Hacker News Reader

>he is not allowed to call himself an engineer in such a was as to imply that he is a traffic or transportation engineer.

He never claimed to be a traffic or transportation engineer, in fact the fine cited him for use of the phrase "electronics engineer." He is an EE: He has an electrical engineering degree from his home country (Sweden) and he has worked as an electrical engineer for decades.

>I am a registered professional traffic engineer. As such, I feel that registration is very important and serves to protect the public at large from people producing work with little to no relevant experience.

"PE" (professional engineer) does have a legal distinction in the jurisdiction of Oregon, but he never claimed to be a registered PE in the state of Oregon. "Engineer" is not a legal distinction. He never made any false declarations about his credentials.

>the State Board did not censor what he was saying, they asked him to stop representing himself as an engineer.

They "asked him" by issuing a $500 fine in response to his letter for committing the apparent crime of sending a letter in which he (factually) stated that he is an engineer. Telling citizens "you are not allowed to write a letter to the government in which you use the word 'engineer' (a term with no legal distinctions) when describing yourself" sounds like censorship to me.

1> In his initial correspondence with the Board he stated "...I’m already doing thiskind of work..." This was the statement that the board later used as justification for his claim to be an engineer.

2> The practice of engineering is defined in ORS 672.005(1) [1]

3> In the initial communications the board advised him that he should not use the title engineer or refer to himself as an engineer. To which he agreed. Later, he again referred to himself as an engineer.

I would also like to point out that engineering is not a regulated profession in Sweden. No licensure, registration, or certification is offered or required to practice engineering in Sweden. He may very well be qualified and have the knowledge, that doesn't mean he can practice in the US without proper registration.

Please read through the documents that are included with the Motherboard article that I linked in my parent post. All of these points are clearly stated along with copies of the conversations.

[1] https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors672.html

Why are you assuming that we are not reading the documents?

In the initial September 3, 2014 email where Järlström says he is doing related work, he specifies that his engineering degree is Swedish and that his expertise is in motional feedback of powered speakers. He is anything but misleading.

I am an engineer. I am not a "registered professional traffic engineer". I am a software engineer. If I wrote a paper on traffic signaling (which is also huge in software) I should be able to call myself an engineer - yes I won't call myself a "registered professional traffic engineer".

As long as you are clearly stating that you are a software engineer and not purporting to have expertise in traffic engineering, I agree with you.

If Järlström had actually referred to himself as a traffic engineer then both the state and you would have a point. But he didn't. He said he had an engineering degree which he has and he stated that he was doing work related to the problem which he was.

Järlström did not misrepresent himself.

Titles can be contextual. I do not refer to myself (a PhD) as a doctor in a hospital because others could incorrectly think I was a physician. This problem is especially vexing for nurses with PhDs.

A Medical Doctor must have specific training to not harm their patients.

An Engineer designs functional things.

No reasonable person is going to think that him calling himself an "Electrical Engineer", which he is, construes that he had specific training in designing traffic infrastructure that doesn't accidentally harm people.

Traffic infrastructure is not a nuanced topic full of dangerous pitfalls.

He was claiming that he had a background in engineering that is applicable to the subject, so that his viewpoint would not be cast aside. The state wanted to ignore his viewpoint, so they fined him.

I very much disagree with you. While traffic engineering failures may not be as acute as a medical doctor, the effects can be much more expensive and far reaching. For example, let us say that a road has a design speed of 55 mph. That would dictate the maximum curvature of the horizontal alignment. If an engineer chooses to ignore this design speed and makes the corner too tight, there will likely be a crash cluster at this location. The cost to mitigate that kind of mistake could be very expensive and possibly cost multiple lives.

Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. While the basics of structural engineering are relatively simple the consequences of failure are very high. If a multi-story structure collapses, a lot of people will be injured or killed. That is why it is important to know more than just the basics of what goes into structural engineering.

I am not trying to down play the importance of training for medical doctors. I am trying to highlight that engineers need to have training and a regulatory board that is used to track and prove that the training has been completed to an acceptable level. If any yahoo is able to say, "I am an engineer, trust me," how do you prove his credentials? Just like with a medical doctor, you would look up his certification.

> Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering.

We aren't even talking about structural engineering here. We are talking about an electrical engineer submitting comments regarding traffic.

The only reason these are related is the word "engineer", which is ambiguous.

The contents of this man's letter are not physically acting upon traffic. They were submitted to be considered by a group of "licensed" traffic engineers.

The subject does not require the decade of specific education that is required by a medical doctor, or even months of training that is required by an EMT.

It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman, making the fact that he is an electrical engineer important to the subject.

The state fined him for his claim of being an engineer, defining the word by its context (traffic lights) instead of by its adjective (electrical).

The state abused this notion to delegitimize his words, and to disincentivize him commenting in the first place.

> It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman

I would go further and say that as a EE working in the field he would understand this issue better than a traffic engineer would.

By defining a "traffic engineer" as a title that demands license, we prevent discussion from other people.

I am very critical of the idea that a license should be required to discuss the traffic system that we all interact with.

There is nothing preventing you from talking about traffic systems. There are, however, laws preventing you from claiming to be an engineer with expertise in the subject in a public forum.

A man claimed to be an "electrical engineer", and was fined for doing so, because the word "engineer" was taken in context to mean "traffic engineer", which is a licensed title.

The issue I take to this is that you must have a recognized title to claim knowledge.

This has two problems:

1. People outside of a group of recognition have unnecessary difficulty giving input. This degrades the "public" aspect of the forum.

2. Common words like "engineer" are redefined to have more authority than they do outside the forum. This means that those with broad engineering expertise and knowledge that is applicable to the subject are considered to not have any applicable knowledge or expertise.

It may be reasonable to require credentials from someone who is doing the engineering, or someone who makes final decisions.

It is not reasonable to require credentials from everyone who uses a noun to describe him or herself.

If you want credentials from someone who claims to be an engineer, then you can ask for them. Credentials need not be assumed.

There are positions like MD, EMT, Police Officer, etc. that do imply credentials. These titles inherently require trust and respect, so claiming one without credentials is fraudulent. "Engineer" does not fit into that category.

Electrical Engineer is also a licensed profession.

For good reasons.

You don't want someone to wire your house improperly, because non-trivial things like kinked cables can end up starting fires later on.

To say that you are an electrical engineer does not carry weight.

To say you can do electrical work because you are an electrical engineer implies that you have credentials. This is because "can" changes the context of the statement. "can" implies authority.

There is such thing as an unlicensed electrical engineer. That is because "electrical engineer" alone does not imply authority.

There are positions that do imply authority, like MD, EMT, Police Officer, and electrical engineer is not one of them.

Electrical engineers do not wire houses. Electricians (a distinct profession, also licensed) wire houses. Similar to how chemical engineers are distinct from plumbers.

I'm done here, this is not going anywhere productive or enlightening.

> how do you prove his credentials?

You don't.

"Engineer" is not broadly considered a claim of authority. It is a claim of knowledge.

If I am required to provide credentials whenever I say "engineer", then how, as someone without credentials, am I supposed to express my background?

I'll simply choose another word, which will have the exact meaning that "engineer" currently does. Why? Because you redefined the word.

The word "engineer" is perfectly adequate in its current state.

If you really want to know whether you can trust an engineer in his or her capacity, you will then ask for some credentials, like a degree or state-sponsored license. The fact that anyone can use the word "engineer" to describe him or herself does not in any way detract from that.

The reason that MD, EMT, or police officer are different is that every individual who claims that title is treated with authority.

>> "Engineer" is not broadly considered a claim of authority. It is a claim of knowledge.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

The reason why I ask is this - before the process was simplified in Canada, you were required to have your passport application signed by an accredited professional guarantor like a medical doctor, accountant, police officer, engineer (PEng), etc who had known you for a minimum period of time.

So in this specific context, an engineer is a special class of person in society (because of the professional body he/she is a member of).

This misses my point. My point is that while I am a "doctor" I am not a physician, and that even though I use the title in other places it's prudent to be very careful about it in a medical setting because it could be misconstrued. Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers while one is using the industrial exemption.

> Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers.

I disagree.

In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental.

A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice.

The word "engineer" does not carry this implication, nor should it.

When I tell people that I am a "Software Engineer", I am expressing years of self-education, nuanced understanding, etc. This title is not misconstrued as having a degree or license, of which I have neither. If I want to claim to have a degree, I will be explicit about it.

Calling myself an "engineer" is a very useful way to express the complicated body of knowledge that I possess. If the word suddenly implies credentials, of which I do not possess, I am suddenly considered a fraud.

TL;DR You can consider me a fraud by redefining what an "engineer" is, but that doesn't make me one, so please don't redefine engineer. That does not help discourse.

> In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental.

This is backwards from my perspective. Engineering has long been a licensed profession. It is only recently that a group of people have chosen, for some reason beyond me, to call themselves "software engineers" and avail themselves of the industrial exemption. I'm not a fan but the ship has sailed on that one.

> A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice.

There are many MDs and DOs that are not licensed by their state boards and they too have to take care with misrepresenting themselves as physicians licensed to practice. The same is true of people using the industrial exemption to practice engineering, one cannot use the industrial exemption to practice before the public.

TL;DR from my perspective (PhD in engineering but not an engineer) there is a newer group people who are attempting to redefine what "engineer" means as a profession, and that redefinition relaxes education, experience, and professional conduct standards by quite a bit. I realize that like the Browncoats of Firefly I am on the losing side, and also like the Browncoats I don't like it.

The problem is that traffic lights are not a complicated nuanced subject where there is one small set of correct methods, and a large subset of dangerous methods.

Titles like "Medical Doctor" or "EMT" carry authority, because they require specific training, so that you know how not to kill someone while you are trying to help them. For these professions, it is necessary for the state to demand a set of requirements from those who carry those titles.

Saying someone must be specific about what kind of engineer they purport to be is quite unreasonable, and unnecessary.

In this case, the state created the "title" so that they could ignore anyone who didn't pay for the title. Since it is totally normal to call oneself an "engineer" without worrying about that title carrying a dangerous authority, it was unexpected, and malicious for the state to redefine the term.

Traffic signal timing is not a simple as it may appear. Yes, a signal that is all by its self may be easy to time. However coordinating a system with multiple signals and phasing plans can be complicated. Could any technically minded person learn how to do it? Absolutely. However, the same goes for almost any professional service.

>Saying someone must be specific about what kind of engineer they purport to be is quite unreasonable, and unnecessary.

You are essentially saying that any discipline of engineering is the same as any other. This is simply untrue. Do you want me as a traffic engineer doing the job of a chemical engineer? Probably not.

Simply calling oneself an engineer does not make it so. Just as I can't call myself a race car driver because I can drive a car fast by pressing the gas peddle further down. There must be enforcement of titles that effect public health and safety. Traffic engineering is one of those protected titles.

> You are essentially saying that any discipline of engineering is the same as any other.

No, but they are related, and any type of engineer will be trained to think like an engineer, which is really the only prerequisite for contributing to discussion about traffic design.

This man is not walking up to traffic lights and changing the timing, he sent a letter with his comments, and pointed out that he is an electrical engineer, which is how he is capable of understanding the nuances of traffic lights.

The problem is not that his idea was rejected, but that it was ignored. When we require licenses for broad things like "engineering ability", we prevent discussion on engineering topics.

> Simply calling oneself an engineer does not make it so.

Simply calling oneself an engineer is not harmful. I am not suddenly gaining authority by saying that I am a software engineer. I am, however, bringing to light years of self-education as a context for my understanding.

> There must be enforcement of titles that effect public health and safety.

That is a broad statement.

I agree that titles like MD or EMT that involve direct action that are likely to cause harm without proper training should be regulated, so that people can trust an individual who claims to be an MD or EMT to do the things that an MD or EMT does.

I disagree with the idea that no one is allowed to contribute to a discussion on topics related to public safety without a license. That is absurd.

Those who do the engineering likely should have a license, so that we can trust them.

Those who discuss engineering should not be limited to the ones who have a license.

Everyone should be able to discuss a topic without fear. Otherwise, engineers would not be able to hear from those who use their designs.

A software engineer that does not hear his or her users writes awful software. An engineer that designs something used by the public that does not hear his or her users is an awful engineer.

> As such, I feel that registration is very important and serves to protect the public at large from people producing work with little to no relevant experience.

It feels like in this case they were using registration (or lack thereof) to protect revenue and as a consequence they didn't protect people. I think the people that directed the case should be held accountable and perhaps the board should review their behavior.

Stop trying to use your "registered professional traffic engineer" title as a labor monopoly. It doesn't even mean you are good at your job.

It is not meant to create a labor monopoly any more than a medical doctors licence. Registration as an engineer is so that one can prove that they have the requisite knowledge and competency to perform the work required of them. Without registration, what legal assurances would you have that the engineer is capable of his job?

The same as any other job, like mine as a Site Reliability Engineer? A resume, a degree that can be validated, experience and knowledge that demonstrate competence, references, reputation, etc. Why does the state need to be the official signer-off on who can do a certain job?

It's main purpose is to create a labor monopoly, just as doctors licenses are.

And there is zero legal assurance that a Professional Engineer or a Medical Doctor can do their jobs competently.

Certifications are fine, if done by private organizations. Those certifications have to prove their value in the marketplace, to customers, or they'll become worthless.

When the boot heel of government is used to give certifications the force of law is when they run off the rails, and allow small groups to impose arbitrary rules to exclude valuable practitioners.

I’m sure the professional traffic engineers association would have strong words in reply to your comment.

Of course they would, it's the association's job to prevent their work to exclude others from their business being exposed.

Does it matter if his points are valid?

I don't need to be a chef to know when the meat is spoiled.

It matters specifically in the case of making legal arguments.

I'm not saying the board was right, but please see it from their perspective. A certified traffic engineer would also use the term "engineer" in his findings. The latter's analysis would be given much more weight, be trusted more, simply because that's what certification is meant for. We've created titles and institutions for a purpose, so that Average Joe Board Member doesn't need to go into the details of a technical analysis, but can trust the outcome proposed/suggested.

Sure, if we're talking about some kind of complicated physics and structural calculations, with lots of technical jargon - yes, involve the engineers.

But we're talking about some simple math for counting the length of traffic lights. Everybody uses traffic lights, everybody knows simple math. It is ridiculous to assert that you need a technical qualification to know it's wrong that red light cameras flash at 100 seconds, but the light changes at 110 seconds.

I don't think anyone is disputing the law beyond claiming that it's stupid.

And, in this case, the board members were all certified traffic engineers and were reviewing this other person's offered analysis (or, rather, deciding to go after the person for their affront in even offering the analysis at all without having a certification). As others have pointed out, Oregon is very selectively enforcing the law. It's pretty hard not to conclude that some asshole decided to go after someone for pointing out problems with work for which they were somewhat responsible.

You may be confusing making arguments with providing testimony as an expert to a tribunal or court.

Expert testimony is evidence, not argument.

A lot of this is covered in the discussion you allude to (where you have the top comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14197512

Kiuper's sibling comment in this thread sums it up nicely as far as I can tell.