7 ms·

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
        > Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. We aren't even talking about structural engineering here. We are talking about an electrical engineer submitting comments regarding traffic. The only reason these are related is the word "engineer", which is ambiguous. The contents of this man's letter are not physically acting upon traffic. They were submitted to be considered by a group of "licensed" traffic engineers. The subject does not require the decade of specific education that is required by a medical doctor, or even months of training that is required by an EMT. It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman, making the fact that he is an electrical engineer important to the subject. The state fined him for his claim of being an engineer, defining the word by its context (traffic lights) instead of by its adjective (electrical). The state abused this notion to delegitimize his words, and to disincentivize him commenting in the first place.
        CalChris 9y ago
        > It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman I would go further and say that as a EE working in the field he would understand this issue better than a traffic engineer would.
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        By defining a "traffic engineer" as a title that demands license, we prevent discussion from other people. I am very critical of the idea that a license should be required to discuss the traffic system that we all interact with.
        takk309 9y ago
        There is nothing preventing you from talking about traffic systems. There are, however, laws preventing you from claiming to be an engineer with expertise in the subject in a public forum.
    - notlob 9y ago
      This misses my point. My point is that while I am a "doctor" I am not a physician, and that even though I use the title in other places it's prudent to be very careful about it in a medical setting because it could be misconstrued. Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers while one is using the industrial exemption.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        > Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers. I disagree. In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental. A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice. The word "engineer" does not carry this implication, nor should it. When I tell people that I am a "Software Engineer", I am expressing years of self-education, nuanced understanding, etc. This title is not misconstrued as having a degree or license, of which I have neither. If I want to claim to have a degree, I will be explicit about it. Calling myself an "engineer" is a very useful way to express the complicated body of knowledge that I possess. If the word suddenly implies credentials, of which I do not possess, I am suddenly considered a fraud. TL;DR You can consider me a fraud by redefining what an "engineer" is, but that doesn't make me one, so please don't redefine engineer. That does not help discourse.
        notlob 9y ago
        > In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental. This is backwards from my perspective. Engineering has long been a licensed profession. It is only recently that a group of people have chosen, for some reason beyond me, to call themselves "software engineers" and avail themselves of the industrial exemption. I'm not a fan but the ship has sailed on that one. > A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice. There are many MDs and DOs that are not licensed by their state boards and they too have to take care with misrepresenting themselves as physicians licensed to practice. The same is true of people using the industrial exemption to practice engineering, one cannot use the industrial exemption to practice before the public. TL;DR from my perspective (PhD in engineering but not an engineer) there is a newer group people who are attempting to redefine what "engineer" means as a profession, and that redefinition relaxes education, experience, and professional conduct standards by quite a bit. I realize that like the Browncoats of Firefly I am on the losing side, and also like the Browncoats I don't like it.
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.

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
      > Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. We aren't even talking about structural engineering here. We are talking about an electrical engineer submitting comments regarding traffic. The only reason these are related is the word "engineer", which is ambiguous. The contents of this man's letter are not physically acting upon traffic. They were submitted to be considered by a group of "licensed" traffic engineers. The subject does not require the decade of specific education that is required by a medical doctor, or even months of training that is required by an EMT. It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman, making the fact that he is an electrical engineer important to the subject. The state fined him for his claim of being an engineer, defining the word by its context (traffic lights) instead of by its adjective (electrical). The state abused this notion to delegitimize his words, and to disincentivize him commenting in the first place.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        > It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman I would go further and say that as a EE working in the field he would understand this issue better than a traffic engineer would.
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        By defining a "traffic engineer" as a title that demands license, we prevent discussion from other people. I am very critical of the idea that a license should be required to discuss the traffic system that we all interact with.
        takk309 9y ago
        There is nothing preventing you from talking about traffic systems. There are, however, laws preventing you from claiming to be an engineer with expertise in the subject in a public forum.
  - notlob 9y ago
    This misses my point. My point is that while I am a "doctor" I am not a physician, and that even though I use the title in other places it's prudent to be very careful about it in a medical setting because it could be misconstrued. Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers while one is using the industrial exemption.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers. I disagree. In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental. A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice. The word "engineer" does not carry this implication, nor should it. When I tell people that I am a "Software Engineer", I am expressing years of self-education, nuanced understanding, etc. This title is not misconstrued as having a degree or license, of which I have neither. If I want to claim to have a degree, I will be explicit about it. Calling myself an "engineer" is a very useful way to express the complicated body of knowledge that I possess. If the word suddenly implies credentials, of which I do not possess, I am suddenly considered a fraud. TL;DR You can consider me a fraud by redefining what an "engineer" is, but that doesn't make me one, so please don't redefine engineer. That does not help discourse.
      - notlob 9y ago
        > In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental. This is backwards from my perspective. Engineering has long been a licensed profession. It is only recently that a group of people have chosen, for some reason beyond me, to call themselves "software engineers" and avail themselves of the industrial exemption. I'm not a fan but the ship has sailed on that one. > A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice. There are many MDs and DOs that are not licensed by their state boards and they too have to take care with misrepresenting themselves as physicians licensed to practice. The same is true of people using the industrial exemption to practice engineering, one cannot use the industrial exemption to practice before the public. TL;DR from my perspective (PhD in engineering but not an engineer) there is a newer group people who are attempting to redefine what "engineer" means as a profession, and that redefinition relaxes education, experience, and professional conduct standards by quite a bit. I realize that like the Browncoats of Firefly I am on the losing side, and also like the Browncoats I don't like it.

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.