
Yellow-Light Crusader Fined for Doing Math Without a License - Element_
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/business/traffic-light-fine.html
======
GavinMcG
The actual order [0] which the article links to is pretty clear about the fine
being for describing himself as an engineer and practicing engineering,
despite not being a registered professional engineer. The article eventually
gets to saying that, but the headline isn't accurate, and most of the article
is just making hay.

[0] [http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-
Jarlstrom-F...](http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-Jarlstrom-
Final-Default-Order-IJ084769xA6322.pdf)

~~~
wl
The order cited him for calling himself an engineer. It ALSO cited him for
doing math. See paragraph 14.

~~~
GavinMcG
I don't think you can separate out the "doing math" bit from the _rest_ of
paragraph 14:

"and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the
ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of
Beaverton, Oregon's and 'worldwide' traffic signals..."

(Edit: Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree?
Maybe I've been unclear, or something, but it seems obvious that paragraph 14
isn't about doing the calculations, it's about doing the calculations _and_
presenting them as engineering work. The first clause of the sentence doesn't
stand on its own.)

~~~
wtallis
What you've quoted does not describe anything that a member of the general
public should not be allowed to do. Making informed proposals to your
government is not something that requires a professional license. It would
behoove the government to get a relevantly licensed professional to evaluate
proposals before they are enacted, but that's the responsibility of the
governing body, not the citizen making a proposal.

The only thing that would make his traffic analysis and proposal fall under
any sensible purview for the engineering licensing board would be if in
presenting his proposal to the government and the public, he had
misrepresented his qualifications. Paragraph 14 does not allege any such
misrepresentation; it cites him for doing math and science.

~~~
GavinMcG
I don't disagree with you. But it's still disingenuous to claim that the board
is punishing him solely for doing math. Maybe the law should be changed, but
the law isn't against doing math.

~~~
wtallis
Doing the math and telling anyone about it, then, if you want to be
unnecessarily pedantic. They're counting it as a separate offense from
anything relating to the use of the word "engineer". It's not disingenuous to
claim that the board is punishing him for doing the math. It would be wrong to
say that doing the math is the _only_ offense they're citing him for, but it
is an independent offense that they're complaining about.

~~~
GavinMcG
The law _is_ pedantic. Perhaps unnecessarily so, but an awful lot of law is
there specifically to address issues that have come up due to prior
ambiguities. That old saying comes to mind: "Don't tear down a fence until you
know what's on the other side."

On that note, I think there is a real and significant difference between just
doing the math and doing the math and then telling people about it, especially
when you're telling people about it under the guise of your engineering
expertise. Similarly, there's a difference between me reading this document,
and me reading this document and then writing this comment, especially if I
were claiming to have expertise in the law. (Though just to be clear, I am not
a lawyer.)

You're right that there are separate offenses: asserting that he is an
engineer, and practicing engineering. But the practicing engineering goes
beyond simply doing the math. As section 8 of the document describes, it
involves "Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and
engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as
consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and
services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of
ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any
public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment,
processes, works or projects."

So doing the math _is not_ independent. The statute makes explicit that
"special knowledge of the mathematical... sciences" must be "[applied] to such
professional services or creative work as [examples]."

Again, I'll agree that the law may be more pedantic than it ought to be. But
"doing math without a license" genuinely misdescribes the issue in a way that
should be clear with a reading of that paragraph. I'd expect better from a
news agency that tries to be reputable, rather than trying to simply draw
clicks and generate outrage.

~~~
wtallis
> especially when you're telling people about it under the guise of your
> engineering expertise.

Paragraph 14 of the board's complaint makes no claim that he was presenting
his analysis under the guise of engineering expertise. Paragraph 14 is solely
about him publicizing an analysis whose _subject matter_ the board claims
regulatory jurisdiction over. The board makes no reference to the _manner_ of
presentation being a factor at all, either as an aggravating factor or a
prerequisite for the publication to be an offense at all. The board also does
not feel the need to cite any context that made the publication qualify as
providing a professional service or otherwise qualifying as professional
engineering activity under their own rules (but this aspect may end up being
another Oxford Comma case), nor do they attempt to provide evidence in support
of the claim that doing this kind of work (even in this non-professional
context) requires special engineering education, training and experience.

The board is claiming broad authority to punish anyone who gets caught doing
the wrong kind of math problem in the state of Oregon without a license,
whether or not they call themselves an engineer in the process. The _doing of
the math problem_ is in the board's eyes sufficient to make the activity fall
under their regulatory domain.

They do not recognize the possibility for anyone lacking one of their licenses
to legally do the math in question; there's no amateur category, no exemption
for a layman to do preliminary analysis prior to retaining the services of a
licensed engineer, no provision for a student to do work of this kind for any
purpose without professional supervision from a licensed engineer. If you do
the math and show your analysis to anyone in any context, you need a license.
So yeah, it's not a stretch to say that they're considering it an offense to
do the math without a license.

~~~
mdekkers
_Paragraph 14 of the board 's complaint makes no claim that he was presenting
his analysis under the guise of engineering expertise._

Yes they do. Specifically: _to advise members of the public on the treatment
of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing_ \- page 7, lines 3
and 4.

I think the thing is pretty ridiculous, and a result of an over-litigious
society. The point isn't so much to shoot this guy down. It is to make sure
that next time somebody pretends to be an engineer (and starts building a
bridge or designing a powerstation or something) and they want to stop him,
this person wouldn't be able to point at _this_ case and say "but he pretended
to be an engineer, and you didn't do anything". This organisation must be seen
as to uphold their monopoly on deciding who gets to use the terms engineer and
engineering.

It is a result of not enough common sense in court cases, and too many
frivolous suits.

~~~
wtallis
> Yes they do. Specifically: to advise members of the public on the treatment
> of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing - page 7, lines 3
> and 4.

That's only asserting that he communicated his findings. It's not asserting
that he did so under false pretenses of being a licensed professional engineer
or any other kind of regulated or certified traffic authority. The board could
make the same claim against any average Joe who does some math relating to
traffic and tells anyone else that he thinks there might be a better solution.
There's still nothing in the charge leveled by paragraph 14 that narrows its
scope so that it doesn't apply to everyone who makes a complaint about a
traffic light that is more specific than "it sucks".

~~~
mdekkers
_That 's only asserting that he communicated his findings. It's not asserting
that he did so under false pretenses of being a licensed professional engineer
or any other kind of regulated or certified traffic authority._

Actually, Paragraph 14 specifically states that according to the law, the guy
pretended to be an engineer. You can be as obtuse as you like about this, but
it doesn't say "you are sanctioned for doing math", it says "you are
sanctioned for engaging in the practice of engineering" _to the general
public_ ", the rest of paragraph 14 simply explains how they came to that
conclusion. It isn't about doing the math. It is about what he did with the
math.

Let me explain it to you LY5: If I do some math that calculates the required
gauge for wire required to carry a 250A load for 400V, I am not breaking any
laws anywhere in the world. I can amuse myself with doing this math all day
long, anywhere I like. If I communicate my findings in public, I have again
broken no laws. If I communicate my findings, and say "you know, I know a lot
about electricity and stuff" I have _still_ not broken any laws. However,
should I communicate my findings and state "Here are my findings, fix your
inefficient power supply, and by the way I am an engineer" I will be in
trouble in most countries (and rightly so).

~~~
snowwindwaves
"Here are my findings, fix your inefficient power supply, and by the way I am
an engineer"

Should be ok in my mind

"Here are my findings, fix your inefficient power supply, and by the way I am
a _professional_ engineer"

Is a problem if you are not registered.

------
noonespecial
When the credential becomes more about permission that proficiency, you'll get
corruption instead of competence.

~~~
dmix
It seems like "something needs to be done" is the motivation behind most of
these licensing/regulations rather than "we should do this to have x result".
A vast amount of these debates/flame wars are typically around does something
need to be done rather than does this specific solution (centralized
administrative oversight) actually help the problem. Not to mention the costs
of unintended side effects that may outweigh the benefits of the oversight.

------
anotherevan
“Once the last developer is locked up and the last idea patented you will
realise that lawyers can’t program.”

— Christian Heilmann (@codepo8)
[https://twitter.com/codepo8/statuses/79531211327930368](https://twitter.com/codepo8/statuses/79531211327930368)

------
hprotagonist
this has been discussed here previously.

tl;dr: he was fined, correctly, for claiming a professional licensure and
authority to which he's not entitled. Not for "using math".

professional engineers are real in the same way board-licensed specialists or
bar-admitted lawyers are, and you can't claim to be one unless you are one.
end of story.

~~~
astrodust
This is why the term "software engineer" is very divisive.

~~~
ClearAsMud
See, it's not divisive at all to me. There are two types of degrees - a
computer science degree and a computer engineering degree. If you are an
engineer - your paper says so. If you are a scientist ... you are a scientist.
There is a very BIG difference. Folks that write software can be both
engineers and scientists. However, there are key differences in the
applications of being an engineer. Just because I write E=mc^2 on a board and
apply it to some problem in front of me, doesn't make me a theoretical
physicist - it just makes me a guy writing on a board, a formula that a
physicist might use. In the case of the story, he's a mechanical "engineer".
He isn't a guy off the street calling himself an engineer. He has the
education to match the claim. HUGE difference. Software engineers have degrees
that state they are. Software / computer scientist can be thrown around more
liberally, but a software ENGINEER cannot.

~~~
strictnein
Software engineers would typically have Computer Science degrees, not Computer
Engineering degrees.

~~~
ClearAsMud
Software engineers w/o degrees are just software developers. They are not
engineers, by any stretch of the term. Engineering principals applied to
software, including performance analysis and validation are done by engineers.
There is a big difference. Actually a HUGE difference. This isn't most likely
going to be popular here, because a lot of industry folks who are in the
epicenter of SF just like the title more than the job .. but it's fact, IMHO.
I don't mind having discrediting titles all the time, but it's more ego that
pushes it. I could care less about a title, so I'll call it out all the time.
Scientists are not engineers.

~~~
strictnein
> "but it's fact, IMHO"

That's not how facts work.

