The dangers of unlicensed engineering(newsobserver.com)
newsobserver.com
The dangers of unlicensed engineering
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/964781/citizen-activist-grates-on-state.html
18 comments
The article claimed Kevin Lacy was "chief traffic engineer for the [North Carolina] state DOT". I assume that makes him a bureaucrat rather than a working engineer. And bureaucrats have all sorts of "interesting" ways of working.
Edit: This is not the first time Mr. Lacy has faced criticism either: http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=453
Edit: This is not the first time Mr. Lacy has faced criticism either: http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=453
> 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.
This is sounding a lot like a profession making it illegal for others to do anything that could decrease their own income.
However dubious this instance of censuring someone's comments simply because they've bothered to do some research to support their case may be, I think it generally is in the public interest that people actually representing themselves as engineers have a sound understanding of what they're actually doing (e.g. designing bridges that don't fail and kill people). I doubt civil engineers in the US are disproportionately well paid.
I wholeheartedly disagree. While this instance is especially compelling, certainly, you're still attempting to argue that someone might invalidate their point by making 'too good' of an argument without the qualifications.
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.
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 not attempting to argue that someone might invalidate their point by making "too good" an argument, or that it wouldn't be an overreach for a board to censure someone not practising as or representing themselves as an engineer.
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.
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.
>I think it generally is in the public interest that people actually representing themselves as engineers have a sound understanding of what they're actually doing
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.
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.
What about the licensed to kill? Pirates and Emperors?
re. unions.
Agreed! I shouldn't need an M.D. to stitch you up!
Sure, as long as you don't claim you have an M.D. and I don't care that you don't, then we're okay.
Good thing you don't. Stitch away.
Just stick to friends and/or people who won't sue you.
Just stick to friends and/or people who won't sue you.
Or yourself. Stitches aren't that hard to do.
If you can get a hold of a medical stapler they're even easier.
If you can get a hold of a medical stapler they're even easier.
It's more like if someone stitches me up, in an emergency, after warning me they aren't a doctor, they will be sued by the AMA for "doctor-level work".
No, not really. This is more like if you're dying and someone gives you CPR but didn't pay $20 to renew their CPR certification, the CPR certification board goes after them for "practicing lifesaving without a license".
In other words, utter fucking bullshit.
In other words, utter fucking bullshit.
You're right, this is why we have "Good Samaritan" laws to protect people who are trying to help people in an emergency.
That said, it's definitely not a bad idea to keep your CPR training up to date. Mine was renewed last December.
That said, it's definitely not a bad idea to keep your CPR training up to date. Mine was renewed last December.
You say "No, not really", but I think you are in full agreement with your parent, who also sketched an instance of something ridiculous.
[deleted]
You're refuting the weakest possible interpretation of his statement. "This" is essentially saying, that it is possible to mislead the public by producing work that has some of the qualities of engineering work, but is not actual engineerng work. The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put together some official looking research to support it ... one of the many things you learn not to do in engineering school.
> The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put
> together some official looking research to support it
So long as you're not selling yourself as a PE or trying to use non PE work in a situation that requires a PE, you should be allowed to write whatever god damned report you want. Otherwise, we have a serious breach of the first amendment.
>"one of the many things you learn not to do in engineering school."
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
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
The alleged violator _clearly started_ with the conclusion
What are you basing this on?
What are you basing this on?
So a convincing argument with "maps, diagrams and traffic projections" and referencing information on official documents, is ipso facto itself "official"?
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.
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.
Today I Learned: "unconvinced" is an adjective.
one of the many things you learn not to do in engineering school.
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.
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.
> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT
> and the public were misled by "engineering-quality work"
Clearly the DOT employees engineers that are severely lacking if someone is able to put together a report of 'engineering-quality' that bamboozles them into doing something that doesn't make sense.
I think it is in reference to:
"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.
"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.
Given that I first read the terms "trip generation" and "route assignment" when I was in high school, and in reference to SimCity, I think we can safely assume that the problem is actually the recommendation.
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.
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.
I too am not a lawyer, seek professional advice before relying on stuff you saw online etc.
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.
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.
[deleted]
As I see it, either his report is solid and contains no factual errors or incorrect assumptions (and thus is "engineering quality work") - in which case since it's correct then there should not be any issues in following its conclusion.
Or alternatively, his report contains fallacies and invalid conclusions - but by extension is no longer of engineering quality.
Or alternatively, his report contains fallacies and invalid conclusions - but by extension is no longer of engineering quality.
The punchline:
"If Cox is found to have practiced engineering without a license, Ritter said, the likely action would be a letter telling him not to do it again."
"If Cox is found to have practiced engineering without a license, Ritter said, the likely action would be a letter telling him not to do it again."
If my brother has a headache and I give him an aspirin, am I practising medicine?
Don't do that again.
Love, The AMA
Love, The AMA
This should get laughed out of court. You only need a PE license to approve drawings and design work on an official level, not to perform studies.
Seeing as that the potential punishment is just a strongly-worded letter, I don't think anything will be going to court.
The title of this post is inaccurate. The article is discussing how someone (who is not an engineer) provided "engineering-quality work" which could mislead the DOT and the public that it was done by an engineer.
If anything, this article is highlighting how licensing is more often used to protect a select few rather than showing the "dangers of unlicensed engineering."
If anything, this article is highlighting how licensing is more often used to protect a select few rather than showing the "dangers of unlicensed engineering."
Considering the forum, I think that the title is sarcasm.
That's certainly possible, but I personally find sarcasm very difficult to detect on the web. I generally avoid it when communicating online and via text.
Funny how good your comment is if you are being sarcastic. But now I can't tell if it is sarcasm or not.
Crazy talk. In Canada this computer scientist would be invited to chat with the engineering firm, not brought in front of a licensing board. Writing a report, even a very technical one, that is political in nature should always be protected. What shouldn't be allowed is people passing themselves off as if they had a license then people building things based off of their plans.
Canada has wackos too. If Canada has no engineering managers/administrators who are willing to pull some stunt like this, I guarantee there's one there somewhere who will pull something else equally silly.
Don't compare the US's extreme case to Canada's normal case.
Don't compare the US's extreme case to Canada's normal case.
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.
I might be too literal here, but if you did not intend to mislead anyone, why should you be responsible for how "the public" interprets your work.
I might be too literal here, but if you did not intend to mislead anyone, why should you be responsible for how "the public" interprets your work.
Exactly. I can't even begin to see how making a case to a third party deciding authority instantly thrusts you into taking full responsibility for public safety. What an absurd concept.
I don't want to defend the idiocy discussed in this article, but it's useful to try and understand where Cox is coming from.
Traffic engineering is one of those fields where there probably haven't been a lot of hobbyists, until recently, when the Internet has allowed geeks to become expert on pretty much any subject with a few weekends of study. I would also imagine that the PE licensing rate among practicing traffic engineers is pretty close to 100%, whereas I have yet to meet a PE-licensed software engineer... I'm sure the half-dozen or so licensed engineers at NCDOT were probably pretty freaked out to see a study like this from an amateur. Who knows, maybe the group did blow a lot of the conclusions -- it's almost certain that Cox's team disagree with the report, since it is counter to their recommendations. Anyway, the last thing the state engineers want to do is to validate the standing of the community group by engaging with them on the issues, even if it's to educate them on where they made mistakes, so they're going to look to discredit them.
As an analogy, practicing medicine without a license is a crime, even if you're really good at it, and even if all of your patients know you're not licensed.
Again, I think this is a terrible way to try to solve the problem, even if it is supported by laws or regulations. Professional fields of all kinds need to cope with the fact that organized groups of laypeople are going to be able to mount credible challenges to their opinions, on their turf and using their tools.
Traffic engineering is one of those fields where there probably haven't been a lot of hobbyists, until recently, when the Internet has allowed geeks to become expert on pretty much any subject with a few weekends of study. I would also imagine that the PE licensing rate among practicing traffic engineers is pretty close to 100%, whereas I have yet to meet a PE-licensed software engineer... I'm sure the half-dozen or so licensed engineers at NCDOT were probably pretty freaked out to see a study like this from an amateur. Who knows, maybe the group did blow a lot of the conclusions -- it's almost certain that Cox's team disagree with the report, since it is counter to their recommendations. Anyway, the last thing the state engineers want to do is to validate the standing of the community group by engaging with them on the issues, even if it's to educate them on where they made mistakes, so they're going to look to discredit them.
As an analogy, practicing medicine without a license is a crime, even if you're really good at it, and even if all of your patients know you're not licensed.
Again, I think this is a terrible way to try to solve the problem, even if it is supported by laws or regulations. Professional fields of all kinds need to cope with the fact that organized groups of laypeople are going to be able to mount credible challenges to their opinions, on their turf and using their tools.
I think this touches on an interesting point: A few weekends worth of study can produce a short term "unlicensed" practical grasp on pretty much any subject.
In the startup world this is almost taken for granted. For example, I needed to learn how to collect money from customers and didn't want to use PayPal. One weekend later I had a basic understanding of payment gateways, merchant accounts, PCI compliance, etc... The next, I had working code processing customer transactions that has been running for years now without a single issue.
I've learned a lot about payment processing since then but I _still_ trust that code and by extension my former self that was able to quickly get up to speed on a specialized topic.
I imagine the NCDOT engineers had ascribed a lot of value to the time spent obtaining their degrees and licenses ...instead of the practical benefits obtained. They anchored that pride and sense of accomplishment to the specialized format of the reports they work in.
It's interesting to see these two world views collide and certainly this won't be the last time it happens.
In the startup world this is almost taken for granted. For example, I needed to learn how to collect money from customers and didn't want to use PayPal. One weekend later I had a basic understanding of payment gateways, merchant accounts, PCI compliance, etc... The next, I had working code processing customer transactions that has been running for years now without a single issue.
I've learned a lot about payment processing since then but I _still_ trust that code and by extension my former self that was able to quickly get up to speed on a specialized topic.
I imagine the NCDOT engineers had ascribed a lot of value to the time spent obtaining their degrees and licenses ...instead of the practical benefits obtained. They anchored that pride and sense of accomplishment to the specialized format of the reports they work in.
It's interesting to see these two world views collide and certainly this won't be the last time it happens.
Ha, funny seeing this on Hacker News. I live a half mile from the intersections they're talking about. Will definitely need to drive by and do some "unlicensed engineering" of my own.
More like the dangers of unapproved thinking.
This is fairly interesting, in the Jan-Feb 2011 edition of "American Scientist" [2] (The magazine) there's an article entitled "A troubled tradition" that outlines a few issues in academia with reviewing papers.
Peer reviewers traditionally have 5 main rules to follow when reviewing papers and one of them is "Fairness" which essentially states: "Avoid biases based on gender, institution affiliation, nationality, and career status."
Interesting to finally have proof that this doesn't only apply to academia but also to "real-life" engineering and that people discriminate no matter what.
Considering that the definition of engineering is: "The discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems" — I can't even imagine why one wouldn't have the right to do "engineering" studies.
I digress, my point is made and I'm sad to still see such reaction to well put studies—Assuming it was well put [1]
[1] David M. Cox — PhD: http://bit.ly/hyf5Lj The aforementioned assumption is made based on the academic knowledge of Dr. Cox and that he would know how to make a study and make an elaborated point explained in details.
[2] American Scientist — Volume 99 — Number 1 — January-February 2011
Peer reviewers traditionally have 5 main rules to follow when reviewing papers and one of them is "Fairness" which essentially states: "Avoid biases based on gender, institution affiliation, nationality, and career status."
Interesting to finally have proof that this doesn't only apply to academia but also to "real-life" engineering and that people discriminate no matter what.
Considering that the definition of engineering is: "The discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems" — I can't even imagine why one wouldn't have the right to do "engineering" studies.
I digress, my point is made and I'm sad to still see such reaction to well put studies—Assuming it was well put [1]
[1] David M. Cox — PhD: http://bit.ly/hyf5Lj The aforementioned assumption is made based on the academic knowledge of Dr. Cox and that he would know how to make a study and make an elaborated point explained in details.
[2] American Scientist — Volume 99 — Number 1 — January-February 2011
i was once turned down on a pay raise because "it was not like i was an engineer, i was just savvy" (highschool degree here)
Based on the version of events presented in this article, Lacy should be ashamed of himself.
/ringed BASc (non licensed)
/ringed BASc (non licensed)
What's that, Mr. Doe? You found a weird lump on your balls? Better keep that to yourself. You wouldn't want anyone thinking you're a doctor!
Better not make that research for small claims court TOO thorough Mr. Smith. You wouldn't want anyone thinking you're a lawyer!
Better not make that research for small claims court TOO thorough Mr. Smith. You wouldn't want anyone thinking you're a lawyer!
was it started by DMCA? I mean the practice of limiting, even outlawing, of analytical thinking.
Ahem... Does the name Galileo mean anything to you? How about Socrates?
there is somewhat fine difference. For example Galileo was allowed to think about how Universe works. The practical law limited what he was allowed to think about Universe.
The DMCA, or like in this article's "engineering" case, outlaws the whole act of thinking. Some areas are just off limit, no matter what you think, Sun rotates around the Earth or Earth around Sun.
The DMCA, or like in this article's "engineering" case, outlaws the whole act of thinking. Some areas are just off limit, no matter what you think, Sun rotates around the Earth or Earth around Sun.
It wasn't so much the actual idea of the earth rotating around the sun that Galileo was punished for. It was more the fact that Galileo used analytical thinking to reach that conclusion rather than basing it on some respected Roman or Greek philosopher or the bible. If Galileo had determined that the earth rotated around the sun based on some scripture, there would likely have not been any trial. People might have thought him an idiot or disagreed with him, but they wouldn't have thought him a heretic.
I think software industry is slowly headed this way: that there will come a point when you cannot let a member of the public use something based on your code without you being a licensed SE.
I think the uncertainties inherent in writing software that depends on many other complex libraries/frameworks will tend to discourage strong liability for bugs. The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath.
In certain highly restricted domains (typically embedded systems), liability for bugs becomes somewhat more realistic.
In certain highly restricted domains (typically embedded systems), liability for bugs becomes somewhat more realistic.
The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath.
That, divorced from further arguments, is not an extraordinarily strong argument against liability for defects. After all: the engineer who builds upon such a stack has presumably, more or less consciously, made the decision that defects are acceptable - otherwise they would have chosen something less complex. Is there any particular reason someone should not be held accountable for that decision?
That, divorced from further arguments, is not an extraordinarily strong argument against liability for defects. After all: the engineer who builds upon such a stack has presumably, more or less consciously, made the decision that defects are acceptable - otherwise they would have chosen something less complex. Is there any particular reason someone should not be held accountable for that decision?
The question is, would we expect authors of libraries to indemnify other developers against liability if the fault is in the library itself?
If it's life critical software, then yes.
You don't get to blame civil engineers for structure failure if the steel provided had material faults (that couldn't be detected by said engineers exercising due diligence).
You don't get to blame civil engineers for structure failure if the steel provided had material faults (that couldn't be detected by said engineers exercising due diligence).
Microsoft, for one, has been pushing for that for over a decade. I read Steve McConnell's After the Gold Rush: Creating a True Profession of Software Engineering, a few years ago and had read articles in several print magazines, I'm pretty sure Dr Dobb's had several, in the late 1990s.
The U.S. of A., land of freedom. Roflmao.
The problem is they're all union, and you can't do their job, that's stealing work. Those guys need that work, and if you want it done, you have to pay them to do it. Now stop stealing work, and go back to your own job! </sarcasm>
On a serious note, I have no idea if unions are involved, I'm just reminiscing about dealings with union members in my old job.
On a serious note, I have no idea if unions are involved, I'm just reminiscing about dealings with union members in my old job.
For one, it's not necessarily improper for a non-licensed engineer to do "engineering-level work" - the way you become a licensed engineer is to do "engineering-level work", typically under the supervision of a licensed engineer, but some of your experience has to come on your own ("responsible charge"). But more importantly, just doing engineering work isn't the problem, it becomes a problem if you represent yourself as a licensed engineer when your not.
Quite frankly, Cox should file his own complaint with the NC engineering board against Lacy (assuming Lacy is licensed, his name didn't come up in a license search).