10 ms·

I have been following this story for quite some time and I would like to point a major item that this article misled the reader about. First off, the State Boar

I have been following this story for quite some time and I would like to point a major item that this article misled the reader about. First off, the State Board did not censor what he was saying, they asked him to stop representing himself as an engineer. Järlström initially sent his analysis to the State Board with a letter in-which he referred to himself as an engineer. The Board Responded by requesting that he refrain from calling himself an engineer. After Järlström continued to call himself an engineer, the Board decided to fine him. Järlström is and was allowed to discuss his analysis all he wanted, however, he is not allowed to call himself an engineer in such a was as to imply that he is a traffic or transportation engineer. Full disclosure, I am a registered professional traffic engineer. As such, I feel that registration is very important and serves to protect the public at large from people producing work with little to no relevant experience. Here is an article that was previously posted on HN which includes many of the documents involved in this case. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vvapy4/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vvapy4/man-fined-...

coding123 9y ago
I am an engineer. I am not a "registered professional traffic engineer". I am a software engineer. If I wrote a paper on traffic signaling (which is also huge in software) I should be able to call myself an engineer - yes I won't call myself a "registered professional traffic engineer".
- takk309 9y ago
  As long as you are clearly stating that you are a software engineer and not purporting to have expertise in traffic engineering, I agree with you.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    If Järlström had actually referred to himself as a traffic engineer then both the state and you would have a point. But he didn't. He said he had an engineering degree which he has and he stated that he was doing work related to the problem which he was. Järlström did not misrepresent himself.
    - notlob 9y ago
      Titles can be contextual. I do not refer to myself (a PhD) as a doctor in a hospital because others could incorrectly think I was a physician. This problem is especially vexing for nurses with PhDs.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        A Medical Doctor must have specific training to not harm their patients. An Engineer designs functional things. No reasonable person is going to think that him calling himself an "Electrical Engineer", which he is, construes that he had specific training in designing traffic infrastructure that doesn't accidentally harm people. Traffic infrastructure is not a nuanced topic full of dangerous pitfalls. He was claiming that he had a background in engineering that is applicable to the subject, so that his viewpoint would not be cast aside. The state wanted to ignore his viewpoint, so they fined him.
        takk309 9y ago
        I very much disagree with you. While traffic engineering failures may not be as acute as a medical doctor, the effects can be much more expensive and far reaching. For example, let us say that a road has a design speed of 55 mph. That would dictate the maximum curvature of the horizontal alignment. If an engineer chooses to ignore this design speed and makes the corner too tight, there will likely be a crash cluster at this location. The cost to mitigate that kind of mistake could be very expensive and possibly cost multiple lives. Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. While the basics of structural engineering are relatively simple the consequences of failure are very high. If a multi-story structure collapses, a lot of people will be injured or killed. That is why it is important to know more than just the basics of what goes into structural engineering. I am not trying to down play the importance of training for medical doctors. I am trying to highlight that engineers need to have training and a regulatory board that is used to track and prove that the training has been completed to an acceptable level. If any yahoo is able to say, "I am an engineer, trust me," how do you prove his credentials? Just like with a medical doctor, you would look up his certification.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    The problem is that traffic lights are not a complicated nuanced subject where there is one small set of correct methods, and a large subset of dangerous methods. Titles like "Medical Doctor" or "EMT" carry authority, because they require specific training, so that you know how not to kill someone while you are trying to help them. For these professions, it is necessary for the state to demand a set of requirements from those who carry those titles. Saying someone must be specific about what kind of engineer they purport to be is quite unreasonable, and unnecessary. In this case, the state created the "title" so that they could ignore anyone who didn't pay for the title. Since it is totally normal to call oneself an "engineer" without worrying about that title carrying a dangerous authority, it was unexpected, and malicious for the state to redefine the term.
    - takk309 9y ago
      Traffic signal timing is not a simple as it may appear. Yes, a signal that is all by its self may be easy to time. However coordinating a system with multiple signals and phasing plans can be complicated. Could any technically minded person learn how to do it? Absolutely. However, the same goes for almost any professional service. >Saying someone must be specific about what kind of engineer they purport to be is quite unreasonable, and unnecessary. You are essentially saying that any discipline of engineering is the same as any other. This is simply untrue. Do you want me as a traffic engineer doing the job of a chemical engineer? Probably not. Simply calling oneself an engineer does not make it so. Just as I can't call myself a race car driver because I can drive a car fast by pressing the gas peddle further down. There must be enforcement of titles that effect public health and safety. Traffic engineering is one of those protected titles.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        > You are essentially saying that any discipline of engineering is the same as any other. No, but they are related, and any type of engineer will be trained to think like an engineer, which is really the only prerequisite for contributing to discussion about traffic design. This man is not walking up to traffic lights and changing the timing, he sent a letter with his comments, and pointed out that he is an electrical engineer, which is how he is capable of understanding the nuances of traffic lights. The problem is not that his idea was rejected, but that it was ignored. When we require licenses for broad things like "engineering ability", we prevent discussion on engineering topics. > Simply calling oneself an engineer does not make it so. Simply calling oneself an engineer is not harmful. I am not suddenly gaining authority by saying that I am a software engineer. I am, however, bringing to light years of self-education as a context for my understanding. > There must be enforcement of titles that effect public health and safety. That is a broad statement. I agree that titles like MD or EMT that involve direct action that are likely to cause harm without proper training should be regulated, so that people can trust an individual who claims to be an MD or EMT to do the things that an MD or EMT does. I disagree with the idea that no one is allowed to contribute to a discussion on topics related to public safety without a license. That is absurd. Those who do the engineering likely should have a license, so that we can trust them. Those who discuss engineering should not be limited to the ones who have a license. Everyone should be able to discuss a topic without fear. Otherwise, engineers would not be able to hear from those who use their designs. A software engineer that does not hear his or her users writes awful software. An engineer that designs something used by the public that does not hear his or her users is an awful engineer.
Kuiper 9y ago
>he is not allowed to call himself an engineer in such a was as to imply that he is a traffic or transportation engineer. He never claimed to be a traffic or transportation engineer, in fact the fine cited him for use of the phrase "electronics engineer." He is an EE: He has an electrical engineering degree from his home country (Sweden) and he has worked as an electrical engineer for decades. >I am a registered professional traffic engineer. As such, I feel that registration is very important and serves to protect the public at large from people producing work with little to no relevant experience. "PE" (professional engineer) does have a legal distinction in the jurisdiction of Oregon, but he never claimed to be a registered PE in the state of Oregon. "Engineer" is not a legal distinction. He never made any false declarations about his credentials. >the State Board did not censor what he was saying, they asked him to stop representing himself as an engineer. They "asked him" by issuing a $500 fine in response to his letter for committing the apparent crime of sending a letter in which he (factually) stated that he is an engineer. Telling citizens "you are not allowed to write a letter to the government in which you use the word 'engineer' (a term with no legal distinctions) when describing yourself" sounds like censorship to me.
- takk309 9y ago
  1> In his initial correspondence with the Board he stated "...I’m already doing thiskind of work..." This was the statement that the board later used as justification for his claim to be an engineer. 2> The practice of engineering is defined in ORS 672.005(1) [1] 3> In the initial communications the board advised him that he should not use the title engineer or refer to himself as an engineer. To which he agreed. Later, he again referred to himself as an engineer. I would also like to point out that engineering is not a regulated profession in Sweden. No licensure, registration, or certification is offered or required to practice engineering in Sweden. He may very well be qualified and have the knowledge, that doesn't mean he can practice in the US without proper registration. Please read through the documents that are included with the Motherboard article that I linked in my parent post. All of these points are clearly stated along with copies of the conversations. [1] https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors672.html https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors672.html
  - 9y ago
criddell 9y ago
> As such, I feel that registration is very important and serves to protect the public at large from people producing work with little to no relevant experience. It feels like in this case they were using registration (or lack thereof) to protect revenue and as a consequence they didn't protect people. I think the people that directed the case should be held accountable and perhaps the board should review their behavior.
albedoa 9y ago
A lot of this is covered in the discussion you allude to (where you have the top comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14197512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14197512 Kiuper's sibling comment in this thread sums it up nicely as far as I can tell.
jbob2000 9y ago
Does it matter if his points are valid? I don't need to be a chef to know when the meat is spoiled.
- pm90 9y ago
  It matters specifically in the case of making legal arguments. I'm not saying the board was right, but please see it from their perspective. A certified traffic engineer would also use the term "engineer" in his findings. The latter's analysis would be given much more weight, be trusted more, simply because that's what certification is meant for. We've created titles and institutions for a purpose, so that Average Joe Board Member doesn't need to go into the details of a technical analysis, but can trust the outcome proposed/suggested.
  - jbob2000 9y ago
    Sure, if we're talking about some kind of complicated physics and structural calculations, with lots of technical jargon - yes, involve the engineers. But we're talking about some simple math for counting the length of traffic lights. Everybody uses traffic lights, everybody knows simple math. It is ridiculous to assert that you need a technical qualification to know it's wrong that red light cameras flash at 100 seconds, but the light changes at 110 seconds.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    You may be confusing making arguments with providing testimony as an expert to a tribunal or court. Expert testimony is evidence, not argument.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    I don't think anyone is disputing the law beyond claiming that it's stupid. And, in this case, the board members were all certified traffic engineers and were reviewing this other person's offered analysis (or, rather, deciding to go after the person for their affront in even offering the analysis at all without having a certification). As others have pointed out, Oregon is very selectively enforcing the law. It's pretty hard not to conclude that some asshole decided to go after someone for pointing out problems with work for which they were somewhat responsible.
valuearb 9y ago
Stop trying to use your "registered professional traffic engineer" title as a labor monopoly. It doesn't even mean you are good at your job.
- bredren 9y ago
  I’m sure the professional traffic engineers association would have strong words in reply to your comment.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Of course they would, it's the association's job to prevent their work to exclude others from their business being exposed.
- takk309 9y ago
  It is not meant to create a labor monopoly any more than a medical doctors licence. Registration as an engineer is so that one can prove that they have the requisite knowledge and competency to perform the work required of them. Without registration, what legal assurances would you have that the engineer is capable of his job?
  - whatthesmack 9y ago
    The same as any other job, like mine as a Site Reliability Engineer? A resume, a degree that can be validated, experience and knowledge that demonstrate competence, references, reputation, etc. Why does the state need to be the official signer-off on who can do a certain job?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    It's main purpose is to create a labor monopoly, just as doctors licenses are. And there is zero legal assurance that a Professional Engineer or a Medical Doctor can do their jobs competently. Certifications are fine, if done by private organizations. Those certifications have to prove their value in the marketplace, to customers, or they'll become worthless. When the boot heel of government is used to give certifications the force of law is when they run off the rails, and allow small groups to impose arbitrary rules to exclude valuable practitioners.

coding123 9y ago

I am an engineer. I am not a "registered professional traffic engineer". I am a software engineer. If I wrote a paper on traffic signaling (which is also huge in software) I should be able to call myself an engineer - yes I won't call myself a "registered professional traffic engineer".

takk309 9y ago
As long as you are clearly stating that you are a software engineer and not purporting to have expertise in traffic engineering, I agree with you.
- CalChris 9y ago
  If Järlström had actually referred to himself as a traffic engineer then both the state and you would have a point. But he didn't. He said he had an engineering degree which he has and he stated that he was doing work related to the problem which he was. Järlström did not misrepresent himself.
  - notlob 9y ago
    Titles can be contextual. I do not refer to myself (a PhD) as a doctor in a hospital because others could incorrectly think I was a physician. This problem is especially vexing for nurses with PhDs.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      A Medical Doctor must have specific training to not harm their patients. An Engineer designs functional things. No reasonable person is going to think that him calling himself an "Electrical Engineer", which he is, construes that he had specific training in designing traffic infrastructure that doesn't accidentally harm people. Traffic infrastructure is not a nuanced topic full of dangerous pitfalls. He was claiming that he had a background in engineering that is applicable to the subject, so that his viewpoint would not be cast aside. The state wanted to ignore his viewpoint, so they fined him.
      - takk309 9y ago
        I very much disagree with you. While traffic engineering failures may not be as acute as a medical doctor, the effects can be much more expensive and far reaching. For example, let us say that a road has a design speed of 55 mph. That would dictate the maximum curvature of the horizontal alignment. If an engineer chooses to ignore this design speed and makes the corner too tight, there will likely be a crash cluster at this location. The cost to mitigate that kind of mistake could be very expensive and possibly cost multiple lives. Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. While the basics of structural engineering are relatively simple the consequences of failure are very high. If a multi-story structure collapses, a lot of people will be injured or killed. That is why it is important to know more than just the basics of what goes into structural engineering. I am not trying to down play the importance of training for medical doctors. I am trying to highlight that engineers need to have training and a regulatory board that is used to track and prove that the training has been completed to an acceptable level. If any yahoo is able to say, "I am an engineer, trust me," how do you prove his credentials? Just like with a medical doctor, you would look up his certification.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  The problem is that traffic lights are not a complicated nuanced subject where there is one small set of correct methods, and a large subset of dangerous methods. Titles like "Medical Doctor" or "EMT" carry authority, because they require specific training, so that you know how not to kill someone while you are trying to help them. For these professions, it is necessary for the state to demand a set of requirements from those who carry those titles. Saying someone must be specific about what kind of engineer they purport to be is quite unreasonable, and unnecessary. In this case, the state created the "title" so that they could ignore anyone who didn't pay for the title. Since it is totally normal to call oneself an "engineer" without worrying about that title carrying a dangerous authority, it was unexpected, and malicious for the state to redefine the term.
  - takk309 9y ago
    Traffic signal timing is not a simple as it may appear. Yes, a signal that is all by its self may be easy to time. However coordinating a system with multiple signals and phasing plans can be complicated. Could any technically minded person learn how to do it? Absolutely. However, the same goes for almost any professional service. >Saying someone must be specific about what kind of engineer they purport to be is quite unreasonable, and unnecessary. You are essentially saying that any discipline of engineering is the same as any other. This is simply untrue. Do you want me as a traffic engineer doing the job of a chemical engineer? Probably not. Simply calling oneself an engineer does not make it so. Just as I can't call myself a race car driver because I can drive a car fast by pressing the gas peddle further down. There must be enforcement of titles that effect public health and safety. Traffic engineering is one of those protected titles.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > You are essentially saying that any discipline of engineering is the same as any other. No, but they are related, and any type of engineer will be trained to think like an engineer, which is really the only prerequisite for contributing to discussion about traffic design. This man is not walking up to traffic lights and changing the timing, he sent a letter with his comments, and pointed out that he is an electrical engineer, which is how he is capable of understanding the nuances of traffic lights. The problem is not that his idea was rejected, but that it was ignored. When we require licenses for broad things like "engineering ability", we prevent discussion on engineering topics. > Simply calling oneself an engineer does not make it so. Simply calling oneself an engineer is not harmful. I am not suddenly gaining authority by saying that I am a software engineer. I am, however, bringing to light years of self-education as a context for my understanding. > There must be enforcement of titles that effect public health and safety. That is a broad statement. I agree that titles like MD or EMT that involve direct action that are likely to cause harm without proper training should be regulated, so that people can trust an individual who claims to be an MD or EMT to do the things that an MD or EMT does. I disagree with the idea that no one is allowed to contribute to a discussion on topics related to public safety without a license. That is absurd. Those who do the engineering likely should have a license, so that we can trust them. Those who discuss engineering should not be limited to the ones who have a license. Everyone should be able to discuss a topic without fear. Otherwise, engineers would not be able to hear from those who use their designs. A software engineer that does not hear his or her users writes awful software. An engineer that designs something used by the public that does not hear his or her users is an awful engineer.

Kuiper 9y ago

>he is not allowed to call himself an engineer in such a was as to imply that he is a traffic or transportation engineer. He never claimed to be a traffic or transportation engineer, in fact the fine cited him for use of the phrase "electronics engineer." He is an EE: He has an electrical engineering degree from his home country (Sweden) and he has worked as an electrical engineer for decades. >I am a registered professional traffic engineer. As such, I feel that registration is very important and serves to protect the public at large from people producing work with little to no relevant experience. "PE" (professional engineer) does have a legal distinction in the jurisdiction of Oregon, but he never claimed to be a registered PE in the state of Oregon. "Engineer" is not a legal distinction. He never made any false declarations about his credentials. >the State Board did not censor what he was saying, they asked him to stop representing himself as an engineer. They "asked him" by issuing a $500 fine in response to his letter for committing the apparent crime of sending a letter in which he (factually) stated that he is an engineer. Telling citizens "you are not allowed to write a letter to the government in which you use the word 'engineer' (a term with no legal distinctions) when describing yourself" sounds like censorship to me.

takk309 9y ago
1> In his initial correspondence with the Board he stated "...I’m already doing thiskind of work..." This was the statement that the board later used as justification for his claim to be an engineer. 2> The practice of engineering is defined in ORS 672.005(1) [1] 3> In the initial communications the board advised him that he should not use the title engineer or refer to himself as an engineer. To which he agreed. Later, he again referred to himself as an engineer. I would also like to point out that engineering is not a regulated profession in Sweden. No licensure, registration, or certification is offered or required to practice engineering in Sweden. He may very well be qualified and have the knowledge, that doesn't mean he can practice in the US without proper registration. Please read through the documents that are included with the Motherboard article that I linked in my parent post. All of these points are clearly stated along with copies of the conversations. [1] https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors672.html https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors672.html
- 9y ago

criddell 9y ago

> As such, I feel that registration is very important and serves to protect the public at large from people producing work with little to no relevant experience. It feels like in this case they were using registration (or lack thereof) to protect revenue and as a consequence they didn't protect people. I think the people that directed the case should be held accountable and perhaps the board should review their behavior.

albedoa 9y ago

A lot of this is covered in the discussion you allude to (where you have the top comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14197512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14197512 Kiuper's sibling comment in this thread sums it up nicely as far as I can tell.

jbob2000 9y ago

Does it matter if his points are valid? I don't need to be a chef to know when the meat is spoiled.

pm90 9y ago
It matters specifically in the case of making legal arguments. I'm not saying the board was right, but please see it from their perspective. A certified traffic engineer would also use the term "engineer" in his findings. The latter's analysis would be given much more weight, be trusted more, simply because that's what certification is meant for. We've created titles and institutions for a purpose, so that Average Joe Board Member doesn't need to go into the details of a technical analysis, but can trust the outcome proposed/suggested.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  Sure, if we're talking about some kind of complicated physics and structural calculations, with lots of technical jargon - yes, involve the engineers. But we're talking about some simple math for counting the length of traffic lights. Everybody uses traffic lights, everybody knows simple math. It is ridiculous to assert that you need a technical qualification to know it's wrong that red light cameras flash at 100 seconds, but the light changes at 110 seconds.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  You may be confusing making arguments with providing testimony as an expert to a tribunal or court. Expert testimony is evidence, not argument.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  I don't think anyone is disputing the law beyond claiming that it's stupid. And, in this case, the board members were all certified traffic engineers and were reviewing this other person's offered analysis (or, rather, deciding to go after the person for their affront in even offering the analysis at all without having a certification). As others have pointed out, Oregon is very selectively enforcing the law. It's pretty hard not to conclude that some asshole decided to go after someone for pointing out problems with work for which they were somewhat responsible.

valuearb 9y ago

Stop trying to use your "registered professional traffic engineer" title as a labor monopoly. It doesn't even mean you are good at your job.

bredren 9y ago
I’m sure the professional traffic engineers association would have strong words in reply to your comment.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Of course they would, it's the association's job to prevent their work to exclude others from their business being exposed.
takk309 9y ago
It is not meant to create a labor monopoly any more than a medical doctors licence. Registration as an engineer is so that one can prove that they have the requisite knowledge and competency to perform the work required of them. Without registration, what legal assurances would you have that the engineer is capable of his job?
- whatthesmack 9y ago
  The same as any other job, like mine as a Site Reliability Engineer? A resume, a degree that can be validated, experience and knowledge that demonstrate competence, references, reputation, etc. Why does the state need to be the official signer-off on who can do a certain job?
- valuearb 9y ago
  It's main purpose is to create a labor monopoly, just as doctors licenses are. And there is zero legal assurance that a Professional Engineer or a Medical Doctor can do their jobs competently. Certifications are fine, if done by private organizations. Those certifications have to prove their value in the marketplace, to customers, or they'll become worthless. When the boot heel of government is used to give certifications the force of law is when they run off the rails, and allow small groups to impose arbitrary rules to exclude valuable practitioners.