> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT
> and the public were misled by "engineering-quality
> work"- even if the authors did not claim to be
> engineers.
Just stick to friends and/or people who won't sue you.
If you can get a hold of a medical stapler they're even easier.
In other words, utter fucking bullshit.
That said, it's definitely not a bad idea to keep your CPR training up to date. Mine was renewed last December.
It's not clear to me what calculus should be used to decide "the public interest" much less what calculus should be used to threaten otherwise peaceful adults on its behalf.
Further, while it is good for engineers to have a sound understanding of what they're doing, the issue at hand is whether or not one has the permission of some state bureaucracy. While the latter may intend to yield the former, one should take care not to unnecessarily conflate them.
Someone presenting an argument to whomever (the public, the city, etc.) has every right to make their case to the full extent possible (implied: honestly, without representing themselves falsely). No one has represented themselves as an engineer falsely so... Uhh, this sounds like a big load of crap, both specifically and generally.
I'm arguing that the implicit argument that state engineering boards exist and act [primarily] to protect the jobs of engineers overlooks the benefits of ensuring that people actually representing themselves as engineers are suitably qualified and competent. I also seriously doubt it's in the financial interests of engineers to reduce the amount of paid work they need to do to to alleviate public concerns over their plans.
> The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put
> together some official looking research to support it
Practicing engineers, however, figure out how to do what the client wants within the limits of the law. I usually don't link to youtube videos, but this pretty much sums up the real world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BUyWVg1xI
What are you basing this on?
I always start with the conclusion- "I want this to do X"- and then I throw together something that will hopefully do X.
If you don't know what your desired conclusion is, you'll get utterly lost and unfocused along the way.
Amateurs then must be forced to make unconvinced arguments unless licensed by the state?
It may be that there's a danger of ignorant people being fooled by those who can spout seemingly convincing, technical arguments. But in a democracy, the only defense is to argue against them and educate the populace. Any other course clearly invites the "dictatorship of officialdom", something that has prevailed in many places throughout history.
> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT
> and the public were misled by "engineering-quality work"
"When you start applying the principles for trip generation and route assignment, applying judgments from engineering documents and national standards, and making recommendations," that's technical work a licensed engineer would do, Lacy said.
There's some legal precedent* in blocking unlicensed people from making recommendations, notably pertaining to legal advice given by people who are not members of the bar association. On the other hand, Will Wright could clearly not be held liable if some loony city planner tested his designs out in SimCity. Also, individuals are generally permitted to represent their own interests with legal argumentation, and this guy is apparently someone with an interest.
* -- Ironic though it is given the subject matter, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
The basic rule here in Australia is:
1. Give all the legal advice you like, just don't be surprised if you're sued because it's wrong. Non-lawyers do not enjoy solicitor's indemnity.
2. You cannot give legal advice in exchange for any form of payment, unless you have been admitted to the bar.
Or alternatively, his report contains fallacies and invalid conclusions - but by extension is no longer of engineering quality.