The system is usually set up illegally, or very questionably legally, so that even if you wish to challenge the ticket in court, you cannot.  It is a civil fine delivered by criminal law, or vice versa, or something bizarre like that.  The fine is levied by a company, not the state; and there is no agent of the state present to witness the act, so there is no accuser.  Because of the combined criminal and civil aspects, no civil or criminal court can conduct a proper hearing.

You'd think such bizarre constructions would default to no charge.  You'd be correct: but only after paying the $200+ of court fees to have a judge see it and decide (on a case-by-case basis, never escalating to a higher level that would achieve real change) that your ticket is void.  The municipality still wins.

I travel a LOT in this country and I drive a LOT and I have never, ever, ever seen any intersection with a yellow that was such that a driver did not have sufficient time to recognize the yellow and slow at a perfectly reasonable rate of speed to a stop.  I challenge anyone to point out that intersection - I wager it doesn't exist.  The problem is people who want to beat the yellow but end up getting a ticket instead.

Just because you haven't driven through one, doesn't mean they don't exist.  That just means you haven't seen them.  Please check your selection bias before you generalize.  I haven't seen them either, personally, but I know better than to boldly claim they don't exist.

The OP provides such an example where illegal yellows are used to generate revenue!

Tim

[4CX35000]

If someone has a B.S.C.E. degree but not a P.E.  are they an  engineer?

That depends on where you are and who you ask.
If you ask the state of Oregon, then no, you are not an "engineer".

Credential waving tends to not go far when it comes to accepting responsibility for bad decisions which result in something bad happening. Strangely at that stage these people tend to go very quiet and say nothing; or back each other up in the hope time, money, early retirement or new employment can exclude them from blame.

Thankfully the term Chartered Engineer here in the UK does not stand for much in a typical engineering business and I'm not convinced it means much in government circles. In my experience of engineering it comes down to three choices. If your good at your job then you will succeed or at least keep your job, and if your bad then you walk. The third choice tends to involve nepotism which in every case I have seen has resulted in a disastrous decisions being made and the wrong individual being blamed for a decision they had little control over.

[NiHaoMike]

I am not an outspoken or aggressive type driver, but a yellow light of unsafe and unjust duration will get noise from me.

I've been ticketed by an automatic system before.  In fact, I pulled up safely to a red light, making a complete stop, looked both ways, proceeded into the intersection and conducted a lawful right turn.

Sometimes, machines make mistakes, too.

(Naturally, the totally opaque "appeal process" didn't go anywhere, and I had to pay the $100.)

(Also, FWIW, this was a properly set up light, with yellows of reasonable duration for traffic.)

The system is usually set up illegally, or very questionably legally, so that even if you wish to challenge the ticket in court, you cannot.  It is a civil fine delivered by criminal law, or vice versa, or something bizarre like that.  The fine is levied by a company, not the state; and there is no agent of the state present to witness the act, so there is no accuser.  Because of the combined criminal and civil aspects, no civil or criminal court can conduct a proper hearing.

You'd think such bizarre constructions would default to no charge.  You'd be correct: but only after paying the $200+ of court fees to have a judge see it and decide (on a case-by-case basis, never escalating to a higher level that would achieve real change) that your ticket is void.  The municipality still wins.

What enforcement do they have? I heard that in some places, you can simply refuse to pay and they can't do anything about it.

[T3sl4co1l]

What enforcement do they have? I heard that in some places, you can simply refuse to pay and they can't do anything about it.

That would be handy.  I didn't see an obvious loophole in my case, though.

Tim

[ez24]

Just because you haven't driven through one, doesn't mean they don't exist.  That just means you haven't seen them.  Please check your selection bias before you generalize.  I haven't seen them either, personally, but I know better than to boldly claim they don't exist.

I recently entered an intersection on a green light and it turned yellow then immediately red (less than a second on yellow).  At the other end was a railroad crossing and the bars came down before I could get through the intersection.  It was the train that caused the short yellow light.  I was trapped in the intersection and was lucky the cross traffic was  light.   I had a dash cam and got the whole thing on video.  I sent the video to the train company and they said they would look at it.  But I have not been back to the intersection but the whole thing was a big surprise.  I am sure if there had been an accident, I would have been blamed for running a light or entering on a yellow.

[Richard Crowley]

I travel a LOT in this country and I drive a LOT and I have never, ever, ever seen any intersection with a yellow that was such that a driver did not have sufficient time to recognize the yellow and slow at a perfectly reasonable rate of speed to a stop.  I challenge anyone to point out that intersection - I wager it doesn't exist.  The problem is people who want to beat the yellow but end up getting a ticket instead.

• SW Beaverton Hillsdale Highway at SW Griffith Drive
• SW Walker Road at SW Cedar Hills Boulevard
• SW Scholls Ferry Road at SW Hall Boulevard
• SW Allen Boulevard at SW Lombard Avenue

Ref: http://www.beavertonpolice.org/204/Photo-Enforcement

These are the intersections which are the subject of this thread.  All of them have been measured to have well shorter than "nominal" yellow-light periods.  Where "nominal" is based on the dimensions of the intersection, the traffic volume, and the posted speed limit. That was the argument that started this whole thing. And we have literally lost count of how many times people have complained formally about this.

The government (City of Beaverton) steadfastly stonewalls any discussion.  Perhaps if they had been successful at grabbing the Tektronix campus into the City limits, they wouldn't be so money-grubbing today.  Of course, diagonally across the intersection of SW Jenkins Rd and SW Murray Blvd. is the Nike campus.  Also notably an enclave OUTSIDE the city limits.

Of course cameras are not deployed at intersections with anything but high traffic volume.  My GPS warns me of
camera intersections.  I presume that many drivers here in Washington County, Oregon simply arrange their driving routes to avoid these intersections.

It is interesting to note that the camera photos are likely emailed to the corporate co-conspirator, Redflex down in Melbourne, Australia where they are "screened by Redflex personnel to ensure that they meet city standards".  The scheme apparently works by "profit-sharing" between Redflex and the government agency.  According to http://fireredflex.com/ethics.html the company has a reputation of many sleazy practices of colluding with governments, including several convictions for bribery up to and including the CEO.  Between the automatic income stream and the sleazy reputation of the contractor, it is no wonder that the city doesn't want to discuss anything.

[Elf]

I live not too far away and used to work in Beaverton, and can confirm what Richard Crowley is saying. These cameras make the news every single year and there is no end to the number of complaints about Beaverton specifically. Not only with the red light cameras, but with speed trap vans, etc. the Beaverton police seem to be mostly revenue focused.

Next-door Portland also has red light cameras but they are not the subject of as many complaints.

[james_s]

The purpose of the yellow light is to give drivers sufficient time to make a decision then either come to a stop safely, or get through the intersection before it turns red.

No. The yellow light is a warning that the light is about to turn red. The delay is to give traffic already in the intersection time to clear. It is expected that once the light turns yellow, you are to stop.

So you're supposed to slam on your brakes the moment the light turns yellow and hope that you come to a stop before you skid into the intersection? How does that make sense versus what I said? When the light turns yellow you make a decision to either stop or proceed based on whether you can safely come to a complete stop before reaching the intersection. That's going to depend on the speed of travel, the braking abilities of the vehicle and the distance you are from the intersection and the road conditions at the time. Obviously a road with a 50MPH speed limit should have considerably longer yellow lights than a street with a 25MPH limit. Having somewhat consistent yellow intervals greatly aids in making the decision whether to stop.

[brucehoult]

Seems he's won a bit of a victory...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/08/oregon_will_let_engineer_refer_to_himself_as_engineer/

[KJDS]

I have sworn an oath, just as doctors. They say "do no harm", I said "protect safety and health of people". If you did not do this, you are not entitled to call yourself an engineer, it is unethical.

When did you do that?

That would create an interesting dilemma for engineers that design firearms and military equipment.
[/quote]

I phoned an insurance company to sort out some new professional indemnity insurance and they asked me if the product could kill if it went wrong.

Once I'd explained that it was supposed to kill people when it was working they decided not to offer any cover.

Doctors in the UK no longer swear the Hyppocratic oath, and haven't for years

[IanMacdonald]

Require that the officials calling themselves 'engineers' demonstrate their ability to correctly and safely operate one of these. Any who cannot, pay Järlström $500. 

[BrianHG]

Just bumped into this YouTube video of the case:


I'm surprised how shocked the news casters at the end are that anyone who says they are an engineer require some ort of a license to do so.

[metrologist]

I'm surprised how shocked the news casters at the end are that anyone who says they are an engineer require some ort of a license to do so.

I got lost in your statement, but not all engineers need a license. In many cases, for architectural designs and such, only a PE will need to stamp the design drawings and specifications. I used to work for an engineering company that built retained earth walls. I was trained to use the cad software and how to run the calculations for the design, and would work from the state survey drawings to design the retaining structures. These would merely get stamped by the resident PE. We also did bridge abutments, post tensioned structures, even nuclear reactor domes. Specialists without even a bachelor's degree designed many aspects of these structures.

[RoGeorge]

Here, in EU/Romania, if you have an engineer degree, that means you can say you are an engineer. An engineering diploma means 8 years general school + 4 years high school + 4 or 5 years university, kindergarten years are not counted. There are some shortcuts for the Uni, you might be an engineer for some qualifications after only 3 years, but this case is rare.

I don't know about the legislation, but unless you have an engineering degree diploma, pretending that you are an engineer without a diploma will make everybody think you are a fraud or a fake, no matter how high your professional skills are. Diploma to prove at least 15 years of study is mandatory.

Later edit:
Without an Engineer Degree, you can say you are a Technician (of course, this is only if you have a Technician Degree - at least 12 years of study), or else you'll most probably be seen as an unqualified worker.

[Mr. Scram]

Here, in EU/Romania, if you have an engineer degree, that means you can say you are an engineer. An engineering diploma means 8 years general school + 4 years high school + 4 or 5 years university, kindergarten years are not counted. There are some shortcuts for the Uni, you might be an engineer for some qualifications after only 3 years, but this case is rare.

I don't know about the legislation, but unless you have an engineering degree diploma, pretending that you are an engineer without a diploma will make everybody think you are a fraud or a fake, no matter how high your professional skills are. Diploma to prove at least 15 years of study is mandatory.

Later edit:
Without an Engineer Degree, you can say you are a Technician (of course, this is only if you have a Technician Degree - at least 12 years of study), or else you'll most probably be seen as an unqualified worker.

That was the point. This guy is a fully trained engineer in Sweden and has worked in engineering related trades most of his life. Despite all this he wasn't engineering without a licence in Oregon. He was merely observing an issue, doing some calculations and reporting on his findings. This should be the right of anyone. Yet they are shooting the messenger by going after him for mentioning he is an engineer, which he is.

It seems to be successful, though. I don't think the traffic lights have been adjusted and attention has been diverted.

"Mats Järlström is, by all accounts, an engineer. He graduated from engineering school in Sweden, served as an airplane-camera mechanic in the Swedish Air Force and worked in research and development at an electronics manufacturer. For the past 20 years, he has earned a living designing and repairing audio equipment.

He is not, however, a “licensed professional” in the state of Oregon, where he put down roots in the early 1990s. So when Järlström did his own study of the timing mechanisms in the state’s red-light cameras and found them flawed, Oregon officials hit him with a $500 fine for “unlicensed practice of engineering.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/08/criticizing-red-light-cameras-is-not-a-punishable-offense-oregon-concedes/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3ea18efede4

[BrianHG]

I'm surprised how shocked the news casters at the end are that anyone who says they are an engineer require some ort of a license to do so.

I got lost in your statement, but not all engineers need a license.

I know this, I was talking about the anchor cast comments at this point: https://youtu.be/IIPYcCii7Sg?t=226
That they didn't have a clue.  But, I guess everyone I know in my industry use the title engineer, half of which are schooled with a completely different degree and just decided to learn electronics on their own and pursue a career in the field.

[RoGeorge]

If his Sweden diploma is not recognized in US as a valid Diploma, that is a technicality that some lawyers might cling to, just to win the case.

Anyway, I think he should go further, and I hope he will win. There is no law in US (I guess) to say that only certified engineer can question dumb timing on semaphores.

[Mr. Scram]

If his Sweden diploma is not recognized in US as a valid Diploma, that is a technicality that some lawyers might cling to, just to win the case.

Anyway, I think he should go further, and I hope he will win. There is no law in US (I guess) to say that only certified engineer can question dumb timing on semaphores.

If that were an argument foreign doctors should be obligated to call themselves medical technicians instead of doctors, including those visiting conferences. Can anyone help this dying man? No m'am, in this country I'm only a medical technician. You'll have to find someone with the proper stamps. I can't be seen medicining without my US medicining license.

[CatalinaWOW]

I am actually glad he is pursuing the path he is.  He could have defended himself in any number of other ways.  He could have pointed out that he wasn't professionally an engineer since he accepted no pay for these observations.  Or that no act of engineering occurred sinnce no one acted on his information.  Those defenses would have had little broad ompact.

Where this will get interesting in the liability obsessed US is when someone is injured in an accident that results from these ambiguous situations.  Anyone who was aware of Jarlstom's calculations and did not act could be found liable to some degree.  Saying that his calculations have no professional standing would be  a weak argument since any properly trained and licensed engineer could investigate them, and should if there is any possibility of a hazardous condition.

[Richard Crowley]

The City of Beaverton let their contract with Redflex expire on 30-Jun-2018. So Redflex removed their cameras. But the city got a better deal with Condulent.  The new Condulent cameras not only catch red-light runners, but speeders as well.  What a great deal for the city.  I am sure we will see increased $afety in Beaverton.

Ref: https://nextdoor.com/agency-post/or/beaverton/beaverton-police-department/red-light-camera-replacement-88892700/

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

What a great deal for the city.  I am sure we will see increased $afety in Beaverton.

Good news! How lucky you are!

[Brumby]

I phoned an insurance company to sort out some new professional indemnity insurance and they asked me if the product could kill if it went wrong.

Once I'd explained that it was supposed to kill people when it was working they decided not to offer any cover.

Wrong answer.  You should have said it wouldn't kill people if it goes wrong.   

[Mr. Scram]

Wrong answer.  You should have said it wouldn't kill people if it goes wrong.   

The wonderful world of semantics and people hearing what they're expecting to hear.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

While true, that doesn't seem enough to shift all responsibility when the situation created consistently leads to more accidents. Good road design helps people behave correctly, just like good engineering stops people from making common mistakes. As a side note, many places prohibit unnecessary braking or sudden changes of direction without due indication. If you slam on the brakes for no other reason than the speed limit, both of you could be in trouble.

[coppice]

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.

While true, that doesn't seem enough to shift all responsibility when the situation created consistently leads to more accidents. Good road design helps people behave correctly, just like good engineering stops people from making common mistakes. As a side note, many places prohibit unnecessary braking or sudden changes of direction without due indication. If you slam on the brakes for no other reason than the speed limit, both of you could be in trouble.

You said many places, but isn't it pretty much universal that erratic driving means you are breaking some law or other, even if those laws are structured differently in different places?

[Mr. Scram]

You said many places, but isn't it pretty much universal that erratic driving means you are breaking some law or other, even if those laws are structured differently in different places?

I can vouch for and prove the many places statement, but aren't sure of the same in regards to the universal statement although you're probably right. That's why I chose to go with the former. I try to be careful about my wording.

[Richard Crowley]

This just popped up on my YouTube menu of videos to watch.  Just one of probably over 100 news reports about the Beaverton cameras....

A traffic control device should be used to provide safety. And not to generate revenue. -- Mats Jarlstrom

https://youtu.be/bAm0o51Qqtc

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I'd swear the orange here lasts even less than that. I'm going to have to check it out...

[rstofer]

I'm surprised how shocked the news casters at the end are that anyone who says they are an engineer require some ort of a license to do so.

I got lost in your statement, but not all engineers need a license. In many cases, for architectural designs and such, only a PE will need to stamp the design drawings and specifications. I used to work for an engineering company that built retained earth walls. I was trained to use the cad software and how to run the calculations for the design, and would work from the state survey drawings to design the retaining structures. These would merely get stamped by the resident PE. We also did bridge abutments, post tensioned structures, even nuclear reactor domes. Specialists without even a bachelor's degree designed many aspects of these structures.

In California, generally, a graduate engineer goes to work for a firm having registered engineers for a 4 year internship.  Before starting, the graduate will need to pass the Engineer-In-Training exam and after 4 years and with the recommendation of at least one registered engineer, they can take the Professional Engineer exam.  Upon successful completion, they are now a Registered Professional Engineer (RPE).  There may be some variation in this process, I passed the EIT in '76 and never bothered with the PE bit.

Many 'designers' (note that their business cards won't say 'Engineer') are not RPEs nor do they need to be.  The drawings will be reviewed and stamped by the RPE and he is the one carrying Errors and Omissions Insurance.  The guy to blame is the guy that stamped the plans.

There are many fields of engineering that don't require registration - electronics is one example and there might be others.  But any field involving life safety will require registration.

[rsjsouza]

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.

While true, that doesn't seem enough to shift all responsibility when the situation created consistently leads to more accidents. Good road design helps people behave correctly, just like good engineering stops people from making common mistakes. As a side note, many places prohibit unnecessary braking or sudden changes of direction without due indication. If you slam on the brakes for no other reason than the speed limit, both of you could be in trouble.

I can vouch for this as well: in the places I lived and drove, the regulations also take into consideration the reason why you made a sudden stop: an empty fuel tank or a car breakdown will give you a hefty fine, but a blown tire or broken suspension usually take investigative work as they may depend on the road conditions. Also, as soon as you stop in one of these conditions, the emergency blinkers must be turned on.

Sometimes the road design can contribute to accidents but it takes some time for the local authorities to take notice. Until about two years ago, in a highway around here a shared (pool) lane was only separated by a soft posts - idiots stuck in traffic in the main lanes would suddenly jump into the pool lane with the occasional rear end crash (car at 100km/h can't stop instantly). However, for a long time the benefit of the doubt has given the jail free card to the merging vehicle, until people used dash cams and the city placed zillions of traffic cameras.

[ciccio]

I was reading this interesting thread for the first time to-day, and I think that, apart from the discussion on the duration of the yellow at the traffic light, the origin of the problem is linguistic: the English term "engineer has different meanings, from the person who designs a computer to the one who drives a train.
The discussion would not have been had it been a Lawyer, because nobody calls himself a Leawyer if he isn't...
In Italy (and in many European countries) who signs or defines himself as an Engineer (Ingegnere) must be enrolled in the Register of Engineers of his Province, and this requires:
- obtainig a five-year Univerity degree (those with the new three-year degree is a "Junior Engineer") and therefore be a Doctor in Engineering (I got a Graduation in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Bologna in 1976)
- passing the State exam for professional qualification (I did in 1979, when I was designing circuits for a living, but i could not call me an "Ingegnere")
- being accepted into the "Albo" (Register) of the Province where he resides and must, mainain this enrollment, following  training courses for about 50 hours a year.
If he is not enrolled in the Register, he can not be called (or call himself) an Ingegnere, but only a Doctor in Engineering.
Doing so he will commit a crime.
Only a Registered Engineer can sign projects of thing having to do with people safety, such as buildings, bridges, roads, etc.
You can design other things, maybe better than a graduate engineer, but you are a "Progettista", not an "Ingegnere"

Best regards

[Richard Crowley]

Remember that the reaction of the government had nothing to do with the term "engineer" or paying the fee to become a "registered engineer".  It was a tactic used by the government to divert attention away from the actual issue: the use of cameras to catch drivers in deliberately-rigged entrapment.  The fact that so many people here are hung up on the definition and use of the term "engineer" is proof that their strategy of misdirection is working exactly as they intended.   

[Mr. Scram]

I was reading this interesting thread for the first time to-day, and I think that, apart from the discussion on the duration of the yellow at the traffic light, the origin of the problem is linguistic: the English term "engineer has different meanings, from the person who designs a computer to the one who drives a train.
The discussion would not have been had it been a Lawyer, because nobody calls himself a Leawyer if he isn't...
In Italy (and in many European countries) who signs or defines himself as an Engineer (Ingegnere) must be enrolled in the Register of Engineers of his Province, and this requires:
- obtainig a five-year Univerity degree (those with the new three-year degree is a "Junior Engineer") and therefore be a Doctor in Engineering (I got a Graduation in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Bologna in 1976)
- passing the State exam for professional qualification (I did in 1979, when I was designing circuits for a living, but i could not call me an "Ingegnere")
- being accepted into the "Albo" (Register) of the Province where he resides and must, mainain this enrollment, following  training courses for about 50 hours a year.
If he is not enrolled in the Register, he can not be called (or call himself) an Ingegnere, but only a Doctor in Engineering.
Doing so he will commit a crime.
Only a Registered Engineer can sign projects of thing having to do with people safety, such as buildings, bridges, roads, etc.
You can design other things, maybe better than a graduate engineer, but you are a "Progettista", not an "Ingegnere"

Best regards

That's part of the discussion, but the issue is that this guy is an engineer. He just isn't in the US or Oregon, but he is in Sweden. The same issue could apply to a laywer.

[VK3DRB]

This just popped up on my YouTube menu of videos to watch.  Just one of probably over 100 news reports about the Beaverton cameras....

A traffic control device should be used to provide safety. And not to generate revenue. -- Mats Jarlstrom...

A very similar thing happened here at the road approaching Tullamarine Airport. It took an engineer, a member of the public, to investigate and discover the cameras had been maladjusted by the state government. Vicroads (the roads department of the Victorian state government) chose to leave it maladjusted for about 9 months after the engineer alerted them, continuing to collect extra revenue from the biggest money-spinning camera in the state. When this became public, all hell broke loose and the government was forced into in damage control, promising to return stolen money to the hapless drivers who should not have been fined.

A man named Gary Liddle was running Vicroads. He was verbally torn to shreds by a radio station 3AW program presenter as he was interviewed on air, because the organisation he was responsible for was ripping off drivers for many months after the maladjusted camera was reported. He feeble excuse was it was due to an "internal communications failure".

Media release...
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/red-light-cameras-faulty-vicroads-admits-20121005-2734t.html

Report...
http://cameracommissioner.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/rscc_report_yellow_light_timing_issues.pdf
This report clearly omits the date when Gordon Bishop first reported the problem to Vicroads. Why? There was a lot of cover-ups over this debacle. The public only know part of the story.

[metrologist]

Remember that the reaction of the government had nothing to do with the term "engineer" or paying the fee to become a "registered engineer".  It was a tactic used by the government to divert attention away from the actual issue: the use of cameras to catch drivers in deliberately-rigged entrapment.  The fact that so many people here are hung up on the definition and use of the term "engineer" is proof that their strategy of misdirection is working exactly as they intended.   

Well, it shouldn't be for any American who is paying attention. You see what's happening on the big stage now and understand that, I'm sure. But regardless, you still have to play the same strategic game. I wonder if the people who levied the charges were actual lawyers claiming someone broke the law. Or can only police officers determine that now? You get my meaning.

[Richard Crowley]

I wonder if the people who levied the charges were actual lawyers claiming someone broke the law. Or can only police officers determine that now?

The people evaluating the photos and sending out the violations were non-government non-law-enforcement 3-rd party contract workers half-way around the world (in Melbourne, Australia)  With the complete complicity of the City of Beaverton, Oregon, USA.

[Howardlong]

He won the case based on the First Amendment.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/02/oregon_engineer_license_laws/

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yw798m/oregon-unconstitutionally-fined-a-man-dollar500-for-saying-i-am-an-engineer-federal-judge-rules

[TheNewLab]

How adsurd. The guy is just criticizing the system. and is asking them dept. to review their systems. Whether Engineer, licensed engineer, or dork-face.

This is just asking a government to review what they have installed.
At least, that's the way I see it.

[SiliconWizard]

I would have though that any licensing requirements of "practising as an engineer" type regulation should only cover work done for payment or in thecourse of a job, which clearly doesn't apply here.

Same pov here.

But they may have considered that giving a technical opinion or advice while presenting themselves as an engineer equates to "practising as an engineer". Which opens a whole can of worms.

Good thing the fine was ultimately ruled unconstitutional.

[Mr. Scram]

The lengths you have to go through for common sense to prevail.

[Richard Crowley]

But they may have considered that giving a technical opinion or advice while presenting themselves as an engineer equates to "practising as an engineer". Which opens a whole can of worms.

Yes, that is what the government WANTS us to think.  But as a cover-up for the REAL issue (mis-timing traffic lights to generate revenue) it is working great.  We are concentrating on licensing and titles while the real problem continues unacknowledged.

[SiliconWizard]

But they may have considered that giving a technical opinion or advice while presenting themselves as an engineer equates to "practising as an engineer". Which opens a whole can of worms.

Yes, that is what the government WANTS us to think.  But as a cover-up for the REAL issue (mis-timing traffic lights to generate revenue) it is working great.  We are concentrating on licensing and titles while the real problem continues unacknowledged.

Absolutely right. A very common diversion technique.

[Tomorokoshi]

But they may have considered that giving a technical opinion or advice while presenting themselves as an engineer equates to "practising as an engineer". Which opens a whole can of worms.

Yes, that is what the government WANTS us to think.  But as a cover-up for the REAL issue (mis-timing traffic lights to generate revenue) it is working great.  We are concentrating on licensing and titles while the real problem continues unacknowledged.

Absolutely right. A very common diversion technique.

It's the administrative version of cops screaming "Stop resisting! Stop resisting!" while kicking someone on the ground in the head.

[MT]

Long live super hero "engineer" Järlström who kicked Oregeon board of "engineers" rear end! Järlström who btw has many fine lab instruments and a Weller without primary side fuse!

[Howardlong]

Long live super hero "engineer" Järlström who kicked Oregeon board of "engineers" rear end! Järlström who btw has many fine lab instruments and a Weller without primary side fuse!

Those Wellers have a fuse integrated into the IEC chassis connector. I have a dual and single version on the bench.

[MT]

Long live super hero "engineer" Järlström who kicked Oregeon board of "engineers" rear end and who has a Weller with primary fuse, a proper engineer alright!! ....(i was joking Howard  )

[Vtile]

Outcome seems to be good at the moment. Luckily I do not have to be "licensed" engineer to use term engineer, which I do have permission by education, though I do need to be "licensed engineer" to assign approval of some legal documents, but then the term is usually something else.

[6PTsocket]

It's clear that he broke the law and continued to do so after it was pointed out to him. It didn't help that he tried to sue the authorities (he lost), all so he could get his wife off of a traffic ticket.

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. This sort of wanton lawlessness should be clamped down upon hard, in any free and open society. You simply cannot have people challenging unelected government officials, that is not democratic!

There is no such law. Anybody can manufacture and sell electronic equipment. There is a ton of questionable junk on the market. Companies that sell electronic equipment that want to protect themselves from liability only sell products that are certified by UL or a similar testing organization. Manufacturers pay to have their products tested. It is voluntary. It gets the seller off the hook because he sold tested product so he buys UL approved to cover himself but the manufacturer is still liable if the defective product causes injury.  Europe is worse. Any company can claim a product meets CE safety standards and it is taken on faith, without verification.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[EEVblog]

Well done Mats Järlström!   

What a bunch of dickheads in Oregon.

[Inverted18650]

Another key phrase in the ruling is that, "he may continue to talk about traffic light timing publicly." We all hope you do and stick it those fools, brotha! Well done.

[Howardlong]

It's clear that he broke the law and continued to do so after it was pointed out to him. It didn't help that he tried to sue the authorities (he lost), all so he could get his wife off of a traffic ticket.

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. This sort of wanton lawlessness should be clamped down upon hard, in any free and open society. You simply cannot have people challenging unelected government officials, that is not democratic!

There is no such law. Anybody can manufacture and sell electronic equipment. There is a ton of questionable junk on the market. Companies that sell electronic equipment that want to protect themselves from liability only sell products that are certified by UL or a similar testing organization. Manufacturers pay to have their products tested. It is voluntary. It gets the seller off the hook because he sold tested product so he buys UL approved to cover himself but the manufacturer is still liable if the defective product causes injury.  Europe is worse. Any company can claim a product meets CE safety standards and it is taken on faith, without verification.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Furthermore, I’d have hoped that, retired or not, having an engineering degree would be enough for any court to be persuaded that your are, indeed, an engineer.

[T3sl4co1l]

Furthermore, I’d have hoped that, retired or not, having an engineering degree would be enough for any court to be persuaded that your are, indeed, an engineer.

That ignores the legal definition of "engineer", if any.

Most states do not have such, and therefore calling oneself an "engineer" (without further qualification) is free game, but equally so: legally meaningless.  A "professional engineer" however must be registered with the organization responsible for granting that title.

In this case, it seems the city was correct, under law, to make their case, as the law held a legal definition of the term "engineer".  The law however was found unconstitutional, and therefore any argument based upon it also fails.

Tim

[metrologist]

Tim, do you know what specifically is different about a state that "constitutionally" defines/qualifies a "professional engineer" and Oregon that "unconstitutionally" defines/qualifies "engineer"?

IOW, what if Mats mentioned he is a professional engineer in a state that defines such?

[T3sl4co1l]

No, I don't know what exactly applies.  I imagine the structure is different between states, so you'd have to know each state's laws in depth to know exactly how it works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#United_States
This implies that it's legislative, at some point or another, in most or all states.

In this case, the difference seems to be they legislated (or the city thought this was the case) the unqualified term, without realizing such is unconstitutional.  Whereas the qualified term "professional engineer" is a constitutionally sound exception to the 1st Amendment, and is usually used everywhere else.

If he had mentioned he was a PE, and wasn't, he'd be liable for that, possibly a criminal misrepresentation (and a court would likely support such conclusion).  If he did, and was, who knows; they might've found some other excuse to shoot back with.  The worst possible outcome, for the city (in their eyes), would've been to have to admit that a citizen is right about their shitty behavior.

Tim

[Richard Crowley]

“In candid moments, the board even asserted that they could punish the hundreds of Intel employees who call themselves 'engineers' without having a board-issued license,” said a spokesperson for IJ.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/12/state_board_concedes_it_violat.html

Intel is the largest employer in the state of Oregon.  And Oregon is Intel's largest site.  Intel is likely one of the (or perhaps THE) major source of tax income to the state.  But the people on the board are apparently independent enough to discount such trivia.

You may want to examine your computer to see if it is powered by a CPU chip that was designed by engineers not licensed by Oregon.

[metrologist]

...the unqualified term...
Tim

If this is the distinction, then who is authorized to identify what is qualified and what isn't? I am an internet jockey, I am a professional internet jockey. I should use relevant terms, such as technician or professional technician. Where can I peruse the list of "qualified" terms? This must be on a federal level if we are talking constitutionality. Is there something in law that is more specific to generally stigmatize the use of such a qualifier? Silly me I am looking for logic and consistency in law.

[mfro]

... I believIe engineers should be afforded some sort of professional status and right to use the title, I have heard that they are in some countries, Germany and Switzerland perhaps?

In Germany, we indeed have a title for graduated engineers ("Diplomingeneur") and it is considered crime to claim you'd be that if you didn't earn the diploma (can yield you up to a year in jail in worst case).

But maybe it's also a language thing. "engineer" appears to have a much broader meaning than "Ingeneur" in German. Somebody (without a title) doing engineering  is not considered an engineer, but a mechanic ("Mechaniker"), steering a steam engine doesn't make you an "Ingeneur" as well but just a "Lokführer".

[T3sl4co1l]

If this is the distinction, then who is authorized to identify what is qualified and what isn't? I am an internet jockey, I am a professional internet jockey. I should use relevant terms, such as technician or professional technician. Where can I peruse the list of "qualified" terms? This must be on a federal level if we are talking constitutionality. Is there something in law that is more specific to generally stigmatize the use of such a qualifier? Silly me I am looking for logic and consistency in law.

No, not federal, state.  That's part of the problem, like I said, it doesn't need to be consistent between states and you need to read each one to find the basis and scope.

So, get reading.  Laws are publicly available!

Presumably, states with reciprocity in this matter are similar enough to be reconcilable, which probably means there are sets of states which are mutually incompatible (including sets of size 1).

Tim

[rrinker]

 That the US is not one big monolithic entity is, I think, one of the most commonly overlooked things by many Europeans.

The silliness of some states' PE certifications is one reasons I never bothered taking the PE exam here. At the time, not sure if still true, but the exam would be 50% on whatever your engineering specialization was, and 50% combination of all other engineering disciplines. Why in the world would someone wanting to practice as a professional electrical engineer need to demonstrate any competency in civil engineering, I'll never know. That combined with the fact that in the first year of my first post-graduate job, I did maybe 2 months of electrical engineering, and by the time I was in a position to prepare for and take the exam, I wasn't actually doing ANY electrical engineering made it pretty much pointless. With the path my career took, being able to add PE after my name wouldn't have benefited me too much. In this state, that's the only restriction - I can have a job title with 'engineer' in it - in fact my company calls me a "senior systems engineer" even right on the tax forms submitted to federal, state, and local agencies. But I can not call myself "john Smith, PE" without having passed the exam and being licensed by the state. There was a time when they tried to say you couldn't use "engineer" at all unless you were a registered PE, but at some point that changed. Maybe all the locomotive engineers complained.

[Richard Crowley]

Popular YouTube lawyer Steve Lehto just posted this video on the Beaverton red-light cameras and government bureaucracy gone mad:

[EEVblog]

I thought this issue was done and he won?
He's back in federal court? 

[soldar]

I thought this issue was done and he won?
He's back in federal court? 

The previous video explains it.

They fined him $500 "for "impersonating an engineer". He appealed and he won and they returned his money but they basically said they were just being nice and did not accept that the law or regulation was being interpreted wrong and so this ruling did not apply to others who had been fined in the past or others who could be fined in the future.  So the issue is being escalated not because he wants his $500 back because he already got the money, it is being appealed on the principle of the matter. They returned his fine money as a way to defuse the matter and maintain the principle that they are entitled to fine people who do such things. What is being debated now is whether a person can express an opinion regarding an engineering matter while not holding an engineering degree.

[ruffy91]

Ha! This will solve other problems as well.
"Can't critizise the president if you're not a president yourself."

[iMo]

"I am an engineer.." means nothing from legal point of view, imho.
It is like to write "I am a vocalist"..

He would violate laws almost anywhere in the world if he wrote "I am a master of science in electrical engineering" or "I am MSc. EE" or in Europe "I am an Ing. in EE" or "I am a Dipl.-Ing. in EE" etc.
He had to indicate a "legal" academic title.

Thus the whole Case is a joke..

[wilmer]

I did not read this before. If this is true, than probably he just did not register at the  Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering. In fact, I change my mind, Oregon can fuck off. So if I would go there, not register myself, I wouldn't be allowed to use my title?

I'd be extending the big middle finger too.
Most practicing EE's in oz are not members of the Institute of Engineers Australia for example, nor is it a requirement for practically any EE job in the country.
They have a fancy Chartered Professional Engineer title, but it's well known that only wankers have that 

But in Australia, if you do the crime of been  electrical engineer and connect a wire at your home. You can get a fine of 1 million.

Sent from my Nokia 3.1 using Tapatalk

[soldar]

Ha! This will solve other problems as well.
"Can't critizise the president if you're not a president yourself."

As ridiculous as it sounds it is not a new argument. People in power lose touch with reality and believe they are the law. In Spain speech is being curtailed by the courts with the most ridiculous arguments.

Some years ago a professional actor, expressing disagreement with the actions of the mayor of a town said that the mayor was an idiot, that he had not read a book in his life and that he would drown in his own shit. The bad news is that the actor was sued and lost an he was condemned to pay a fine and the appeal to the Supreme Court confirmed the verdict. The good news is that the judicial process in Spain is so fucking slow that by the time the verdict was ratified the actor had been dead for over a year.

The verdict explicitly stated that the speech could not be considered to be protected political speech because the actor was not a politician himself. He was not in political competition with the mayor and therefore had no right to question his actions and much less to insult him.

I think most people are just not aware of the implications and the stupidity of these verdicts which are being handed down every other day in Spain.

Any expression which is in disagreement with the official line of thinking and you risk being sued for insulting somebody's "honor" (like we are still in the middle ages), for expressing "hate", for invading another person's privacy, or for any number of other invented imaginary crimes.

The case object of this thread is surprising because it happened in America because in Spain the law is whatever the guy in charge says it is.
 

[EEVblog]

He would violate laws almost anywhere in the world if he wrote "I am a master of science in electrical engineering" or "I am MSc. EE" or in Europe "I am an Ing. in EE" or "I am a Dipl.-Ing. in EE" etc.

There is usually nothing inherently illegal against lying about credentials unless you do it for profit or some such which pushes it into fraud. At least here anyway.

[iMo]

Sure, until you start to communicate with authorities in writing.. 
Then it is illegal.

[EEVblog]

I did not read this before. If this is true, than probably he just did not register at the  Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering. In fact, I change my mind, Oregon can fuck off. So if I would go there, not register myself, I wouldn't be allowed to use my title?

I'd be extending the big middle finger too.
Most practicing EE's in oz are not members of the Institute of Engineers Australia for example, nor is it a requirement for practically any EE job in the country.
They have a fancy Chartered Professional Engineer title, but it's well known that only wankers have that 

But in Australia, if you do the crime of been  electrical engineer and connect a wire at your home. You can get a fine of 1 million.

Please provide evidence of that. As far as I am aware you cannot be fined for doing your own wiring. What can happen though is that if something goes wrong then your insurance can be invalidated. Or if someone got injured and/or died as a result you might be liable. That differs from regular (non mains) EE work were using "best practice" usually is enough to legally protect you.
Yes, EE's like myself are not permitted to do our own wiring regardless of any level of qualification, technically not even allowed to change a power point. But you won't get fined for it. I am not aware of a single case were that has happened.

[EEVblog]

Sure, until you start to communicate with authorities in writing.. 
Then it is illegal.

Only in dumb-arse backwater states in the US 

[soldar]

If a job requires a license to do it then you cannot do it if you don't have the necessary license. A person can have obtained a degree in whatever field but it is the license which allows him to practice. Lawyers, engineers, physicians, plumbers, electricians, realtors... if the state requires them to have a license to practice then they need the license to practice.

The stupidity in this case is that the guy with the Swedish name could not be considered to be "practicing" by any stretch of the imagination.

It's like if I said to my wife in the car "slow down because you're going over the speed limit and you might get a ticket" and I was accused of "giving legal advice" and "practicing law without a license".

[soldar]

There is usually nothing inherently illegal against lying about credentials unless you do it for profit or some such which pushes it into fraud. At least here anyway.

Depends. Lying to a potential date about how you are a famed electrical engineer with great sexual prowess? Probably not illegal.

Lying to a US Government official verbally or in writing? Very illegal. That is how they get you. They badger someone until they can get them in a small lie and then it snowballs from there. Even if the lie has no consequences it is illegal and they can get you.

[Mr. Scram]

Please provide evidence of that. As far as I am aware you cannot be fined for doing your own wiring. What can happen though is that if something goes wrong then your insurance can be invalidated. Or if someone got injured and/or died as a result you might be liable. That differs from regular (non mains) EE work were using "best practice" usually is enough to legally protect you.
Yes, EE's like myself are not permitted to do our own wiring regardless of any level of qualification, technically not even allowed to change a power point. But you won't get fined for it. I am not aware of a single case were that has happened.

To be fair, the potential financial and criminal liability are more of a deterrent than a fine would be.

[digsys]

Yes, EE's like myself are not permitted to do our own wiring regardless of any level of qualification, technically not even allowed to change a power point. But you won't get fined for it. I am not aware of a single case were that has happened.

Actually, it's even easier than that. You can pretty much wire up whatever the heck you want, as long as a licensed electrician inspect it and signs off on it !
Naturally, you provide details of cable / component approval certificates, or source, but that's about it. If you happen to know a few electricians, it's pretty easy :-)

[SiliconWizard]

I don't think it is illegal per se in most countries (there may be exceptions), but that needs to be further explained.

I would think the following:

- Lying about a degree in your resume is not illegal per se, but if discovered after you got employed, it's usually a reason for breaking a work contract on a legal ground (contractually). It would be considered deceptive. Depending on the position, responsibilites and job risks, the company may not just fire you but may also sue you asking for damages.

- Working as a professional in a regulated field requiring a specific degree/credentials, such as medical doctors, civil engineeers, etc, without actually having this degree *is* illegal. The fact that you lied is an aggravating point, but even if you never objectively lied about it, assuming that you got by never being asked, just not having it makes the practice illegal.

- Actually producing a copy of a degree you don't have is producing a fake document and *is* illegal in many, if not all countries in the world.

Of course local laws may have some additional clauses about this.

[iMo]

Most probably anywhere in the world when you start to push hard at authorities, where the implication of such pushing could be an evidence the authorities provided a wrong doing (with $$ or legal impacts), they start to react - the reaction of that authority was a bit childish, imho, most probably their lawyers own the right license, but less practical experience

[SiliconWizard]

Actually, it's even easier than that. You can pretty much wire up whatever the heck you want, as long as a licensed electrician inspect it and signs off on it !

Yes, the same applies over here. So I would call it a "semi-regulated" profession. Non professionals can do it, they just need to have the work inspected and certified by a licensed professional.
It's obviously not the case for "hard-regulated" professions such as medical doctors. You're certainly not allowed to do medical acts on patients if you're not a MD, even if you have the patients checked out by an MD after you're done.

[soldar]

The thing in this case is that the guy never claimed to be an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Oregon. He merely submitted his studies to the board where the State licensed engineers could look at them.

It's like if I call 911 and say "there is a guy here bleeding to death" and they accuse me of diagnosing a patient without being licensed to practice as a doctor.

[digsys]

It's obviously not the case for "hard-regulated" professions such as medical doctors. You're certainly not allowed to do medical acts on patients if you're not a MD, even if you have the patients checked out by an MD after you're done.

SHEEET ! Now you tell me !!

[SiliconWizard]

The thing in this case is that the guy never claimed to be an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Oregon. He merely submitted his studies to the board where the State licensed engineers could look at them.

Yeah I think we pretty much all agree with that.
Then again, I guess the state of Oregon considered that the term "engineer" was legally meaning "licensed engineer" over there. Since the guy was living in Oregon, he was supposed to abide by local laws. That's still pretty stupid but hey...

[EEVblog]

Yes, EE's like myself are not permitted to do our own wiring regardless of any level of qualification, technically not even allowed to change a power point. But you won't get fined for it. I am not aware of a single case were that has happened.

Actually, it's even easier than that. You can pretty much wire up whatever the heck you want, as long as a licensed electrician inspect it and signs off on it !
Naturally, you provide details of cable / component approval certificates, or source, but that's about it. If you happen to know a few electricians, it's pretty easy :-)

Correct.

[EEVblog]

- Actually producing a copy of a degree you don't have is producing a fake document and *is* illegal in many, if not all countries in the world.

Nope, I can go hang a fake PhD degree from MIT on my wall no problem.
I could walk around the streets with the fake degree hanging around my neck.
The police aren't going to come and arrest me, as no crime has been committed.
No fine is going to come in the mail from anyone.
You are free to make a fake degree, and you are free to be in possession of a fake degree. It's what you do with that fake document that could potentially get you caught under some law like fraud.
i.e. you won't be convicted of a crime because you just possessed a fake degree.

[SiliconWizard]

Not over here though!

We have a law article called "faux et usage de faux". That would roughly translate to "fake documents and use of fake documents".
It introduces things as such: "La fabrication et l'utilisation de faux documents sont des délits." Roughly: "The making and use of fake documents are offences."

Just *making* a fake document is punishable by the french law, even if you don't use it. That is called "délit de faux". It includes making fake diplomas, ID documents, and many others.

When you use it to claim something in return (for administrative, employment reason, whatever...), it is called "usage de faux".

From the law itself, both cases are punishable with up to 3 years prison and a fine of up to 45.000EUR. It's likely that judgments related to just making a fake document without ever using it are much lighter in practice than when it has been used, but the law itself doesn't clearly make a difference.

[iMo]

France is still inside the EU, therefore in most EU it works the same way

FYI - moreover, there have been many cases in EU recently the high profile people were fired from their positions because they cheated while they wrote their thesis, based on which they got an academic title. There are special systems scanning the documents searching for copy/paste texts. You also lose your title in such a case.

[soldar]

France is still inside the EU, therefore in most EU it works the same way

That's quite a jump there. I hope you didn't hurt yourself.

National legal systems of EU countries are their own with only minimal EU requirements about Human Rights and other general stuff.

A person can be accused of a crime in one EU country and take refuge in another EU country and not be extradited.

Even American states have different laws. Much more so in Europe.


But, yes, in some countries forging certain documents can be strict liability crimes while in others mens rea must be proven.

Forging currency and possession of forged currency is, AFAIK, a strict liability crime almost everywhere and anywhere.

Being in possession of a forged professional license, like being in possession of lock-picking tools, probably requires evil intent to constitute a crime in most Common Law countries. Of course, the nefarious intentions are why they got you in the first place so...

[soldar]

I guess the state of Oregon considered that the term "engineer" was legally meaning "licensed engineer" over there. Since the guy was living in Oregon, he was supposed to abide by local laws. That's still pretty stupid but hey...

He never represented himself as an engineer licensed in Oregon.  It wasn't only stupid, it was also wrong, as they later admitted.

[soldar]

there have been many cases in EU recently the high profile people were fired from their positions because they cheated while they wrote their thesis, based on which they got an academic title.

That's in the "first world" part of the EU. In Spain if you cheat you gain points because you are considered bright. Why work when you can cheat? Everybody does it!

Most famously our prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, put his name to a book that he didn't write and also had his master's thesis done for him. Bright guy and just who we need to deal with world powers in our name.

It has been reported in the media and he famously said he would sue for defamation the site that reported it. From that day that site carries a banner at the top which counts the number of days since the threat was issued "and the lawsuit has not arrived yet".  (304 days as of today.) The guy is a crook and a liar and Spain loves him for it. Greece exists only so Spain cannot be the worst EU country.

[SiliconWizard]

Greece exists only so Spain cannot be the worst EU country.

Ahem.

[wilmer]

I did not read this before. If this is true, than probably he just did not register at the  Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering. In fact, I change my mind, Oregon can fuck off. So if I would go there, not register myself, I wouldn't be allowed to use my title?

I'd be extending the big middle finger too.
Most practicing EE's in oz are not members of the Institute of Engineers Australia for example, nor is it a requirement for practically any EE job in the country.
They have a fancy Chartered Professional Engineer title, but it's well known that only wankers have that 

But in Australia, if you do the crime of been  electrical engineer and connect a wire at your home. You can get a fine of 1 million.

Please provide evidence of that. As far as I am aware you cannot be fined for doing your own wiring. What can happen though is that if something goes wrong then your insurance can be invalidated. Or if someone got injured and/or died as a result you might be liable. That differs from regular (non mains) EE work were using "best practice" usually is enough to legally protect you.
Yes, EE's like myself are not permitted to do our own wiring regardless of any level of qualification, technically not even allowed to change a power point. But you won't get fined for it. I am not aware of a single case were that has happened.

But the law explicitly said that you will be fine if you do electrical work. Not if you work as electrician. If someone decides to report that you change a socket. You will get fine. That law should be change to include a short path for engineers. A gap course should be enough and not 4 years of apprenticeship.

Sent from my Nokia 3.1 using Tapatalk

[EEVblog]

But, yes, in some countries forging certain documents can be strict liability crimes while in others mens rea must be proven.

Here in NSW for document forgery to be a crime you have to actually gain financial gain from it, or, like may be relevant in this example: "influence the exercise of a public duty"

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s253.html

They even specify a valid defense being that: "No financial advantage was gained or no financial disadvantage was done."

So the act of actually forging and possessing and showing a forged document is not a crime. You even even allowed to trick people into believing it's genuine because to be a crime they must prove that you a) "to induce some person to accept it as genuine, and" gained financial advantage from it.

[wilmer]

What I see is that Oregon association lobby for creating a law that forces people to subscribe to them. it is not about a license is just a subscription.
A friend who works in the USA has never been required to produce a license or subscription to work as a maintenance engineer. She does not even validate the title in USA.

[SiliconWizard]

So the act of actually forging and possessing and showing a forged document is not a crime. You even even allowed to trick people into believing it's genuine because to be a crime they must prove that you a) "to induce some person to accept it as genuine, and" gained financial advantage from it.

Those are interesting differences between legal systems. Ours considers the *intent* itself as a possible offence (and I think that's a general idea in our whole system), even when it has not necessarily been acted upon, whereas yours considers the actual acts leading to consequences. That's a major difference. Of course acts and bad consequences most often make the sentences much heavier in court in our system, but they are not prerequisites per se to get sentenced...

[EEVblog]

Those are interesting differences between legal systems. Ours considers the *intent* itself as a possible offence (and I think that's a general idea in our whole system), even when it has not necessarily been acted upon, whereas yours considers the actual acts leading to consequences. That's a major difference.

We have ones that include "intent".
For example, lock picking tools are technically legal to posses in NSW, but it's the intent that matters, and they (the police) have to prove or at least provide reasonable grounds to assume you have intent to commit a crime with them.

Crimes Act 1900
Section 114 – Being armed with intent to commit indictable offence
Any person who: (a) is armed with any weapon, or instrument, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (b) has in his or her possession, without lawful excuse, any implement of housebreaking or safebreaking, or any implement capable of being used to enter or drive or enter and drive a conveyance, (c) has his or her face blackened or otherwise disguised, or has in his or her possession the means of blacking or otherwise disguising his or her face, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (d) enters or remains in or upon any part of a building or any land occupied or used in connection therewith with intent to commit an indictable offence in or upon the building, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
For the purposes of subsection (1) (b) “conveyance” means any cab, carriage, motor car, caravan, trailer, motor lorry, omnibus, motor or other bicycle, or any ship, or vessel, used in or intended for navigation, and “drive” shall be construed accordingly.

[splin]

Greece exists only so Spain cannot be the worst EU country.

[OT] That joke is rather like the one in a video about the English Electric Lightning I just watched in which it was said that "the only reason it has wings is to keep the nav lights apart"

[ebastler]

We have ones that include "intent".
For example, lock picking tools are technically legal to posses in NSW, but it's the intent that matters, and they (the police) have to prove or at least provide reasonable grounds to assume you have intent to commit a crime with them.

Crimes Act 1900
Section 114 – Being armed with intent to commit indictable offence
Any person who: (a) is armed with any weapon, or instrument, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (b) has in his or her possession, without lawful excuse, any implement of housebreaking or safebreaking, or any implement capable of being used to enter or drive or enter and drive a conveyance, (c) has his or her face blackened or otherwise disguised, or has in his or her possession the means of blacking or otherwise disguising his or her face, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (d) enters or remains in or upon any part of a building or any land occupied or used in connection therewith with intent to commit an indictable offence in or upon the building, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
For the purposes of subsection (1) (b) “conveyance” means any cab, carriage, motor car, caravan, trailer, motor lorry, omnibus, motor or other bicycle, or any ship, or vessel, used in or intended for navigation, and “drive” shall be construed accordingly.

Interestingly, clause (b) in the quoted section reverses the burden of proof:  It's not the police who have to show, or make plausible, your intent -- but in the case of carrying lockpicks, you have to provide a "lawful excuse".

[EEVblog]

We have ones that include "intent".
For example, lock picking tools are technically legal to posses in NSW, but it's the intent that matters, and they (the police) have to prove or at least provide reasonable grounds to assume you have intent to commit a crime with them.

Crimes Act 1900
Section 114 – Being armed with intent to commit indictable offence
Any person who: (a) is armed with any weapon, or instrument, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (b) has in his or her possession, without lawful excuse, any implement of housebreaking or safebreaking, or any implement capable of being used to enter or drive or enter and drive a conveyance, (c) has his or her face blackened or otherwise disguised, or has in his or her possession the means of blacking or otherwise disguising his or her face, with intent to commit an indictable offence, (d) enters or remains in or upon any part of a building or any land occupied or used in connection therewith with intent to commit an indictable offence in or upon the building, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
For the purposes of subsection (1) (b) “conveyance” means any cab, carriage, motor car, caravan, trailer, motor lorry, omnibus, motor or other bicycle, or any ship, or vessel, used in or intended for navigation, and “drive” shall be construed accordingly.

Interestingly, clause (b) in the quoted section reverses the burden of proof:  It's not the police who have to show, or make plausible, your intent -- but in the case of carrying lockpicks, you have to provide a "lawful excuse".

Easy, carry a lock with your lock pick set. "It's a hobby officer".
It's like the NSW knife laws, which interestingly has the specific clause about "burden of proof" being on the person.
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1988/25/part2/div2

Without limitation, it is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of this section for a person to have custody of a knife, if:
(a)  the custody is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances for any of the following:
(i)  the lawful pursuit of the person’s occupation, education or training,
(ii)  the preparation or consumption of food or drink,
(iii)  participation in a lawful entertainment, recreation or sport,
(iv)  the exhibition of knives for retail or other trade purposes,
(v)  an organised exhibition by knife collectors,
(vi)  the wearing of an official uniform,
(vii)  genuine religious purposes, or
(b)  the custody is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances during travel to or from or incidental to an activity referred to in paragraph (a), or
(c)  the custody is of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

I always fit two of those categories, and sometimes three. Simply have a Geocaching app on your phone and bingo, you are a Geocacher who needs the tool. Or carry a piece of fruit everywhere.
I of course always have the occupation excuse.

[ebastler]

I of course always have the occupation excuse.

Right -- you never know where you might stumble upon a dumpster containing a sealed package! 

[SiliconWizard]

"the preparation or consumption of food or drink," should reasonably apply to pretty much anybody as well. Just don't forget to bring a fruit, piece of meat or vegetable of some kind with you. "I was just going to peal this orange!" Done!
 

Anyway, the way I see it, this is the kind of law that is expressed in a negative manner: something is considered illegal by default UNLESS you fall into a number of specific cases ("reasonable excuse").
I think the fact they are expressed in this negative way makes the reversal of the burden of proof kinda logical in a way. I'm absolutely no lawyer though, so this is just my "logical" way of seeing it.

[coppice]

"the preparation or consumption of food or drink," should reasonably apply to pretty much anybody as well. Just don't forget to bring a fruit, piece of meat or vegetable of some kind with you. "I was just going to peal this orange!" Done!
 

Anyway, the way I see it, this is the kind of law that is expressed in a negative manner: something is considered illegal by default UNLESS you fall into a number of specific cases ("reasonable excuse").
I think the fact they are expressed in this negative way makes the reversal of the burden of proof kinda logical in a way. I'm absolutely no lawyer though, so this is just my "logical" way of seeing it.

Carry a katana. They were designed to slice through meat, and so are clearly perfect for making a nice sandwich. 

[SiliconWizard]

A katana is also nice to cut a watermelon.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

A swiss army knife is illegal too?

[Tomorokoshi]

A katana is also nice to cut a watermelon.

Sure, but usually a stick is used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suikawari

[metrologist]

Ultimate vindication.

https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-with-new-traffic-light-timing-formula/


Mats Järlström:

https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=21E65B05-A75E-4C62-0B63-C904EEF77729

[angrybird]

This is really beautiful!  Yes, there is some ridiculous bureacracy on the coasts and in the larger cities, but the constitution and its amendments are non-negotiable and it's awesome to see that not only did he win his court case, but made history with his new traffic light formula! Bravo!!!

[brucehoult]

"the formula used to time traffic lights and realized it didn’t take into account that drivers making turns need to slow down to safely navigate the intersection"

Not only that -- there are many other reasons why you might enter the intersection after the light turns yellow and still be in it when it turns red.

- you've just pulled out of a parking space or driveway and have not yet accelerated
- you're going to pull into a parking space or driveway on the other side of the intersection
- there's stopped traffic on the other side of the intersection, but space for you to stop behind it, clear of the intersection
- you're going significantly slower than the speed limit because you're on a bicycle, scooter, tractor etc
- you're simply driving significantly slower than the speed limit

[rsjsouza]

Incredible win! Not many would go to these lenghts to do what he did, especially fighting against such absolutist institutions. Good that justice was truly served.

[james_s]

Once in a great while common sense prevails. It takes someone willing to fight a matter on principal instead of only considering the cost vs immediate benefit to themselves and just capitulating.

[angrybird]

Take a look at what is happening to the red light/speeding cameras elsewhere... Some areas have seen so much vandalism that they shut them all down 

In the USA, you have the right to face your accuser.  This is the primary argument against these cameras, and I completely agree with it...  If there were a camera near my house, I would be one of the vandalizers...  Stickers over the lenses work wonders!  Though some people seem to outright smash them 

[CatalinaWOW]

I don't like red light cameras.  But at numerous intersections I have driven a red light camera was the difference between 6-12 cars "stretching" a light into my own green and one or none.  Obviously most of those 6-12 were aware they were in violation and only the threat of a ticket stopped them. 

[james_s]

Red light runners seriously annoy me. Initially I was in support of the cameras but then I saw the way they were abused in the quest for revenue and that put me off to them. I think if they're going to have a red light camera the amber light interval should be required to be at least a certain length depending on characteristics of the road, and the camera should only trip if one enters the intersection on red, someone should not be punished for getting stuck in an intersection due to traffic suddenly stopping, pedestrian jaywalking, etc.

[sassywren]

I don't like red light cameras.  But at numerous intersections I have driven a red light camera was the difference between 6-12 cars "stretching" a light into my own green and one or none.  Obviously most of those 6-12 were aware they were in violation and only the threat of a ticket stopped them.

I think this is something that should be addressed in the drivers training - most of the USA is painfully aware of how lax the rules are for obtaining a driver's license...  The driving tests should be mandatory at least upon license renewal, they don't even do real vision tests in many of the states.  This law regarding facing your accuser is not negotiable and this is why the speeding/red light cams continue to go up, go down, dissapear, constant controversy.  In the end, I believe some municipalities will choose to keep them by finding ways around the law, and I guess if people don't like this, they can move elsewhere.

I have been nabbed by the cameras in several major USA cities including san jose but none in oregon (that I am aware of!).  Not even sure how they flagged me as I am a very careful driver, but somehow the camera decided I was guilty - Probably a left turn on a yellow light like in this gentleman's fight against the state!  Since my residence/license were not from the states that issued the tickets, and the address on my license was forwarded to yet another address, nothing ever happened other than a series of threatening letters which eventually stopped.  This, in itself, is a hilarity.

[EEVblog]

Ultimate vindication.
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-with-new-traffic-light-timing-formula/

Like a BOSS! 

[DrG]

I'd bet good money on if you called yourself a policeman or military personnel of standing you'd be breaking more serious laws than that of a civil fine.

I can call myself a police officer or even a four star general. It's only once I try to take actions as such that laws come into effect. The Supreme Court recently overturned a law that penalized someone for claiming to be a veteran. You are free to claim to be active duty or retired military, regardless if it is true or not, so long as you do not use this as a ruse to collect benefits (monetary, access to facilities, charity, etc.). It is only after the speech turns to actions that the free speech protections provided by the Constitution cease.

I think that you are probably referring to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005 and you are absolutely right that the SCOTUS found it to be unconstitutional in 2012. It is an interesting story I think because it illustrates the evolution of the right idea ( prevent people from  falsely claiming to have earned the medal in an attempt to protect the valor of legitimate recipients) to conform to accepted principles (freedom of speech). 

In response, two things happened that were worthy of note. 1) A publicly accessible registry of award recipients was instituted https://valor.defense.gov/ although it is currently somewhat limited. 2) The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 was passed into law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2013. That law, which is in effect today, addressed the intent (i.e., "do not use this as a ruse to collect benefits", as you have said) without the infringement on Freedom of Speech.

If I recall from my reading (just now) one of the Justices said basically (re:2005 act) - what's next, imprisonment for lying about your age? (well, it was said with a bit more gravitas  )

I am filling in some of the details (not even mentioning the lower court decisions) because I think the process (come out with it - test it - revise it or dump it and figure out another way) is relevant to the original topic. Hopefully, the evolution will be a little quicker.

[james_s]

If the camera takes a picture when triggered and a police officer later reviews the pictures and makes the accusation, does that not enable one to face their accuser? I don't understand why the officer would have to physically see the offense with his or her own eyes, video and photographic evidence is admissible in many other circumstances. I think if each photo were reviewed by an officer that would break the loop of autonomous machine issuing tickets without accounting for nuances in the situation that a human police officer would.

[rsjsouza]

It is usually a not so popular opinion but I have no quarrel about cameras. This is mostly due to the fact that, in my hometown, traffic accidents killed and maimed a lot of people. It is a result of very weak enforcement, very low traffic (outside of the short rush hour) and very wide streets and avenues with good pavement.

The introduction of speed and traffic light cameras in the 1990s brought the accidents to fraction of what it once was - they still have the cameras to this day, despite the constant arguments and lawsuits from the general population.

If done properly, they can be a good thing.

[james_s]

But is the camera accusing anyone of the system relies on a human police officer to review the photos? The camera in that case is a passive observer.

I'm not against the concept of red light cameras however I am against the way they are frequently implemented not to improve safety but as a source of revenue. I'm some areas rear end collisions increased sharply as people slam on their brakes to avoid a trigger happy camera that is automated to the point that it's difficult and risky to fight the ticket.

[DrG]

But is the camera accusing anyone of the system relies on a human police officer to review the photos? The camera in that case is a passive observer.

I'm not against the concept of red light cameras however I am against the way they are frequently implemented not to improve safety but as a source of revenue. I'm some areas rear end collisions increased sharply as people slam on their brakes to avoid a trigger happy camera that is automated to the point that it's difficult and risky to fight the ticket.

YES, in some cases (at least one state in the US), a police officer, by law, has to review the photo before it can be sent (only for school zone violations) https://www.southernmarylandlaw.com/blog/dui-dwi-criminal/what-about-marylands-speed-camera-law-4/. Seems to me that they do decrease accidents and they are used for revenue (and sometimes their placement seems to be chosen for revenue generation more than safety). I also think that there is a small risk of increased collisions in the case of red light cameras.

The amount of revenue is impressive but they don't say how much (I have not found it after some searching) is pure profit. That it does not count toward points on your license is philosophically absurd in my opinion, but it is an obvious placating [of] the electorate so that they (the officials) don't get thrown out of the local Government.

Look at this list of "claims" to support fighting them http://www.mddriversalliance.org/p/fighting-speed-camera-tickets.html .

Fighting them is possible, but I sure do not hear about too many folks that have done so successfully.

A notable exception, of course, is this guy who shows exactly how he has beat them [please forgive me if this has already been posted]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a_D3jn2jKw&feature=youtu.be

I especially dislike the mobile ones, but I am happy to say that I have never had my picture taken.

[james_s]

The specific incident that really turned me against them around here is when a citizen initiative in a city near mine attempted to get rid of the red light cameras and it was shot down with a city official quoting "we need the revenue." That right there tells me their primary purpose in that city at least is to generate revenue, and I've noticed the amber light intervals seem excessively short.

[rsjsouza]

The specific incident that really turned me against them around here is when a citizen initiative in a city near mine attempted to get rid of the red light cameras and it was shot down with a city official quoting "we need the revenue." That right there tells me their primary purpose in that city at least is to generate revenue, and I've noticed the amber light intervals seem excessively short.

In this particular case, I agree this is an idiotic reason. The problem is that this one idiot spews that justification and then it suddenly becomes gospel across any other more serious attempts to educate the population through this.

Regarding the rear end accidents due to brake slamming, I would say that I prefer that than the near death experiences I and other neighbours have gone through when cars and trucks recklessly cross a deep red light at our neighbourhood exit.

[Brumby]

I'm not against the concept of red light cameras however I am against the way they are frequently implemented not to improve safety but as a source of revenue. I'm some areas rear end collisions increased sharply as people slam on their brakes to avoid a trigger happy camera that is automated to the point that it's difficult and risky to fight the ticket.

While the action of the person slamming on the brakes might be questionable - the fact that the person behind them runs into the back of them has nothing really to do with that action.  It is the direct fault of the driver behind either not paying attention and/or not travelling at a safe distance from the first vehicle - both of which are something about which the driver of the first vehicle cannot control (nor need to for that matter).  They have those responsibilities for the vehicle in front of them.

Regarding the rear end accidents due to brake slamming, I would say that I prefer that than the near death experiences I and other neighbours have gone through when cars and trucks recklessly cross a deep red light at our neighbourhood exit.

It would seem to me that rear enders represent a much lower personal injury risk than getting t-boned.

[james_s]

While the action of the person slamming on the brakes might be questionable - the fact that the person behind them runs into the back of them has nothing really to do with that action.  It is the direct fault of the driver behind either not paying attention and/or not travelling at a safe distance from the first vehicle - both of which are something about which the driver of the first vehicle cannot control (nor need to for that matter).  They have those responsibilities for the vehicle in front of them.

I don't give a damn whose fault it is if an accident happens that shouldn't have. I've been rear ended numerous times, had one car totaled and others damaged, it was entirely the fault of the person who hit me in every case but it was also a huge pain in the ass for me, a frustrating and expensive ordeal. Having someone to blame doesn't restore my car or my body. Yes I'd rather get rear ended than t-boned, but data suggests that the overall number of accidents increases https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/studies/

Now like I said, I'm not against the concept of red light cameras, but the way they are currently deployed in most areas is very obviously aimed at increasing revenue. There is a delay between when one phase turns red and the other turns green therefore it is impossible for a t-bone accident to occur unless a car enters the intersection on red, or the light turns green and somebody accelerates toward a car that is stopped in the intersection. There is no reason for a camera to trigger on a car that is already out in the intersection when the light turns red other than revenue. The cases people mentioned where 5 or 6 cars stream through are impossible without several of these cars entering the intersection when the light is already red. The unusually short amber intervals such as that which triggered this whole discussion are again 100% about revenue, there is NO safety justification for using the shortest possible amber. It needs to be long enough to give cars ample time to safely stop at the speeds involved, accounting for vehicles that may be towing a trailer or hauling heavy loads and need longer to stop safely.

Unfortunately I think the damage has already been done, rampant abuse of red light cameras as revenue generating machines have soiled them in the minds of the public so any possible safety improvement they could bring is not going to matter anymore, people hate them *because they have been and continue to be abused.*

[mfro]

Isn't that US red light thing (at least partly) caused by your (at least to most of us Europeans) strange positioning of traffic lights in general?

In Europe (and most other regions I've seen), traffic lights are positioned *in front* of the crossroads while yours are located *behind*. If we pass the red light (or even - at least in Germany - the yellow in its last phase), we are screwed. No discussion whatsoever.

[tom66]

As far as I am concerned running a red light in the UK is essentially unforgivable; you did the crime now you do the time.  The amber light is lit for about 3 seconds, and red light cameras don't arm until 1 full second after the red is lit, so you have 4 seconds to stop.  If the road is a 30 mph road, there should be no problem with being able to stop within 4 seconds and in any case you should always be prepared to make a decision at lights: stop or go. (Faster roads have longer yellow times.)

Being rear ended isn't pleasant, but it is a lot better than T-bone crash which is the likely result of running a red light.

[coppice]

As far as I am concerned running a red light in the UK is essentially unforgivable;

That depends. There are plenty of places in the UK now where there are so many lights, so close together, that you do through junctions not sure whether you were observing the correct lights. They used to shield lights well, so it was hard to observe a light from the wrong lane. Now they rarely bother with that. You just drive towards a bunch of lights you have so sort out in the fly. Try driving through Leeds and ask yourself if you truly followed all the lights correctly. They are just installing a bunch of new ones to up the confusion.

[Bud]

Traffic lights positioned behind the intersection are easier to see. We do not have to twist our heads trying to look at them. The stop line is clearly marked on pavement and there are additional signs on the curb next to the stop line saying "on red light stop here" which help when the road is covered with snow and the stop line is poorly visible.

[tom66]

As far as I am concerned running a red light in the UK is essentially unforgivable;

That depends. There are plenty of places in the UK now where there are so many lights, so close together, that you do through junctions not sure whether you were observing the correct lights. They used to shield lights well, so it was hard to observe a light from the wrong lane. Now they rarely bother with that. You just drive towards a bunch of lights you have so sort out in the fly. Try driving through Leeds and ask yourself if you truly followed all the lights correctly. They are just installing a bunch of new ones to up the confusion.

Well, I live in Leeds so I know of a few of the junctions you speak of.  I'd actually agree with you here, there's no easy way to solve this problem.  I have passed a red light by a car's length before being unsure of whether it was referring to one junction or another before realising my mistake.  But red light cameras are rarely positioned in these locations, they tend to be at locations where people are "amber gamblers" and pass junctions at ridiculous speed to avoid waiting 30 seconds.

I should note, I have one speeding ticket, so I'm no fan of the bastards, but I hate red light runners more.

[mfro]

Traffic lights positioned behind the intersection are easier to see. We do not have to twist our heads trying to look at them. The stop line is clearly marked on pavement and there are additional signs on the curb next to the stop line saying "on red light stop here" which help when the road is covered with snow and the stop line is poorly visible.

Probably a matter of what you are used to.

Frankly, I've had my problems with the US traffic light positioning and couldn't make myself used to it in months (at least to me, way more difficult than getting used to driving on the "wrong" side of the road in UK and Ireland).

With traffic lights in front of the intersection, you are not to blame if the lights change *while* you are on it, its just matters what they were when you entered it.

[boffin]

Isn't that US red light thing (at least partly) caused by your (at least to most of us Europeans) strange positioning of traffic lights in general?

In Europe (and most other regions I've seen), traffic lights are positioned *in front* of the crossroads while yours are located *behind*. If we pass the red light (or even - at least in Germany - the yellow in its last phase), we are screwed. No discussion whatsoever.

In BC (traffic laws are actually by Province in Canada, and by state in the USA); there are two different tickets

Entering a traffic intersection on Yellow, and exiting when it's Red is - BCMVA 128 (1)(a) - $167 + 2 pts
Entering a traffic intersection on Red - BCMVA 129 (1) - $167 + 2 pts

Weirdly the former used to be a cheaper ticket than the latter, but they both appear to have the same penalty now; and more stupidly, speeding carries more penalty points.

[digsys]

Doing a huge 20,000mile road trip around USA (from OZ) many years ago, I was constantly bemused by the different traffic light / road marking rules in nearly every state. Funniest was that I was constantly parked out in the MIDDLE of an intersection, at a RED light, and suddenly reminded of where I was !! Hilarity often ensued :-)
It's bad enough you folks drive on the wrong side :-) .. some of the other states idiosyncrasies were just as amusing :-)

[james_s]

Doing a huge 20,000mile road trip around USA (from OZ) many years ago, I was constantly bemused by the different traffic light / road marking rules in nearly every state. Funniest was that I was constantly parked out in the MIDDLE of an intersection, at a RED light, and suddenly reminded of where I was !! Hilarity often ensued :-)
It's bad enough you folks drive on the wrong side :-) .. some of the other states idiosyncrasies were just as amusing :-)

That's what you get in a country that is a union of individual states each with a fair bit of autonomy and the ability to make their own state laws are in addition to the federal laws that cover everywhere. On top of that you get laws on top of laws on top of laws, they're always adding new ones but very rarely clearing out old ones that may not make a lot of sense anymore. It's often easier to just work around what the law requires than try to change the law to be more sensible. While I've never done it, I suspect you'd experience the same sort of thing if you drove around the EU.

[digsys]

...  I suspect you'd experience the same sort of thing if you drove around the EU.

LOL .. I drove a tourist bus around EU (and all of middle east / asia / india / africa etc) for years, in the 70s, and the rules (back then) were VERY different, and surprisingly simpler :-)
EU Eastern countries - just follow the "herd" ... DO NOT break this rule and follow supposed road rules. eg If the "herd" disobeys traffic lights or signs, you do too. Easy. Western countries - Keep to all road rules, except during "rush" hours, then follow the "herd". One EXCEPTION: Germany: Drive FAST and always be the "alpha" driver. If you can't be "alpha", keep up with him, and always spend 50% of your concentration looking out for cops.
All the other continents I listed - keep a BIG supply of cigarette cartons and Johnny walker whisky - donate 1 of each ! NO MORE ! to every stoppage. Other than that, ALL options are legit - including footpaths / wrong side of the road / one way streets the wrong way :-)