Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on February 04, 2011, 11:08:10 AM
-
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/964781/citizen-activist-grates-on-state.html
And... if I can't have revolution, then how about just a few self-centered bureaucrats? That's all I'm asking for. I don't need the elected ones to tide me over until the game really starts. Pretty please? [ar15]
Synopsis: Neighborhood wants stop lights. City engineer does study, says stop lights aren't needed. Residents perform their own analysis and write up a high quality document that makes the engineer professionally envious (and also shows him to be wrong).
Engineer's solution? Refer neighborhood residents to the state licensing board for practicing engineering without a license.
Every normal man must, at times, be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.
No, I'm not gonna go whack some traffic engineer. But srsly, where is some effing common sense in this society?
-
Must be the same engineer who did the traffic study at our corner.
Tar & feathers really ought to make a comeback.
-
Oh, and I do engineering work every flipping day with only a widdy biddy physics degree.
-
:facepalm:
"All we ever tried to do was express our view about this," said Cox, a computer scientist.
"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.
That sounds well within the technical ability of a serious computer scientist. There has been a great deal of work done within the field that involves optimization of stop light algorithms. I'd say he was more than qualified to generate that report.
-
its only when he disagreed that it was a problem
-
Since, apparently, we're not merging the simultaneous topics:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/964781/citizen-activist-grates-on-state.html
A man is being investigated for "practicing engineering without a license."
I have no words. This is right up there with "practicing hairdressing without a license." (And I'm well aware someone could be charged for that, as well.)
STATE GRANTED MONOPOLIES ARE NOT THE ANSWER. Not the answer to almost any question.
I realize there are bigger problems, but, come on!
-
Credential America.
"Your papers, please" is apparently alive and well in America.
Don't have the right papers? Too bad, doesn't matter that you are intelligent and can do it as well as one with the proper "credentials." Without government approval, you're out.
Can we make a list of jobs where "credentials" are required but are meaningless except to prevent qualified people from doing the job and creating an artificially small labor pool?
Teachers
Hairdressers
Engineers (apparently)
Massuese (no idea how to spell that)
Acupunturist
Yoga (seriously, someone brought a bill in VA to require all Yoga instructors to be licensed.)
"Certified Historological Technician" (from NYS licensing.)
Interior Design
Land Surveyor
"Creative Arts Therapist" (from NYS licensing, again.)
Virginia licensing:
Hair Braiding
Hearing aid specialist
Body Piercing
Nail technician
Wax technician
Esthetician
TIME-SHARES??
We want to cut government? How about cutting stupid licensing boards?
-
I remember reading somewhere a theory that the reason Germany and Japan made such rapid progress after WWII was not because they were able to upgrade to new capital technologies as the old had been destroyed, but because the war had destroyed the old bureaucracies and disrupted the entrenched interest groups.
-
Credential America.
"Your papers, please" is apparently alive and well in America.
Don't have the right papers? Too bad, doesn't matter that you are intelligent and can do it as well as one with the proper "credentials." Without government approval, you're out.
Can we make a list of jobs where "credentials" are required but are meaningless except to prevent qualified people from doing the job and creating an artificially small labor pool?
Teachers
Hairdressers
Engineers (apparently)
Massuese (no idea how to spell that)
Acupunturist
Yoga (seriously, someone brought a bill in VA to require all Yoga instructors to be licensed.)
"Certified Historological Technician" (from NYS licensing.)
Interior Design
Land Surveyor
"Creative Arts Therapist" (from NYS licensing, again.)
Virginia licensing:
Hair Braiding
Hearing aid specialist
Body Piercing
Nail technician
Wax technician
Esthetician
TIME-SHARES??
We want to cut government? How about cutting stupid licensing boards?
Don't forget Private Investigators....who mostly do records searches on the Internet nowadays.... ;/
I hope the guy countersues for slander....because the doofus who calls himself an engineer is slandering engineers everywhere..... :facepalm:
-
http://www.michigan.gov/mdcd/0,1607,7-122--60358--,00.html
Read this list and weep. Weep for the future.
And as an extra tidbit, working as a private investigator without a state license is a felony good for several years in prison. A PI license costs over $600 to obtain. Plus whatever hoops you have to jump through.
-
<rant>
A while ago I decided I'd like to get my PE designation/accreditation. I figured I could challenge whatever exams they had and come out all right.
Then I discovered you needed to be an apprentice under another PE for something like two years as one of the qualifications so I figured pisonit, that smacked of medievalism.
I actually held the job titles of "Engineer" at one place, and "Scientist/Engineer" at another, but that was apart from the PE requirements. Most of the people I have worked with who have the titles "Engineer" and "Scientist" don't know the difference between a 4-40 and a 6-32 screw and couldn't work with the Newtonian laws of motion.
There. Now I'm a happier "talented amateur" for having vented thusly.
</rant>
I note that two of the places where amateurs can make substantial peer-reviewed and published contributions to advancing the real art and science of their hobbies* are in astronomy and electronics. There are probably others, too.
Terry, 230RN
*
Read as "unpaid extracurricular technical activities."
___________
Edited To Add:
What, no "Community Activist" license in that list, RaspberrySurprise? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. But on the other hand, come to think of it, they don't list "Senator," or "President" in there, either. Maybe they're on the Illinois list.
-
Not that it makes what happened right in the story presented, but....
I recall that my brother, a civil engineer had to pass some state licensing board to be a PE before he could "sign his own work". The idea being, if he's designing a bridge or a foundation or something - he's required to prove to the state that he's competent to do so.
I'm just saying... an earthquake hits the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake), and an equal earthquake hits somewhere like haiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Haiti_earthquake) , which one is in more hurt?
-
Not that it makes what happened right in the story presented, but....
I recall that my brother, a civil engineer had to pass some state licensing board to be a PE before he could "sign his own work". The idea being, if he's designing a bridge or a foundation or something - he's required to prove to the state that he's competent to do so.
I'm just saying... an earthquake hits the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake), and an equal earthquake hits somewhere like haiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Haiti_earthquake) , which one is in more hurt?
Not because of signatures, but because of quality flush toilets and the associated plumbing.
-
No, see what the government flunky is mad about is that someone isn't "respectin' his authoritay!!!!" How DARE the CITIZEN'S disagree with his decree from on high, and then actually DARE to prove him WRONG???? What he's terrified of, is that someone just threatened his position in government. They not only proved he was wrong, but they did it without a 17 month multi-million dollar study.
Nick, I agree with you that when we're talking about building a bridge, you really want the pro's doing the work for you...
But then again, even the pro's screw up sometimes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw
-
No, see what the government flunky is mad about is that someone isn't "respectin' his authoritay!!!!" How DARE the CITIZEN'S disagree with his decree from on high, and then actually DARE to prove him WRONG???? What he's terrified of, is that someone just threatened his position in government. They not only proved he was wrong, but they did it without a 17 month multi-million dollar study.
I agree, in the story presented, the guy is a self-important dick.
Nick, I agree with you that when we're talking about building a bridge, you really want the pro's doing the work for you...
But then again, even the pro's screw up sometimes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw
As if an amateur would have designed it better? Sure, there are sometimes gaps in our knowledge as we, as a culture, learn more about a thing. There will always be problems that are found the hard way - nuclear reactors will have problems, spacecraft will blow up, aircraft will crash, buildings will fall... I don't see this as a sign that the experts were wrong and amateurs could have done it better, though.
I'm just noting that before we declare state licensing a bunk, corrupt concept - consider that there are upsides, and reasons for such things.
-
I agree, in the story presented, the guy is a self-important dick.
As if an amateur would have designed it better? Sure, there are sometimes gaps in our knowledge as we, as a culture, learn more about a thing. There will always be problems that are found the hard way - nuclear reactors will have problems, spacecraft will blow up, aircraft will crash, buildings will fall... I don't see this as a sign that the experts were wrong and amateurs could have done it better, though.
I'm just noting that before we declare state licensing a bunk, corrupt concept - consider that there are upsides, and reasons for such things.
If you'll note, I didn't include all licenses.
Further, though, I don't think the state should be licensing, AMA and ABA would do just fine without it.
Third, the upsides of licensing in some very few areas are FAR outwieghed by the downsides of credentialism.
Do we really need to license teachers? Do we really need to license hairdressers? Do we really need to license Timeshare salesman!??
All but a very few of these licenses exist as a barrier to entry in that profession. As for "as if an amatuer would have designed it better?" Yes, an amatuer very well may have designed it better. No credentials =/= no ability. Could any random amatuer have done it? No, but that wasn't your question.
I'd be willing to bet I'm intelligent enough to apply myself and learn to design and engineer any number of things. Would the credentials have any bearing on my ability to do so?
-
When I grow up I want to be Professor Farquharson.
-
I'd be willing to bet I'm intelligent enough to apply myself and learn to design and engineer any number of things. Would the credentials have any bearing on my ability to do so?
Credentials aren't the same thing as ability. I'm sure there are able people who lack credentials.
The idea behind licensing is that you must PROVE that you have the ability.
You could tell me that you are great at designing houses. You could tell me that you know all about how to calculate out how big each beam must be, all the loads, etc.
Thing of it is, any bum walking down the street could make the same claim. How do I know that you actually can walk the walk? You prove it to some authority, usually by testing. Holding a license should mean that you have the minimum level of competency to preform a particular professional service.
I do agree though, some of these licenses seem to be simple barriers to entry.
Do we really need to license teachers?
How would you do it? Base the hiring decision just on the interview, not on what degrees have been conferred or license tests passed?
-
Credentials aren't the same thing as ability. I'm sure there are able people who lack credentials.
The idea behind licensing is that you must PROVE that you have the ability.
You could tell me that you are great at designing houses. You could tell me that you know all about how to calculate out how big each beam must be, all the loads, etc.
Thing of it is, any bum walking down the street could make the same claim. How do I know that you actually can walk the walk? You prove it to some authority, usually by testing. Holding a license should mean that you have the minimum level of competency to preform a particular professional service.
I do agree though, some of these licenses seem to be simple barriers to entry.
How would you do it? Base the hiring decision just on the interview, not on what degrees have been conferred or license tests passed?
How do the licensing boards decide who is worthy of the license?
Further, if a licensing board can do it, wouldn't a company whose livelihood depends on satisfying their customers have a better incentive to assure their employees are competent?
-
How do the licensing boards decide who is worthy of the license?
Rigorous testing and verification of apprenticeship or mentoring relationships
Further, if a licensing board can do it, wouldn't a company whose livelihood depends on satisfying their customers have a better incentive to assure their employees are competent?
This does not address the sole proprietorship.
-
AMA and ABA would do just fine without it.
demonstrably not
-
Rigorous testing and verification of apprenticeship or mentoring relationships.
If only a business had some means of doing that...
This does not address the sole proprietorship.
No, it doesn't. If you want to go to a doctor/dentist/engineer/hairdresser without knowing if they are qualified and use their services on nothing beyond their word, go ahead.
I'd like some references, personally. (Kind of like how a business might do it...)
Licensing has very limited usefulness. We're WELL beyond the areas in which it may even be arguably useful, though.
-
http://www.michigan.gov/mdcd/0,1607,7-122--60358--,00.html
Read this list and weep. Weep for the future.
And as an extra tidbit, working as a private investigator without a state license is a felony good for several years in prison. A PI license costs over $600 to obtain. Plus whatever hoops you have to jump through.
It's a lot easier than getting one in Texas....
http://www.tali.org/licensing_requirements.htm (http://www.tali.org/licensing_requirements.htm)
Basically, in addition to the fees and testing, you have to be employed for 3 years in an exclusive field that doesn't hire often....pretty well a locked-out field unless you're related to someone....
If it wasn't for the licensing headache, I'd probably be one. Wonder if I could market myself as a "Personal Researcher" instead?..... ;)
-
At least in the state of Texas, you don't need a PE license to do internal engineering stuff. I don't need one to practice within my company. You need one when you hire out engineering design stuff to 3rd parties or building/design equipment. My companies engineering and construction side had PE's to approve/sign off on electrical and other design drawings. Usually, that means the PE is taking on some personal/professional responsibility with that signatures/stamp.
As said, a PE license simply demonstrates minimal competency to do a job. It not only includes testing, but covers experience within the field you are trying to get licensed for. That is why they want the apprenticeship or Engineer-in-training time. I believe you can bypass that if you can demonstrate/document experience in the field.
-
It's a lot easier than getting one in Texas....
http://www.tali.org/licensing_requirements.htm (http://www.tali.org/licensing_requirements.htm)
Basically, in addition to the fees and testing, you have to be employed for 3 years in an exclusive field that doesn't hire often....pretty well a locked-out field unless you're related to someone....
If it wasn't for the licensing headache, I'd probably be one. Wonder if I could market myself as a "Personal Researcher" instead?..... ;)
Michigan is similar, after reading more I saw that you needed either a bachelors in criminal justice or three years of on the job type experience.
-
and as an example of how private regulation might pan out. around here pe's sign on with a company agree to not freelance on their own time. they have to keep their stamp locked up in company safe
-
No, see what the government flunky is mad about is that someone isn't "respectin' his authoritay!!!!" How DARE the CITIZEN'S disagree with his decree from on high, and then actually DARE to prove him WRONG???? What he's terrified of, is that someone just threatened his position in government. They not only proved he was wrong, but they did it without a 17 month multi-million dollar study.
Uh, no, they didn't prove anything of the sort. At most, all they proved was that the city engineer can distinguish real engineering work from fakery, and that he takes his job seriously enough not to tolerate the latter when it comes to public safety.
I'm not surprised that the city engineer would want to know who produced the report he was asked to rely on. By all accounts, it had the quality of college-level engineering work. That means it was either really crummy work done by an actual engineer, or a really good amateur effort by non-engineers.
The state licensing board will try to find out who wrote the fake report, then send a letter asking him/her not to do it again. That'll be the end of it.
-
All I know is that in several towns I lived in a retarded 3rd grader could have done a better job timing the traffic lights than the engineers that did it. And that would just be on the kid's window licking breaks.
-
This thread got me interested enough to check the requirements for a PI license in MN. All I can say is, holy crap...
$1000 license fee. 3 years experience in LE, PI company, or equivalent. $10000 surety bond. 12 hours initial and 6 hours continuing training. If you choose to be armed, initial armed training to include first aid and CPR and 6 hours of armed training a year on top of the other training. Training to be approved by the state.
Looks like the PI industry in our state is an ex-cop club slightly diluted by relatively large corporations. Not cheap, either.
-
I hold several pest control licenses in California, including termite inspector. The over-all licensing authority is the Consumer Protection Agency, due to the many years of fraud in this industry. It is not difficult work, some of it a monkey can do. (and does, just call Terminix) But consumers need a place to go with ethics complaints. The threat of losing your license to perform your job keeps at least some people in line.
-
i am a contractor. my county does not license contractors. period. some out of town banks insist that a contractor have a license, or they will not fund a project. ??? i try to explain that i have all the proper business certificates, but they have their policies. if the owner would like their loan, they need to hire from outside the county.
-
Uh, no, they didn't prove anything of the sort. At most, all they proved was that the city engineer can distinguish real engineering work from fakery, and that he takes his job seriously enough not to tolerate the latter when it comes to public safety.
I'm not surprised that the city engineer would want to know who produced the report he was asked to rely on. By all accounts, it had the quality of college-level engineering work. That means it was either really crummy work done by an actual engineer, or a really good amateur effort by non-engineers.
The state licensing board will try to find out who wrote the fake report, then send a letter asking him/her not to do it again. That'll be the end of it.
The report was written to help support their petition to the local government, you know that whole petitioning for redress of grievances thing, not to sell anything nor were they in any way representing themselves as actual engineers.
Darn pesky First Amendment
-
Uh, no, they didn't prove anything of the sort. At most, all they proved was that the city engineer can distinguish real engineering work from fakery, and that he takes his job seriously enough not to tolerate the latter when it comes to public safety.
I'm not surprised that the city engineer would want to know who produced the report he was asked to rely on. By all accounts, it had the quality of college-level engineering work. That means it was either really crummy work done by an actual engineer, or a really good amateur effort by non-engineers.
The state licensing board will try to find out who wrote the fake report, then send a letter asking him/her not to do it again. That'll be the end of it.
Why should this get the .gov panties in a wad? I can understand it getting the city traffic engineer's nickers all bunched as it has the potential to make him look bad, but the state DOT? Yes, this does have all the hallmarks of, "You must respect my authoritay!"
From the article, the city engineer was not asked to rely on the amateur report. It was submitted voluntarily by the citizen activist as his take on the subject.
The analysis done by the amateur is not an official document, it was not submitted as such, and cannot be used in any official way by the state DOT. Therefore, it cannot be a "fake" document as you put it.
And if that state's DOT practices allow or require a non-internal analysis to supercede their own work, they ought to have their arses hung out to dry.
The amateur report is just a "redress of grievances" presented in a very clear, well researched fashion. The city traffic engineer and state DOT are doing their best to deny the local group's ability to do what is a fundamental right of any citizen.
-
Y'all are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, here.
The state DOT is involved because it's a major thoroughfare. DOTs tend to be involved in that sorta thing.
There's no potential to make the local engineer look bad. All indications are that he was doing his job the right way. Kudos to him.
The local residents had a chance to do this the right way, but they chose not to. The city engineer even told them how to do it, and was willing to work with them if they did. This definitely isn't a "respect mah authority" kind of situation.
Nobody had their 1A rights violated. Residents are always allowed to make requests on road projects like this one, and this time was no different. These particular residents had plenty of opportunity to comment on the project, and despite their idiotic claims, nobody is trying to shut them up. If it turns out that the residents wrote their own report, then absolutely nothing will come of it.
The reason it was reported to the licensing board is because there was speculation that this particular "petition" was produced behind the scenes for the residents by an apparently unqualified engineer. If that's the case, it's a serious no-no within the profession and would be taken seriously. Real deal civil engineers tend to be uptight about this sorta thing, they don't like bridges that fall down and highways that cause wrecks.
If it helps you understand it better, think of it like a doctor stumbling across a patient who was chopped up by some back ally surgeon. Most conscientious doctors would report it to the medical examiners board, right?
There's really no reason for anyone to get indignant, here. So far as I can tell this event is playing out exactly as it should.
-
Don't forget Private Investigators....who mostly do records searches on the Internet nowadays.... ;/
Pest control, in any form; if you want to be a handyman and put grates over dryer vents to keep rats out, you'll need to convince a pest control company to hire you so you can spend a minimum of two years working in the field to get licensed to go it on your own.
-
The reason it was reported to the licensing board is because there was speculation that this particular "petition" was produced behind the scenes for the residents by an apparently unqualified engineer. If that's the case, it's a serious no-no within the profession and would be taken seriously. Real deal civil engineers tend to be uptight about this sorta thing, they don't like bridges that fall down and highways that cause wrecks.
You completely missed the point, HTG. This "report" was never, and can never, be an official document that will be acted on or used by the state DOT. It matters not a whit who researched, compiled and wrote it. Reporting it to the licensing board was simply uncalled for. It was meant to intimidate the citizen(s).
And yes, reporting it to the licensing board does make it an infringement on the citizen's rights, because there was absolutely no reason for doing so, logically or legally.
-
Rigorous testing and verification of apprenticeship or mentoring relationships
*Snort* In my area, unless you are a member of the Good Ol' Boy network and know people, certifications are really given out for bribes, not actual skill/experience in a field...if you don't have either cash or connections, you aren't getting certified and you aren't getting hired, because there are plenty of people other than you who do have the cash or connections.
-
lots of "professions" get real touchy about amateurs. they want/need folk to believe their trade is much harder than it is to justify rates. you should see how lawyers get when they see a document done by a non lawyer. or a doc when you do your own stitches. i prepared some stuff in the late 70's that really ruffled some landsharks. it was easy i just found a previous successful case and copied the documents, changing names and dates. which is exactly what most of them do. or they have one of their staff do it for them.
-
You completely missed the point, HTG. This "report" was never, and can never, be an official document that will be acted on or used by the state DOT. It matters not a whit who researched, compiled and wrote it. Reporting it to the licensing board was simply uncalled for. It was meant to intimidate the citizen(s).
And yes, reporting it to the licensing board does make it an infringement on the citizen's rights, because there was absolutely no reason for doing so, logically or legally.
Actually, I think you've missed the point. It doesn't matter what the intended purpose of the document was, or how "official" its use. It appeared to be an example of a hack civil engineer practicing illegally, so it was treated accordingly. That sorta thing tends to get peoples attention no matter where it turns up. If that document had been presented to a private engineering firm it still likely would have been reported, and it wouldn't have been an attempt to silence or intimidate anyone then, either.
There is absolutely nothing sinister about what happened, here.
-
HTG, worst example ever.
But I do get the point, and it makes sense. The presumption on the part of the engineer seems a bit offensive, but I'm not in the room, so there's a lot I'm missing.
I think everybody ought to re-read the part in HTG's post about the suspicion that it wasn't the residents petitoning the government, but was instead an unqualified ringer that they brought in.
-
Actually, I think you've missed the point. It doesn't matter what the intended purpose of the document was, or how "official" its use. It appeared to be an example of a hack civil engineer practicing illegally, so it was treated accordingly.
"Practicing illegally" in what way? Even if they do have a black market street corner engineer on loan from the Transportation Design Mafia, unless he's trying to present false credentials, there's no "practice" going on here.
For that matter, they may even have a real engineer with his state permission slip to think, who doesn't want his name attached to their results for whatever reason. That's no more "practicing illegally" than if I have my doctor proofread a letter to the editor for medical mistakes without him accepting credit.
-
It is not difficult work, some of it a monkey can do. (and does, just call Terminix)
Hey! I resembled that remark until I burned my apprentice card and told them what they could do with their "ethics."
But consumers need a place to go with ethics complaints. The threat of losing your license to perform your job keeps at least some people in line.
That can be done without making the licensing requirements a significant bar to entry or (due to the requirement to find someone to employ you in the field and sponsor you for the tests) a means of allowing current licensees to restrict competition. For example, last I checked, I could simply go get some training, take the tests, put in the flight hours, and become licensed as a commercial pilot, without ever having been employed as such. Mandatory apprenticeship (regardless of the specific term used - WH's example of 3 years' experience in LE or PI work is effectively an apprenticeship) just lets the ones already in the business prevent new competition from coming into existence.
-
For example, last I checked, I could simply go get some training, take the tests, put in the flight hours, and become licensed as a commercial pilot, without ever having been employed as such.
This is the case. Now, if it works well for an rather complex field, then why can't it work for something a lot more pedestrian?
-
It appeared to be an example of a hack civil engineer practicing illegally, so it was treated accordingly. That sorta thing tends to get peoples attention no matter where it turns up.
Again, there is no "practice" here. It is not an official document, it holds no official, sanctioned status. Unless the state DOT, or anyone doing work for them, is accepting outside unsanctioned work, the report is meaningless except as a citizen's take on a traffic situation.
And if the DOT or their contractors are accepting such work, then they need to have their collective fannies handed to them.
-
This guy Lacy must be Nifongs brother in law . WTF is it about NC anyway?
-
This guy Lacy must be Nifongs brother in law . WTF is it about NC anyway?
Sawed off tyrants and their enablers?
-
The local residents had a chance to do this the right way, but they chose not to. The city engineer even told them how to do it, and was willing to work with them if they did. This definitely isn't a "respect mah authority" kind of situation.
Nobody had their 1A rights violated. Residents are always allowed to make requests on road projects like this one, and this time was no different. These particular residents had plenty of opportunity to comment on the project, and despite their idiotic claims, nobody is trying to shut them up. If it turns out that the residents wrote their own report, then absolutely nothing will come of it.
The reason it was reported to the licensing board is because there was speculation that this particular "petition" was produced behind the scenes for the residents by an apparently unqualified engineer. If that's the case, it's a serious no-no within the profession and would be taken seriously. Real deal civil engineers tend to be uptight about this sorta thing, they don't like bridges that fall down and highways that cause wrecks.
If it helps you understand it better, think of it like a doctor stumbling across a patient who was chopped up by some back ally surgeon. Most conscientious doctors would report it to the medical examiners board, right?
There's really no reason for anyone to get indignant, here. So far as I can tell this event is playing out exactly as it should.
Umm... yes, they had their rights violated.
They were just told they had no right to make any analysis on this situation unless they pony up the cash to someone granted part of the oligopoly by the state.
They were told they can't exercise their rights to petition the government without paying very large fees. That is a violation of their rights. The rest of this is the government angry that someone ignored their requirements for tribute to the correct guild. This credentialist crap has gone too far.
-
Umm... yes, they had their rights violated.
They were just told they had no right to make any analysis on this situation unless they pony up the cash to someone granted part of the oligopoly by the state.
They were told they can't exercise their rights to petition the government without paying very large fees. That is a violation of their rights. The rest of this is the government angry that someone ignored their requirements for tribute to the correct guild. This credentialist crap has gone too far.
Not exactly. Nobody told them they couldn't bring their data before the city for review. They are not being punished or targeted for bringing their data before the city.
The issue was always that there seemed a possibility someone was violating the codes of professional conduct that's expected of legitimate civil engineers. That's what is being investigated, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It is right and proper that matters of public safety be handled by qualified, competent professionals. You can argue that it needn't be the government that decides who is and isn't qualified, and you may have a point there. But there does need to be some entity that guarantees competence when it comes to these sorts of jobs, and I think those standards ought be backed by force of law at some point.
This guy Lacy must be Nifongs brother in law . WTF is it about NC anyway?
I'm from Indiana originally, and I dealt with a lot of this stuff while I was working in commercial real estate up there. I can tell you from experience that this story would have played out exactly the same way up there.
The only thing unique about this situation here and now is that people are being foolish and getting their panties all in a bunch over stuff they don't understand.
-
I'm digging for an answer on this, and not finding anything, but I wonder if the city engineer isn't required by professional codes to report hack engineering work like this. I can't seem to find the specif requirements here, but I've seen similar situations where someone in his position could be at jeopardy of losing his own qualifications if he ignores something like this.
As I said before, professions like this one tend to take this stuff seriously.
-
professions like this one tend to take
this stuff themselves too seriously.
-
professions like this one tend to take this stuff themselves too seriously.
No doubt. There was city street engineer I got to know up in Hoosierville, a colorful character and an outdoorsman. We hit it off pretty well. He was darned funny when we were making small talk and joshing around, but when it came to his work he was all business and more anal than anyone you'll ever meet. He had ZERO sense of humor when it came to professional/technical issues.
-
My late two denarii, but this strikes me very much as Researching-Without-A-License. From what I've seen this fellow made no attempt to actually do any construction work or try to pass off his research and analysis as formal "certified" gub'mint/contractor work. He presented his paper as personal research as to why they should go back and re-evaluate the situation, which would no doubt be conducted by the appropriate "certified" authoritays. If you're no longer allowed to do your own homework where do we get to draw the line, perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to look at multiple insurance options, costs, coverages, and decide which they wish to purchase unless they are a "certified" insurance agent? Or instead people shouldn't be allowed to look up different kinds of tires for their personal vehicle because that's obviously the domain of "certified" automobile mechanics, and we can't have common plebes making decisions that affect public safety like that! I've yet to see where he went and did any "official engineering" for which he would be subject to criminal or civil action.
-
My late two denarii, but this strikes me very much as Researching-Without-A-License. From what I've seen this fellow made no attempt to actually do any construction work or try to pass off his research and analysis as formal "certified" gub'mint/contractor work. He presented his paper as personal research as to why they should go back and re-evaluate the situation, which would no doubt be conducted by the appropriate "certified" authoritays.
Indeed.
-
Did someone use the word "competent" in regard to government civil engineers? Like the priceless crew at the Washington State Ferries who designed a covered walkway to the ferries, and forgot to factor in the weight of the glass? So the mechanism was not stout enough to lift it up and down with the tide? That sort of competence? The list goes on and on- in any private sector enterprise, those sort would be fired asap- in a civil service job, probably union, they stay on till they retire.
this NC episode is about intimidation, carefully colored as "save the children/public whatever issue".
-
Heaven forbid the lowly citizen actually be allowed to scrutinize and question local government.
-
the report musta been real well done to scare em that bad
-
the report musta been real well done to scare em that bad
It occurred to me that the guy who prepared the report may just be a real pest, and the .gov folks are tired of hearing from him. If that is so, choosing this method to get rid of him still stinks.
A politely worded "shut up and get lost" letter in proper governmentese would have been sufficient. Then just put the guy on the ignore list.
The investigation of "engineering without credentials/certification/degree" thing is just dumb, an over-reaction, since what he produced was not, and never could be, considered an official document.
-
It occurred to me that the guy who prepared the report may just be a real pest, and the .gov folks are tired of hearing from him.
If, as the story states, his neighbors are backing him on this, then it's the elected officials' job to listen. Basically, they've foisted off the job of telling him, and by extension, the entire neighborhood, to shut up onto an appointed lackey. Likely, they think this will shield them from the fallout.
-
professions like this one tend to take this stuff themselves too seriously.
They take this more seriously than anything, as it is a possible assault on their guild monopoly on that sort of information.
In the end, that is all this is and the expected result by the guild member.
the report musta been real well done to scare em that bad
Ayup.
Or come up with the actual data and industry-standard results/response that city engineer was trying to obscure.
-
Not exactly. Nobody told them they couldn't bring their data before the city for review. They are not being punished or targeted for bringing their data before the city.
Oh, good, glad that's cleared up.
The issue was always that there seemed a possibility someone was violating the codes of professional conduct that's expected of legitimate civil engineers. That's what is being investigated, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It is right and proper that matters of public safety be handled by qualified, competent professionals. You can argue that it needn't be the government that decides who is and isn't qualified, and you may have a point there. But there does need to be some entity that guarantees competence when it comes to these sorts of jobs, and I think those standards ought be backed by force of law at some point.
Wait wait wait. I thought it was perfectly alright for them to bring their data before the city. Now your telling me they aren't allowed to unless they pay a professional to do it. Gee, that's kinda at odds with your first statement.
The only thing unique about this situation here and now is that people are being foolish and getting their panties all in a bunch over stuff they don't understand.
No, I understand it perfectly. It's the exact same reason that our church just had to pay over TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS just to be given the right to make modifications to the existing church building. (We can talk about stewardship here, but this is a matter of trying to be subject to the governing authorities, no matter how stupid they may be.)
There was no misrepresentation, they put forth a report. Should the "professional" engineers have found it lacking, they can reject it. Instead, they decided that no one else has any right to look into their purview and want to enforce their guild rules.
Honestly, you're telling me I can't figure out how to estimate traffic patterns because I'm not a "certified" engineer?
-
Honestly, you're telling me I can't figure out how to estimate traffic patterns because I'm not a "certified" engineer?
No.
You're being told that you haven't demonstrated the competency to have your estimates used as the basis for decisions that affect the public's health, safety, and welfare.
Said demonstrated competency is also required to sell such estimation services to the public.
-
No.
You're being told that you haven't demonstrated the competency to have your estimates used as the basis for decisions that affect the public's health, safety, and welfare.
Said demonstrated competency is also required to sell such estimation services to the public.
Who was selling what in this article?
Also, if the city has already employed an engineer, wouldn't shouldn't he be able to judge those estimates' value? Why do we hire engineers if they won't look at anything unless it's done by an engineer. What is their purpose?
-
Also, if the city has already employed an engineer, wouldn't shouldn't he be able to judge those estimates' value? Why do we hire engineers if they won't look at anything unless it's done by an engineer. What is their purpose?
Self perpetuation of course. [popcorn]
-
It really does take several years of full time experience to get a clue, you know.
It's called professional PRACTICE for a reason. =)
-
in working on older house i frequently have to hire engineers when i encounter
butchery previous unapproved work. it annoys them when i'll eyeball a situation and say i'm gonna just sister 2x8's onto both sides of the broken one jack it straight then through bolt it. they get all professional tell me they need to go to their office do some calculations and will get back to me with a report/recommendation in a couple days. i send em on their way with my 400 bucks and in 3 days to a week the report comes back . with a detailed drawing telling me how i need to sister in 2 new 2x8's and describing in detail the number of bolts and bolt pattern i need to use. it sometimes annoys them if they drop it off at the site and find i did the work 3 days earlier.
-
in working on older house i frequently have to hire engineers when i encounter butchery previous unapproved work. it annoys them when i'll eyeball a situation and say i'm gonna just sister 2x8's onto both sides of the broken one jack it straight then through bolt it. they get all professional tell me they need to go to their office do some calculations and will get back to me with a report/recommendation in a couple days. i send em on their way with my 400 bucks and in 3 days to a week the report comes back . with a detailed drawing telling me how i need to sister in 2 new 2x8's and describing in detail the number of bolts and bolt pattern i need to use. it sometimes annoys them if they drop it off at the site and find i did the work 3 days earlier.
You have thereby paid 400 bucks to cover your ass. Well done.
If it breaks and little children perish in a bloody pulpy mess, you get to point a finger. The engineer does not.
-
oh i don't mind its the only way to get the inspectors to sign off and it transfers liability to his insurance. i just chuckle at how serious they get. i've seen what they do. he goes home looks up some values on a chart adds in some values for live load from another chart and comes up with something that i knew in 30 seconds. we have engineers here that are certified by the local gov that can do inspections that the gov accepts, bypass the county guys. its fun
-
Oh, good, glad that's cleared up.
Wait wait wait. I thought it was perfectly alright for them to bring their data before the city. Now your telling me they aren't allowed to unless they pay a professional to do it. Gee, that's kinda at odds with your first statement.
You're deliberately trying to misunderstand. Knock it off.
Once again, the residents didn't get in trouble because they brought their info to the city. They got in trouble because it looked like they had someone in the background practicing civil engineering without adequate qualifications. It was entirely coincidental that giving their report to the city engineer is what their possible ringer to light and triggered the investigation. It could have just as easily been a private engineering firm, a surveyor, or a contractor who noticed the potential ethics violation and reported it to the licensing branch, if the residents had been presenting their report to any of them instead of to the city.
And strictly speaking, the residents haven't gotten in trouble and aren't going to get in trouble. The licensing department will try to find out who authored their report, and if it turns out that the residents really did produce it on their own then absolutely nothing will come of it. If it turns out there is an engineer lurking in the background, then HE is the one at risk here, not the residents. There's no scenario where the residents will be punished for producing or presenting their report.
Who was selling what in this article?
The entire fuss is based on the possibility that there's an unnamed, unqualified engineer in the background providing his services to the residents and the city.
Also, if the city has already employed an engineer, wouldn't shouldn't he be able to judge those estimates' value? Why do we hire engineers if they won't look at anything unless it's done by an engineer. What is their purpose?
Huh?
I'm sure the city engineer did evaluate the resident's numbers.
The engineering firm hired by the city could have evaluated the residents numbers, too, but that likely wasn't part of their original contract. They could certainly be re-hired to this, but I doubt there'd be much point. The engineers already estimated future traffic patterns the first time around and nothing about the project has changed since their first analysis to render the conclusions any different the second time around.
The purpose of engineers is to make design decisions about the roads we build. They routinely look at things that haven't already been looked at, that's exactly what engineering firm hired by the city did when they estimated the future traffic patterns and found that traffic lights weren't warranted.
-
The purpose of engineers is to make design decisions about the roads we build. They routinely look at things that haven't already been looked at, that's exactly what engineering firm hired by the city did when they estimated the future traffic patterns and found that traffic lights weren't warranted.
And the voters aren't allowed to disagree with those estimates unless they can find an engineer that will say that?
Cause that seems to be what's going on here. As you stated before:
The local residents had a chance to do this the right way, but they chose not to. The city engineer even told them how to do it, and was willing to work with them if they did. This definitely isn't a "respect mah authority" kind of situation.
Really sounds like you are saying that only engineers should be able to have any opinion of the engineering estimates. I.e. "doing it the right way".
-
And the voters aren't allowed to disagree with those estimates unless they can find an engineer that will say that?
Cause that seems to be what's going on here. As you stated before:
Really sounds like you are saying that only engineers should be able to have any opinion of the engineering estimates. I.e. "doing it the right way".
I think what you're really asking is why untrained and inexperienced amateurs shouldn't be given the same credence as people with the specialized training, experience, and a long proven track record at designing this stuff right. The answer is simple: public safety.
Can voters disagree with road designs without having an engineer on their side? Of course they can. They often do. Vocally.
Can average people have an opinion? Absolutely.
But are those amateur disagreements and opinions actionable when it comes to designing or redesigning public roads? No, probably not. We don't design roads and bridges by committee based on the often frivolous, uninformed, and fleeting desires of the public. We design them based on sound engineering practice.
-
and since the sound designs of the professionals demonstrably have worked so well who would dare question them?!? :facepalm: [barf]
-
As a rule, the professional designs do work pretty well.
You don't see a lot of this stuff in the US:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fobservers.france24.com%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fobservers_520_220%2Fimages%2Fc3T_0.jpg&hash=9a088e6683250750632842b824a27c65b63ed8a0)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinadaily.com.cn%2Fchina%2Fimages%2Fattachement%2Fjpg%2Fsite1%2F20090627%2F0013729c04950bb045d50c.jpg&hash=3b15a8e2d09e7bc067df7f536090a213ada92184)
Is the building you're sitting in right now holding up?
-
http://www.matscieng.sunysb.edu/disaster/
-
Back in 2007 I had a thread here ranting about the city tearing up our streets for over a year, costing us $$$$ and screwing up the look of the neighborhood.
Before the city started, our lawns met the street. There were no curbs or gutters. The city engineer had drawn up plans to have curbs and gutters, which the majority of residents didn't want.
I argued with him for the better part of an hour. His engineers had told me that simply repaving the street was an option. He said his guys were wrong, and that the street had to be dug up all the way down to the sewer mains, the sewer mains replaced, and a new street constructed.
On the curbs and gutters issue, he said they were necessary to drain away excess water that could get under the pavement and, in the winter when there's freeze and thaw cycles, cause the pavement to heave and crack. This, he said, would mean having to repave the street every five to seven years.
I told him that the street hadn't been repaved in 35 years and it looked good.
As with most projects where public comment is invited, this one was already settled before we were asked to comment. The curbs and gutters went in, causing the neighborhood to lose its park-like setting, and also reducing the width of the street, which meant parking on one side only.
I drove down the street last week. The pavement is heaved up all over the place, and there's big cracks in the asphalt. The street needs to be repaved. :facepalm:
-
never argue with a licensed pro..... they know best
-
If it turns out there is an engineer lurking in the background, then HE is the one at risk here, not the residents.
Why? Who gives a crap if "Uncle Bill" or "Cousin Joe" said, "If you want get this report right, then you need to do A, B, and C."
We're talking a farkin' Traffic Study, not how to build the Sears Tower.
It took less then 1 second for google to spit this out after I typed in "How to do a Traffic Study"
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/traffichandbook/
(note the helpful Data Sheets and Tally forms in the Appendixes)
So I spend a night or three reading this, then take the time to actually do the study and/or teach other folks in the neighborhood what to do, use my mad computer skillz to produce a slick looking report, and I've now violated guild law.
Andrew L. Ritter, executive director of the engineers licensing board, said it will take three or four months to investigate Lacy's allegation against Cox. 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.
"We don't take the side of the DOT," Ritter said. "What's best for the public is what we'll find."
[barf] [barf] [barf] [barf] [barf] [barf]
FARK THAT. I'm all for tar, feathers, pitchforks and let the revolution begin !!! [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15]
-
"Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose.'"
Scout, considering heart attack #2, am I sniffing a renewed birth of freedom on your part?
-
"Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose.'"
Scout, considering heart attack #2, am I sniffing a renewed birth of freedom on your part?
I've always had that sense of freedom, I've simply become more vocal about it.....
Could it be I that start/lead the revolution ??? =D :P :facepalm:
-
Interview with the HOA dude who has been speaking for the home owners:
http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2011/02/practicing-engineering-without-license.htmlhttp://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=post;topic=28181.75;num_replies=77
Interesting nuggets from the interview:
1. The simpering crapweasel of a butthurt bureaucritter referred the home owners' report for CRIMINAL charges.
2. The homeowners went to the Federal Highway Administration website and used the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as their guide.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which has been administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since 1971, is a compilation of national standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation's changing transportation needs and address new safety technologies, traffic control tools and traffic management techniques.
I have no doubt that any analytically-minded person of above-average intelligence could use such a guide to produce a reasonable report on such a simple problem.