8 ms·
The dangers of unlicensed engineering
- pyre 16y ago> 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. Isn't this essentially saying that you can be too smart/thorough for your own good, and that the government is going to punish you for not getting a license to use your abilities? What the hell is 'engineering-quality work' anyways? Talk about an amorphous term...
- hvs 16y agoI 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.
- amalcon 16y agoGiven 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.
- jacques_chester 16y agoI 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.
- arch_hunter 16y agoThis is sounding a lot like a profession making it illegal for others to do anything that could decrease their own income.
- jefe78 16y agoAgreed! I shouldn't need an M.D. to stitch you up!
- jonathanwallace 16y agoGood thing you don't. Stitch away. Just stick to friends and/or people who won't sue you.
- steverb 16y agoOr yourself. Stitches aren't that hard to do. If you can get a hold of a medical stapler they're even easier.
- CodeMage 16y agoSure, 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.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- joe_the_user 16y agoIt'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".
- jrockway 16y agoNo, 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.
- notaddicted 16y agoYou'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.
- pyre 16y ago> The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put > together some official looking research to support it So he was biased for his own argument? As much as people try to be unbiased, I think that it's probably impossible for humans to be completely impartial. If the arguments in the recommendation are so weak/faulty then the DOT engineers should be able to rip it to shreds with a counter-argument. I'm having a hard time caring about the fact that the guy put together a 'professional-looking' analysis without having a professional license. He didn't represent himself as a professional engineer, and he was putting together information for to present his viewpoint to his local representatives.
- brudgers 16y ago>"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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BUyWVg1xI
- Anechoic 16y agoThe alleged violator _clearly started_ with the conclusion What are you basing this on?
- sliverstorm 16y agoone 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.
- tyhjnmyh 16y ago> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT > and the public were misled by "engineering-quality work" Could be a problem here. If I make a complete balls-up of a project would the public be misled into thinking that the government had done it - even if I wasn't a government employee?
- pyre 16y agoClearly 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.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- glenjamin 16y agoAs 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.
- hvs 16y agoThe 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."
- pyre 16y agoConsidering the forum, I think that the title is sarcasm.
- bmccormack 16y agoThat'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.
- te_platt 16y agoFunny how good your comment is if you are being sarcastic. But now I can't tell if it is sarcasm or not.
- benvanderbeek 16y agoThe 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."
- bennysaurus 16y agoIf my brother has a headache and I give him an aspirin, am I practising medicine?
- jrockway 16y agoDon't do that again. Love, The AMA
- ew6082 16y agoThis 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.
- jessriedel 16y agoSeeing as that the potential punishment is just a strongly-worded letter, I don't think anything will be going to court.
- 3pt14159 16y agoCrazy 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.
- j_baker 16y agoCanada 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.
- VladRussian 16y agowas it started by DMCA? I mean the practice of limiting, even outlawing, of analytical thinking.
- Andys 16y agoI 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.
- amh 16y agoI 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.
- gloob 16y agoThe 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?
- jbri 16y agoThe question is, would we expect authors of libraries to indemnify other developers against liability if the fault is in the library itself?
- Anechoic 16y agoLicensed engineer here (Massachusetts). I don't know WTF Lacy is smoking. I've been in a position where community groups have performed their own analysis to challenge my work and that's fine - either their analysis is wrong and I can point out their errors, or (in the rare occasion) I have indeed missed something and I revise my report. But going after the group who prepared the analysis because it looks "engineering-level work"... I don't know where to begin. 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).
- joe_the_user 16y agoThe 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 http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=453
- jwcacces 16y agoThe 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.
- jammur 16y agoWhat'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!
- lutorm 16y agoThe U.S. of A., land of freedom. Roflmao.
- dadro 16y agoIt appears as though Mr. Lacy is trying to do "Lawyer Level Work". Someone better make sure he has registered with the NC Bar.
- zb 16y agoIt's legit in his case, he's clearly doing such a bad job of it that nobody could mistake him for a real lawyer ;)
- thrill 16y agoMore like the dangers of unapproved thinking.
- sili 16y agoHe 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.
- sofuture 16y agoExactly. 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.
- jarek 16y agoBased on the version of events presented in this article, Lacy should be ashamed of himself. /ringed BASc (non licensed)
- zemanel 16y agoi was once turned down on a pay raise because "it was not like i was an engineer, i was just savvy" (highschool degree here)
- flyosity 16y agoHa, 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.
- URSpider94 16y agoI 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.
- barefoot 16y agoI 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.
- davidcoallier 16y agoThis 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 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