3 ms·
I can see how the State of Oregon would be annoyed that an unlicensed environmental engineer would be touting his engineering credentials when arguing with lice
by kayfox 9y ago
I can see how the State of Oregon would be annoyed that an unlicensed environmental engineer would be touting his engineering credentials when arguing with licensed civil engineers, especially since the State of Oregon licenses engineers.
Engineering is a field where if you mess up, people may die, so just as we license doctors, we license engineers.
- ct0 9y agoMath is universally accepted across country lines.
- jfk13 9y agoDon't be too confident... it was a close thing: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-leg...
- matthewdgreen 9y agoEngineering and medical licensing laws prohibit commercial engineering work (resp. medical practice) without a license. They don't prohibit free speech about engineering issues, and they certainly don't trump the First Amendment. Geez, HN would be illegal if you accepted that ridiculous interpretation.
- StreamBright 9y agoA traffic light camera timing problem is worst base high school math / phys (best case primary school matter). How do we need somebody "licensed" to determine it is unfair?
- ptero 9y ago> I can see how the State of Oregon would be annoyed that an unlicensed electrical engineer would be touting his engineering credentials when arguing with licensed civil engineers. Sorry for nitpicking, but the State did not get annoyed; a few bureaucrats did, probably because correcting the camera cycles deprives them of "extra revenue" in the form of fines. That said, whoever at State got annoyed should get unannoyed. If an unlicensed engineer does the work that requires a license, state can intervene. Other than this everyone, licensed or not, should be able to argue that any state decision is inefficient / harmful / stupid and offer better alternatives. I suspect this is protected by the first amendment.
- rhinoceraptor 9y agoThey're just using the law to punish people who don't have the correct opinions. I've heard of similar things in medicine, if you don't have the correct opinions on nutrition, then you may be fined for practicing medicine without a license.
- icebraining 9y agoIf offering opinions on important topics without being licensed was illegal, almost every HN user would be guilty.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 7952 9y agoTraffic engineering is an area where people will die even when the work is compliant with standards and guidance. Some external scurtiny is exactly what the industry needs.
- ekianjo 9y agoSo using one's brain requires an engineering degree now?
- kstrauser 9y agoHe is licensed - just not in Oregon. If I were a PE in California on vacation in Nevada, I'd still be an engineer even if I weren't licensed to practice there.
- bbarn 9y agoMost engineers I know welcome dissenting opinions - especially those based on facts. If I wrote the code that issued tickets, and someone pointed out a math problem, I would thank that person and get it fixed. This has NOTHING to do with engineering credibility, calls to authority, or anything else. It's entirely to do with revenues being impacted and potentially having to pay out past revenues if it gets enough public attention. This is about politicians trying to find a way to silence someone.
- valuearb 9y agoThe state doesn't need to license doctors either.