I found this interesting-- is he "practicing engineering"?

[Audi Driver P.E.]

An electronics engineer says he found a flaw in traffic lights. The Oregon engineering board fined him for it.


In September 2014, Mats Järlström, an electronics engineer living in Beaverton, Oregon, sent an email to the state's engineering board. The email claimed that yellow traffic lights don't last long enough, which "puts the public at risk."

"I would like to present these facts for your review and comments," he wrote.

This email resulted not with a meeting, but with a threat. The Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying responded with this dystopian message:

"ORS 672.020(1) prohibits the practice of engineering in Oregon without registration … at a minimum, your use of the title 'electronics engineer' and the statement 'I'm an engineer' … create violations."



 


In January of this year, Järlström was officially fined $500 by the state for the crime of "practicing engineering without being registered."



read more at the link below

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government

 

[Voomie]

It is an interesting case but state boards are strict when it comes to practicing engineering. If I understand the article correctly, the timing was set up correctly according to design standards. It sounds like this is in a grey area to be considered practicing engineering.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Road Guy]

I think its kind of an over reach myself, but then again are Traffic Engineers real Engineers anyway

 

[Audi Driver P.E.]

I had heard his arguments about the length of yellow lights before.  It seems sound to me, regardless.

 

[J_MEC]

Sounds a bit extreme to me. I skimmed through some of the letters and he did claim in his letter he is "already doing this kind of work" and even asked them if he could be a member on the state board. That seems to be the only reason the state board is so salty.

Saying he was "practicing engineering" when coming up with his analysis seems like a reach to me. If he was the one setting the timers on these lights based on his calculations then I think maybe the state board might have a leg to stand on when it comes to him "practicing engineering". It sounds to me like he was more acting as a concerned citizen than a practicing engineer. Another vibe I get from this article is that this guy is just salty his wife got a red light ticket and he won't let it go.

Maybe if he approached it as, "Hey, I ran some numbers, and I think there is an issue with the light timing, can you have someone review this?" and instead left out how he is already doing this kind of work (the way he phrased it implies engineering work), the I want to be a board member, and I am an excellent engineer stuff then there would be no beef between him and the state board. 

I can kind of see both why both sides are upset but it still sounds like the whole situation is pretty dumb.

 

[Audi Driver P.E.]

^---- what he said.

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

It appears the problem was not his research into or challenging of the yellow lights. Any normal citizen can do that.

The problem is that he was presenting himself as an engineer. In CO you cannot advertise yourself as an engineer for any field that you are not qualified in. It's definitely a gray area there because PE's are not discipline specific.

It's like walking into a medical clinic, saying "I'm a doctor", then start questioning sutures when you're actually an Anesthesiologist. Sure, you can say the sutures are ****, but you can't go walking around saying you know they're **** while under the premise of being a doctor in an unrelated field.

 

[Dleg]

Total bureaucratic overreach.  In my opinion, people can say whatever they want about themselves.  The licensing board should only take action if he's either being paid to "practice engineering" or the fruits of his efforts are actually being implemented, say in this case, if he actually began programming the traffic lights.  

People should be free to invent/research/experiment as much as they like.  Most of "industry" doesn't even respect the PE license, anyway.  Now don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of protecting our industry and the public by enforcing licensing rules, but they have to be applied with common sense, and most importantly, they have to demonstrate a value to both the public and the profession.  Stupid bureaucratic stunts like this completely sabotage any and all efforts at persuading non-engineers of that.

 

[Owism]

Sounds a bit extreme to me. I skimmed through some of the letters and he did claim in his letter he is "already doing this kind of work" and even asked them if he could be a member on the state board. That seems to be the only reason the state board is so salty.

Saying he was "practicing engineering" when coming up with his analysis seems like a reach to me. If he was the one setting the timers on these lights based on his calculations then I think maybe the state board might have a leg to stand on when it comes to him "practicing engineering". It sounds to me like he was more acting as a concerned citizen than a practicing engineer. Another vibe I get from this article is that this guy is just salty his wife got a red light ticket and he won't let it go.

Maybe if he approached it as, "Hey, I ran some numbers, and I think there is an issue with the light timing, can you have someone review this?" and instead left out how he is already doing this kind of work (the way he phrased it implies engineering work), the I want to be a board member, and I am an excellent engineer stuff then there would be no beef between him and the state board. 

I can kind of see both why both sides are upset but it still sounds like the whole situation is pretty dumb.

:thankyou: i agree

 

[Road Guy]

We should require that anyone serving on a state board show evidence that they have done actual engineering - stamped something that was "built" to be on the Board.  Most of these people are political yahoos that own firms or own politicians....

 

[Dleg]

Drain the swamp?

 

[jeb6294]

First question, why was he sending any of this to the Oregon State Board in the first place?

The article seems to be a little too much selective journalism.  I only saw one of his emails, but the stuff from the board made it sound like there was more correspondence from him than one email.  To me, his first email makes him sound like enough of an ****** that it makes me wonder what else he sent to them.

My first thought was that I called myself an Engineer before I had my PE so what's the problem.  But, is he even qualified to be an engineer?  He claims he's got a "Swedish engineering degree in electronics".  My first thought when I hear "electronics engineer" is ITT Tech.  Electrical Engineer sure, but not electronics engineer.  Right or wrong, looking at his website seems to reinforce that idea.

I'd like to think that the Board looked into the situation and checked his background and education and determined that, not only was he not an Engineer, but that he wasn't even qualified to be an Engineer and that is where the charges/fine is coming from.  I didn't read the whole case, but it sounds like one of the Board's contentions is that ****** went to the City of Beaverton and said he was an Engineer and he determined that their yellow lights were wrong and that his wife shouldn't have gotten a ticket.

 

[MA_PE]

I see  issues here:  1) the guy original complaint/study of the traffic signaling and what is  proper, and 2) practicing engineering and performing engineering services without a proper license.

Case 1) never really gets resolved in the article because I didn't see any peer-review (other than his contention that the author from the 1959 study concurred with his thoughts).

Case 2) If you read his correspondence I think he was claiming to be an engineer and submit engineering calculations in the face of the Board.  If he took the local legislature approach and his work was submitted to either th town meeting or directly to the DOT I don't think the board would make an issue of it.  Fact is he approached the board and put the spotlight on himself.  After their initial response, the guy should've found an Oregon PE to present his findings for him.  The $500 fine was for willfully ignoring Board regulations and then trying to subvert the same regulations by saying they weren't applicable.

Quite frankly, he didn't play by the rules and got a fine for doing so.  He brought the fine on himself.

 

[Road Guy]

Is this beaver practicing engineering?

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

Do or do not, there is no "practice".

 

[frazil]

I have some engineer beavers in my backyard, which makes me practice demolition techniques. Maybe i should just cite him for violations instead.

 

[Flyer_PE]

^I would start by demanding to see their dam permit before hitting them with a dam violation.

 

[matt267 PE]

Dear Mr. Price:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan — I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris” dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize, their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials “debris.” I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

My first concern is — aren’t the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the dam stream “restored” to a dam free-flow condition — contact the dam beavers — but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter-being unable to read English) — be sure you read them their dam Miranda rights first.

As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers — be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State — I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy, or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green, and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem: bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tvedten

http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/dammed.asp

 

[JHW 3d]

It appears the problem was not his research into or challenging of the yellow lights. Any normal citizen can do that.The problem is that he was presenting himself as an engineer. In CO you cannot advertise yourself as an engineer for any field that you are not qualified in. It's definitely a gray area there because PE's are not discipline specific.

It's like walking into a medical clinic, saying "I'm a doctor", then start questioning sutures when you're actually an Anesthesiologist. Sure, you can say the sutures are ****, but you can't go walking around saying you know they're **** while under the premise of being a doctor in an unrelated field.

Actually anesthesiologist have significant surgical training so commenting on sutures might actually be something they know about.

Just sayin.

 

[partypants]

There has been an update in this case:

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/06/01/0016215/oregon-man-fined-for-writing-i-am-an-engineer-temporarily-wins-right-to-call-himself-an-engineer