Washington soliciting feedback re: public risk from the use of "Engineer" title

The meaning of "engineer" is way too broad. An electronic, optical, mechanical or similar engineer generally does not offer services related to engineering which meshes with state and federal laws.

For example, civil, mechanical, electrical and other engineers whose work must meet laws and codes.

I would favor an unambiguous designation for such engineers who need to be certified as acting in accordance with pertinent laws and codes. (technicians to be guided by such engineers)

That way, we don't get states famously suing electronic engineers for misuse of the title. Such persons, IMO, just can't hang a shingle saying that they will do soil surveys or survey your property and so on. (which would be a real corner case, probably covered under other laws)

Devil's in the details.

Most people probably don't get these since they're not on the mailing list but there has been interest in this topic on hn before, notably from the Oregon traffic engineering lawsuit. The email states:

The Washington State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors is collecting stakeholder feedback to measure the risk to public safety of the use of the title “Engineer,” by an unlicensed person, working in a position which offers engineering services to the public.