Slashdot Mirror
N.C. Official Sics License Police On Computer Scientist For Too Good a Complaint
snsh writes "When a computer scientist in North Carolina petitioned the state for a new traffic signal in his neighborhood, a transportation official replied with a complaint about what 'appears to be engineering-level work' done by someone who is not licensed as a professional engineer." Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, and the one who filed a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, protested that in trying to have Computer Scientist David Cox investigated for his detailed complaint about a traffic intersection while not licensed as a professional engineer, "I'm not trying to hush him up."
Sorry Mr. Lacy, we require a license to complain about non-compliance to ignorant bureaucratic rules.
they should get a facebook "engineer" to look at it as they likely have a few hundred extras lying around...
I'm sorry, that's it.
America over.
The end.
How will they deal with people who have knowledge even though they're not licensed? Next thing you know, people might start noticing cracks in bridges!
Wow... really? Not trying to hush him up, but turning him in for doing 'too nice of a job' smells of asshat behavior.
"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Or would they prosecute you for practicing law without a license?
So does the N.C Board of Examiners need to issue David Cox an engineering certificate? There was a time in this country when all you needed to be an engineer was competence and mathematics. I would imagine Cox has both and Lacy neither.
They don't even content that he was claiming to be an engineer, just that the complaint was 'engineer like'. Gimme a bloody break! What they going to do next, sue the local drafting school students for doing their home work too well?!
Than citizen volunteers who would dare to do something for free.
"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."
Its so good to be a bureaucrat. You have a job for life! 3 to 4 months to investigate the production of a 8 page document.
Government knows best.
Besides, what kind of "scientist" goes off half-cocked - without credentials - to licensed professionals who have the proper approval?
Duh. Lots of engineers put-out PE-level work.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If you do ANYTHING that embarrasses a public official, they will retaliate. That's the kind of jackasses they are.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Since when is talking about technology the same as practicing without a license? Asshole in power is being an asshole.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Has this sort of argument been brought up before in other areas? Your complaint to the school board was well-formed, properly formatted and grammatically correct, yet you are not a board-certified English teacher. Perhaps even: You took your car to the mechanic and told him it was a quart low on oil, yet you are not a licensed mechanic.
Come on, is this is the best idea they could come up with to shut down the complaint?
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
What could possibly go wrong?
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Riiiight. Typical bureaucrat.
Regards;
First we have a story on 'apps'.
How spelling standards have obviously fallen in the USA. 'Six' is the preferred spelling.
What a bunch of dipshits. Traffic is just a routing / scheduling algorithm, if anything his background in Computer Science should *help* him present his case. God, what morons. He just did all that work for you, it's not like you won't review it anyway. Suck it up and do a review. It's your *job*.
This is not a viral sig. Copy it at your peril.
Cox never claimed to be an engineer - they didn't even accuse him of that - Sounds like the DOT just doesn't like it when someone questions their hired hand.
There is such a thing...?
I was under the impression everyone is allowed apply scientific knowledge to safely improve daily life?
So in essence, the complaint is that Cox appeared more competent than an ordinary citizen is allowed.
Sounds like there should be an ethics review of J. Kevin Lacy, to see if he actually should be the holder of an engineering license.
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."
Don't you have to accept money or be involved in some sort of contractual obligation to risk something like this? Nothing in the article indicates that Mr. Cox misled anyone. The only thing he did, from what I read, was put together a detailed OPINION of reasoning why these stop lights are needed. Granted, they hired an engineer and the engineer said it was not needed, but why is performing your own research a crime?
Warning: any comment with well thought-out, and clearly articulated arguments regarding why the government in this case is in the wrong will be logged and analyzed. The poster may be subject to fines or other penalties. Unlicensed posts critical of the government's response should be along the lines of "The gub'ment is bad, foo!"
This is some kind of absurd bureaucratic witch hunt.
Here's the form that you use to report on people suspected of practicing engineering without a license in N.C.
http://www.ncbels.org/forms/ComplaintForm.pdf
What say you that we flood them with complaints about ineptitude?
Seriously, they're investigating the guy because the report was "too good"? Since when do you need a license to be smart? It's no wonder the US is losing ground in the tech and scientific sector.
I think the Internet needs to tell the people in charge exactly how ridiculous that is. Demand an apology at the very least, if not an investigation into the people who are making these accusations.
Here's a link to get you started:
http://www.ncdot.org/
The right response to this is to make a complaint against Kevin Lacy to the same board for unprofessional conduct.
I simply do not believe the second half. There was clearly no attempt to mislead or misrepresent. If the DOT read the paper and failed to find errors, either that's a reflection on their own professional competence or they were not misled in any way. This is purely an attempt to stop citizen activism from members of a group - civil engineers - that particularly dislike any challenge from anyone outside their profession,
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Kevin Lacy should be investigated for practicing assholery without a license, because he appears to be doing professional-level work in that field.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Let me see if I got this right. The state official is concerned because a non-licensed person produced a work product that is of the quality level of a professionally licensed engineer. I was under the impression that the point of such licensing was to ensure that inferior work product was not passed off as quality engineering, yet this government official is complaining because an unlicensed person was able to produce work that looks as good as that produced by a lcensed engineer.
What is revealed is that the point of licensing in this case is to prevent people from competing with those who have been duly selected by the state. Of course, that is really the point of most government regulations, to protect certain government favored groups or businesses from competition.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Most people in the public do not know the laws surrounding Engineering, such as that in the US you must be a licensed Civil or Mechanical PE to sign and approve engineering blueprints. This makes sense because while, yes, licensed engineers do not have a monopoly on engineering knowledge, they have over a number of years proved that they have it.
The argument here is that even though they did not claim to be engineers in this report, by it's format and quality it could be implied that it was written by an engineer, which does the public no good. Especially since the original report from the engineering firm was presumably written by a civil PE specializing in transportation, not, you know, a computer scientist with no experience in this field.
Hopefully they never let people create websites unless they're licensed professionals...
I've gotten this while in college when I wrote a paper that "wasn't undergraduate material" the English "professor" turned me in for plagiarizing because my paper was apparently too good for her standards.
Cox's association should be allowed to generate whatever content they want to back their reasoning; they never claimed to be engineers. If the "DOT and public were misled by the 'engineer-quality' work" then (public aside) I think the DOT needs some smarter people working there.
Need a very overdue, very serious attitude correction. We are not subjects to be commanded. We are citizens, which means we employ them, and they ought to obey us, not the other way around. They perform their duties at our sufferance.
Folks, we are long past the time for a reboot of our country. Those who like to play Masters of the Universe with our lives seem to think they can do so with impunity forever, to whatever extreme. But we are not Chinese or Indians or Russians. We are Americans, and freedom is our creed. And we're very heavily armed. Let's remind them and all others around the world why we deserve to be free. Let the Eastern seaboard be lit with the fires from their mansions.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Never submit a report of better quality than a bureaucrat can produce or they take serious offense to it.
Rule #2 any math beyond 2+2=4 is beyond the comprehension of most people.
Reminds me of when the locals did a traffic study to dead end some streets, some how the traffic going through these side streets was greater than the traffic on the 2 streets it connected. Turns out they had a guy sitting on the sensor with a hammer to drive up the numbers.
...which is, of course, the best kind of correct. He is now a Level 10 Bureaucrat.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Wouldn't it be funny if the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors just went ahead and certified the guy since his work is so good?
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
And the award for best face palm inducing quote goes to:
I'm a software developer, if I use wireshark to discover that my ISP is up to something fishy, will I be sued for practicing network engineering without a license? If I start counting the number of pedestrians crossing a busy street in order to advocate for a crosswalk, will I be sued for for practicing civil engineering without a license?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Lol, this is great
You CAN practice engineering without a license, in fact, it's fine, you just can't sign the document " P.E. " (Professional Engineer) most engineers aren't licensed, because it is primarily used by civil engineers who are designing buildings, bridges, ect. The whole point of a P.E. is enabling you to sign off on documents, official documents that represent build plans for some government facility, or something that legally needs to have a responsible engineer. While it's good to go through the trouble of getting one (Bill Nye has his license) it only qualifies you to sign your work as John Hancock Professional Engineer, or claim to list your services as engineering services in terms of running a business.
Some companies just hire one P.E. to claim their work as engineering, cause they just need one to sign off on everything.
If it's something that's not going to put people's lives in danger if it's misdesigned (i.e. a robot, UAV, toy, printer) normally you don't even need a P.E. to do the work. P.E's are just something that at the end of the day are a legal check to sell engineering work.
and in some states I believe it's enough to just have a degree in engineering to consider yourself a professional engineer (though I know in most you must take a test to attain a license )
Here's a link to the P.E licensing board's website
http://www.nspe.org/Licensure/index.html
...practicing engineering without a license.
I'm an engineer... and I don't have a license!!! GASP! Someone better haul me off to jail. Oh, wait, I don't need a goddamn license to perform engineering work. Some jobs/companies require a PE, but it is not necessary for performing engineering work in general.
Lacy said his complaint "was not an accusation" against Cox.
Lacy says he filed the complaint because the report "appears to be engineering-level work" by someone who is not licensed as a professional engineer.
Hey, moron, you are accusing him of performing engineering level work by someone who is not licensed as a PE!!!
"When you start applying the principles ...snip... and making recommendations," that's technical work a licensed engineer would do, Lacy said.
Yes, a PE could do that work, but it is not a requirement if you are only doing a report for your review.
Andrew L. Ritter, executive director of the engineers licensing board,..said there is a potential for violation if DOT and the public were misled by "engineering-quality work"
So, if it was sloppier, it would be OK? And what the hell is there to prevent your PEs from reviewing his work to see if it is acceptable or not???
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.
I have to laugh to keep from crying...
The government shouldn't allowed to regulate who is and is not an Engineer. If that were the case, there would never be any innovation.
So what this looks like to me is that in your country, it's a crime to be smart and work hard, on your own time, to try improving your community.
I was in the program to earn a split engineering/computer science degree. However, two years in, I shifted to focus on the computer science and earned my degree in that. So despite not earning an engineering degree (I'm considering going back someday) I've been told the presentation of my work is very friendly to engineers. More than once, I've had engineers come to me and say "You must be an engineer" after they view my documentation, to which I respond and tell them my background.
But now I realize that someone could report me for doing 'engineering level work' without a license? I could be reported and investigated? Unreal...
"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.... 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."
Well, 8% of North Carolina folk don't believe that Hawaii is a state, anyway. Do you really think they might *read* the Constitution, if you sent them a copy?
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Next thing you know, I won't be allowed to give my neighbor a band-aid because that would be practicing medicine without a licence.
If he is found guilty of something illegal, then so is every single engineering student. After all, they're "practicing", and certainly aren't licensed.
All he did was make a suggestion. The one who made the complaint is more guilty of a crime than the non-licensed engineer.
What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, let's give "the Government" LESS power instead. That way, instead of him being able to fight back and likely eventually get the traffic signals he is asking for like he's doing now, there will be no tax revenue for traffic signals to begin with. That way, instead of his chances being pretty good if he's willing to deal with the nuisance of this Lacy guy, they will be mathematically zero.
Yup, that's the answer.
Engineers only need to be licensed to do govt work. It allows them to stamp documents with official seals and is common practice for civil engineers. However, outside of civil engineering and other jobs heavily involving govt approval it is common practice to not be licensed. For computer science its almost unheard of.
Is Lacy trying to convince everyone that his own PE cert is worthless? Or just that any technical degree or equivalent experience is as good or better?
From here: Kevin Lacy jklacy@dot.state.nc.us (919) 733-3915
If someone mentions the fountainhead I will hunt you down...
From TFA: 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.
Almost as good as telling his mother on him. Especially when it was obviously not intentional misrepresentation.
I can assure you that I do Engineer-level work on a daily basis without being a licensed Engineer. In fact, you have to do such work for several years as a requirement to get that license. Some people just need something to complain about.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
Whyt he fuck does the new system, in your "Comments" section for your account, take you to the parent conversation when you click on it instead of your fucking post? It's very stupid, is this some new "default" functionality I need to turn off? Seriously, why would I want to dig through a conversation tree looking for _my_ post, instead of being taken right to it?
I think the board should investigate it as it is a legitimate complaint. If the board is made up of the types of people I've known to be on those boards, they will find that David Cox was not doing any engineering work that required a license from their board. They might then investigate the other side of the issue and find that
Kevin Lacy broke their rules and should be given a stern warning that his actions could have resulted in him being delisted.
Cox, the Computer Scientist, should sue Lacy for harming his reputation and making unfounded allegations.
His name is actually James K Lacy, I looked it up on the Department of Transportation registry.
The link below has emails for some of the main officials in the Department of Transportation for North Carolina.
Do something about the stupidity.
https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/dot/directory/authenticated/UnitPage.aspx?id=7680
I guess the DOT person doesn't visit the Internet forums much. Even on Slashdot, you'll get armchair physicists spouting all sorts of complex and encouraging numerical proofs and you might even believe some of it. Until a mathematician pipes up and corrects them. Or not. I mean, that piece of paper (Professional Engineer) says you took a test and others certify you kinda sorta know what you're doing. There are plenty of people who know what they are doing without that paper. In fact EEs aren't even required to have a PE license. At least, they weren't in 1993. :-)
first, microsoft with its funny defense ridden with dramatic-pause generating words, and then this ...
.... "
"..... I may have attempted to launch an inquiry into this person because he had complained, but i am not trying to hush him up at all. These are not the complaints you looking for. Really. Believe me. Full stop. period, and, a number of other things. In addition, this person seems to be into fetish sex. Which is much more horrible than what im doing. over and out
Read radical news here
Wait till they find out most of the work was done by his 11-yo son...
This guy isn't being fined or sued for his comments. Someone just said he wasn't qualified to make the statements he made.
A good analogy would be if I get out of my car and a random passerby complains that it isn't properly parked and I respond by saying "Are you a traffic cop or a driving instructor? If not, shut up, it isn't any of your business." Yes, that would be kind of rude of me, especially if the passerby was merely trying to be helpful, but would it really be newsworthy?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Unless the submitted materials actually made a claim of engineering authority, i.e. a stamped as being approved by a Professional Engineer (PE), then there is nothing wrong. In fact much engineering work is done by junior engineers, under the watchful eye of a PE, and then stamped by that PE as being approved. It is a requirement that you practice under a PE for a number of years to get your PE certification. Nothing is wrong with doing the analysis, only if it is presented fraudulently as an engineering work.
Intelligent analysis that puts a PE to shame should be welcomed. And unless it is being submitted as an engineering document, then sorry there is no foul.
Intimidation pure and simple.
Clearly, North Carolina has realized that the formula for South Carolina's recent media "success" is to do idiotic things and get the media to report on them.
The guy's public e-mail address is: jklacy@dot.state.nc.us. This is a matter of public record. NCDOT does receive federal funding so I think it's only fair, to let the guy know how you feel.
Lets also cancel laws of physics drafted by patent clerks.
Fight Spammers!
is jklacy@dot.state.nc.us.
Post AC since my company does a fair bit of work for the NCDOT.
As an aside, this sort of arrogant stupidity is not uncommon among the government employees I deal with daily.
We had a median placed in a nearby intersection that stopped any left turns at the intersection. It was done to promote local traffic calming (to make room for the bicycles.) Now one should recognize that this means that people will have to make their left turns somewhere else, most likely the nearby main street lighted intersection. It has a left turn lane but no left turn signal. I asked about that, talked to the fellow at city hall who recognized the logic that you cannot just eliminate left turns only move them to somewhere else but the problem of putting a left turn signal might take about 3 to 5 years to study, prove the need and engineer the solution. You'd think we were trying to put someone on Mars and all we need is a left turn light.
So if his quality of work is that of an engineer are they going to make him an engineer? So if people do too good of a job, (ie.do their homework) and it is of the quality of an engineer, (which isn't that hard with the internet) somehow they are at fault of some crime? I have work as a surveyor for ten years and work with Civil Engineer doing traffic studies, so I have a good idea what it would take to put together good qualified information without being a licensed engineer. There is no crime in doing a good job unless you ARE claiming to be something that you aren't!
My favorite quote from the article "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."
So, if Cox is found guilty, the punishment will be a letter!
Whew, good thing they didn't threaten to bring out the soft pillows! (Monty Python reference there)
J. Kevin Lacy, P.E. Traffic Safety Systems Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation 1561 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699–1561 Phone: 919–733–5418 Fax: 919–733–2261 E-mail: jklacy@dot.state.nc.us
My first amendment trumps your engineering license law: What part of, "Congress shall make no law. . .abridging. . .the right of the people. . .to petition the government for a redress of grievances." doesn't this guy understand?
You don't need a license, and the government cannot require a license, for a person to send in a letter petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. End of story. The government is free to ignore the petition, if engineers deem it to be technically flawed (or even if the engineers agree *grin*), but no law may be used to abridge the right of the people to petition the government which is exactly what this guy did.
Why is it so many government employees seem to lack a basic understanding of the Constitution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobsworth
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death my right to sue you for saying it.
He should contact a state legislator to assist him in launching an investigation into the NC DOT, bring this issue to the awareness of the Governor's staff, and submit a shitload of FOIA requests for the relevant departmental expense accounts of all the assholes involved in this stupidity.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Government employees really need to be reminded that as a condition of being employed by the state that they are held to a higher standard and can be tossed to the wolves for stuff like this, namely:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 241
241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 242
242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Imagine that...'appears to be engineering-level work'...from a computer scientist no less. What is this world coming to?
Back when I was a computer science student, our department was (still is) under the school of engineering. We had to take a lot of engineering and math courses that were not directly related to computer science. And when we wrote presentations, they also "appeared to be engineering-level work."
It's not a crime to make a professional quality presentation with solid data and analysis to back up your request/complaint/whatever.
This douchebag should lose HIS professional license for abusing his office.
I believe those without PE licenses can "practice engineering" and provide "engineering drawings." If it is to be submitted as part of formals plans for design, construction, bids, etc. then it would need to be stamped (approved) by a licensed PE. I skimmed through the article, it seems they did a detailed study to better present their case for a traffic signal. State engineers can use this report to supplement their own studies. Maybe what's happening is there has been years of planning and designing... and then some guy comes in suggesting another ECO! Geez, I can imagine those guvmint guys are really thinking to stop David Cox so they can get started on construction!
Reminds me the picture showing Clint Eastwood with a magnum and with quote added, "Go ahead, make one more change."
mfwright@batnet.com
you're too smart - there's a penalty for that you know. We don't like your kind.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Reading a companion article sheds a little more light on this (at least for me):
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/wake-gop-raps-perdue-and-dot-for-stifling-free-speech
As a professional engineer Mr. Lacy advised the neighborhood to hire another professional engineer to prepare the report. I thought that only lawyers generated business for each other in this manner...
This stinks to high heaven and Mr. Lacy should lose his job over this heavy-handed response.
Someone, or some group, pool their native inborn intelligence and produce a piece of work better than the certified engineers, eh?
First, that doesn't speak well for the engineering group that produced the first report. It seems to me that they need to have their certification reviewed. However, we know that won't happen.
Second, this simply demonstrates that there is no place in this world for the truly intelligent. The only way you can peacefully get by from one day to the next is to fall to the level of the lowest common denominator. Get yourself some Billy-Bob teeth, say "Hy-uck" a lot and don't let anyone know you might be smarter than they are. The mob will pull you down and tear you apart.
FTFA, "...applying judgments from engineering documents and national standards, and making recommendations," that's technical work a licensed engineer would do, Lacy said."
It should be pointed out that not all engineers are licensed (ie. software engineers) and not all technical work has to be done by a licensed engineer. Lacy's comments are a total smoke screen. Being a licensed engineer is not a prerequisite, the ability to think logically is, as Mr. Cox has demonstrated.
Here is his email: jklacy@dot.state.nc.us
As a practising P.E., in my professional opinion, Kevin Lacy is a douchebag of the greatest proportion.
For every /. there's an xkcd:
http://xkcd.com/277/
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
In fact, a few years ago in Arizona, they had a problem designing the interchange between the US 60 and Loop 101. A Motorola programmer submitted a suggestion to Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) that was brilliant... ADOT gave him a plaque and named him an honorary traffic engineer.... They didn't use his design to plan the new interchange, but used his ideas to base their analysis and design on.
I don't think that he's necessarily trying to shut down this complaint. What he IS trying to do is make sure that the board doesn't look at this document and treat it like an official engineering document -- signed off by a professional engineer. The way in which it is written/presented has a "professional engineering" feel -- but it isn't a professional document and so it shouldn't have the same "sway" a professional document would.
If I read a report written by a doctor on medical research -- it's probably trustworthy. If I read a report written by Joe Nurse that "looks" like a professional medical report -- I might make a mistake and be misled.
What he wants is for them to charge him! They would lose and look like the utter buffoons that they are over it!
Yeah, keep pushing for more government and bureaucracy, Progressives. You guys must love this shit. What's that? You advocate government that actually works well and helps people. Oh. What physical constants of the Universe will we need to change to get that?
So the concern is that if a correspondence looks "professional" enough, an official might act on an unsolicited piece of analysis without consulting anyone else? Sounds like the problem is with the official, not the writer of the analysis.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I am a licensed Professional Engineer. I would hope to think that our state's licensing board (Idaho) would throw such a review of David Cox in the trash, particularly since they have no jurisdiction over him. However, I can see such a thing taking a long time, since most such boards only meet 2 or 3 times per year.
I hate to see some [insert appropriate adjective here] bureaucrat loose on society. I would heartily recommend that David Cox and his neighbors petition the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (http://www.ncbels.org/) for a review of Mr. Kevin "Asshat" Lacy's actions. His license should be held in consideration. He (Kevin) could (and should) get much more than "a letter telling him not to do it again."
... just send the letter, Mr. Ritter, without investigating. It's not as if such a letter is going to matter anyway - anyone smart enough to write a report triggering such a claim is plenty smart enough to e.g. be part of an "association" again the next time he wants to write an excellently supported public grievance, and make sure someone else in the association, not yet "warned", submits the next report.
Or does Mr. Ritter believe they don't they teach anything in Passive Resistance 101 anymore?
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
Bridges are designed so failure causes excessive sagging. So it be visible to users of the bridge.
Because a bridge which fails in a progressive way is safer than one which snaps. Partly because of engineering reasons, but also because that way, the odds of something odd occurring being noticed are higher.
Now lets wait and see if he raises a complaint against me for practicing my Rights :)
You can find this on the site http://www.ncbels.org/rulesandlaws.html . Reading this, I believe it is only illegal, if you claim to be an engineer is some way. You have to offer engineering services or directly claim to be an engineer for this law to apply.
89C23. Unlawful to practice engineering or land surveying without licensure; unlawful use of title or terms; penalties; Attorney General to be legal adviser.
Any person who shall practice, or offer to practice, engineering or land surveying in this State without first being licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, or any person, firm, partnership, organization, association, corporation, or other entity using or employing the words "engineer" or "engineering" or "professional engineer" or "professional engineering" or "land surveyor" or "land surveying," or any modification or derivative of those words in its name or form of business or activity except as licensed under this Chapter or in pursuit of activities exempted by this Chapter, or any person presenting or attempting to use the certificate of licensure or the seal of another, or any person who shall give any false or forged evidence of any kind to the Board or to any member of the Board in obtaining or attempting to obtain a certificate of licensure, or any person who shall falsely impersonate any other licensee of like or different name, or any person who shall attempt to use an expired or revoked or nonexistent certificate of licensure, or who shall practice or offer to practice when not qualified, or any person who falsely claims that the person is registered under this Chapter, or any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Chapter, in addition to injunctive procedures set out hereinbefore, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. In no event shall there be representation of or holding out to the public of any engineering expertise by unlicensed persons. It shall be the duty of all duly constituted officers of the State and all political subdivisions of the State to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and to prosecute any persons violating them.
The Attorney General of the State or an assistant shall act as legal adviser to the Board and render any legal assistance necessary to carry out the provisions of this Chapter. The Board may employ counsel and necessary assistance to aid in the enforcement of this Chapter, and the compensation and expenses for the assistance shall be paid from funds of the Board. (1921, c. 1, s. 12; C.S., s. 6055(n); 1951, c. 1084, s. 1; 1975, c. 681, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 612; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1998118, s. 21.)
Freakin' police state abuse.
It isn't enough that the cops are going into innocent people's homes, abusing them, macing them, tasering them, shooting them, killing them, etc. Now you can't even complain. Worst of all is that the cops do the investigation of police brutality and in every recent case in our state they find the cops did no wrong doing. Of course. Despite the video, eye witnesses, deaths, etc. Don't call the cops. They'll shoot you.
I do understand it.
Disclaimer: I am currently employed by a Government entity. I worked in the privet sector for 22 year prior to that.
I have not, nor have I ever seen any government official 'retaliate'. And yes, I would call them on it.
Yes, it was probably a dick move.
However, I have seen many times where educated, smart peple try to force what are evffectivly engineered decsion down a cities throat without actually have engineering experience. They fail to take into account many extremely important details, and they speak well enough that the general public thinks they are right. Instead of learnign WHY something is being done the way it is, they just dig their heals in and make absurd arguments. And by absurd I mean provably wrong, But they don't look at the numbers, or try to understand the impact on the myriad of things under the street.
It's sad. Now I am not saying they should have a say, but they need to be rational about it.
Now, if the Computer scientist was trying to push the document and an engineered solution, then yes, he is in the wrong.
You do not want non licensed Engineers doing engineering work. Bad things will come of it.
I wish there was a PE equivalent for Computer programming in my state. well, in all states, really.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From now on all petitions to the government must have "INAE" on every page to avoid misleading
No, it's a crime to practice Engineering without a license. As a licensed Engineer, I support the complaint. There is nothing more dangerous than a half-trained or incompetent person that is practicing engineering. Obtaining a license requires, at a minimum, passing 2 exams (one on general engineering, one on the specific subset you are doing) and generally having many years (between 6 and 10) of experience and/or education. Most states count at most 5 years of education towards the requirements, meaning you *must* have experience before you are licensed. Some few states - Oregon, Washington, California & Alaska at least - allow you to obtain a license without the benefit of education, if you can pass the same exams graduates do and obtain an equivalent or greater amount of experience (varying per state; in WA, 8 years of experience, in OR 12, in AK 16, in CA 6). Said experience *must* be acquired under the direct supervision of a license engineer.
-If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/sites/drupalblogs.newsobserver.com/files/docs/dcoxAnalysis%20of%20Traffic%20Signal%20Warrants%20for%20Selected%20Intersections%20of%20Falls%20of%20Neuse%20Road.pdf
I moved to the south four years ago. Sometimes, I think the motto should be "The South: Afraid of the Internet for over 200 years".
FLR
Two excepts from the National Society of Professional Engineers code of Ethics ( http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html ), which practicing engineers are bound by.
"6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods. "
"7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action. "
In short, if this person is found to be making the complaint in bad faith, he is guilty of a significant ethics violation.
Wish I had points for you. The government's always an easy target, and this article is an opener for folks to vent their frustrations.
It is interesting to note that some of the noise about this is being driven by folks who are using this as a way to make political hay out of embarrassing the state government.
In any case, it's nice to see some informed thought along with the knee-jerk responses to the article.
My bet is that they get their traffic light.
So when I graduate in May with BS in computer science and a minor in software engineering will I be forced to get some license to do any actual work?
I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if some states have laws so vague that any profession that has the word “engineer” in it could be forced to get an engineering license.
Is something like this even enforceable? This is the very first I’ve ever heard of it, I would assume it’s the same for many other upcoming graduates even those in more traditional engineering fields.
Lacy actually has a valid point here. Without having someone familiar with the codes/regulations review the work there can easily be critical flaws in the analysis. The Board shouldn't have to defend against every crackpot that that can put together a slick looking report.
If Cox wants to challenge his state's codes and standards, that's another matter entirely and this is completely the wrong way to go about it.
That said, the system is incedibly easy to game in favor of corporate or political interests through backroom deals or simply by trying one firm after another until you find one with the "right" answer. A lot more of the background of this situation is needed to make any judgment.
Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, and the one who filed a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, protested that in trying to have Computer Scientist David Cox investigated for his detailed complaint about a traffic intersection while not licensed as a professional engineer, "I'm not trying to hush him up."
It does my head in.
Reviewing North Carolina Law 89C23 which tells you that you aren't supposed to "practice" engineering without a license, along with 89C3 which gives the definitions of the terms used like "practice" you will find that a person has to make the claim to be a "professional engineer" {see section (6)a of 89C3} for their activities to be construed to be the "practice of engineering".
Laws are written this way to point out that while most anyone can technically fill a job title of "engineer" if they have the smarts at your local company making widgets, you are not allowed to provide "engineering services" to the public. What that usually means is that you are not allowed to design things that affect public safety. You are however fully within the law to work as an engineer for IBM, Caterpillar, Boeing, etc. Usually even if a company has engineering services, few engineers are actually licensed, they just work under the direct supervision of the license engineer who takes ultimate responsibility for the design.
With this in mind, unless David N. Cox made the claim that he was a licensed engineer or was providing engineering services, he and others like him are within the letter and spirit of the law. I read nowhere in the article that he made the claim he was an engineer, nor sealed/stamped the report/calculation/designs he provided as part of his petition. Unless he made the claims or sealed/stamped the articles associated with his petition and the article simply failed to state that, I believe Mr. Cox is probably innocent of the allegations made against him.
The chapter of the North Carolina Law relevant to this is found at this web location. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0089C
The NC engineering board will tell, but I am going to guess that they will rule in favor or Mr. Cox.
Don't you dare tell the emperor that he's stark raving naked, or else you'll get your head chopped off.
The guarantee that they have knowledge would be found in the details of the report. If the report is well designed, it will have the assumptions that went into the conclusions. Those could be verified by an independent source.
In this instance it sounds like the citizen activist group is challenging the assumptions used by the engineering firm that did the original work. Unless the N.C DOT is brain dead, they won't use the citizen activist report as part of the design documents for the proposed project without doing their own additional research. They need to see if the assumptions of the citizen activist report are reasonable and investigate the assumptions for accuracy. There is always a chance that the engineering firm made mistakes, perhaps through faulty data.
It would be interesting figuring out WHAT a PE would be liable for in this case. Could they be held accountable for holding up a flawed project if their analysis is more accurate than the engineering firm?
Excellent!
One way to look at his is that the Chief Traffic Engineer for the NC DOT just endorsed that a CS == (CivEng + PE certification).
Professional organizations are ponzi schemes to keep the power in the hands of the few and limit competition. Its great if people want to demonstrate a high level of competence by becoming a "professional engineer" but its unamerica to prevent people from performing work without out certification. Essentially it makes people have to pay (through annual license fees and college "educations") just to be able to work....
I've heard that it's illegal to use the word "Engineer" in your job title unless you've somehow been accredited as an engineer. Presumably by obtaining a bachelor's degree and maybe passing some board exam? I have no idea, honestly. I did some googling once and turned up some state specific legislation (Texas, Professional Engineers Act? Something like that) but no federal law that I could find.
Anyone know the real story on the use of the term? I know some guys who claim to be "Systems Engineers" that are most definitely not legitimate engineers and it bugs me to no end.
Licensed people are always ready to say "bad things will happen when someone unlicensed does something." Thats because they domt want them infringing on their business! Plenty of bad things happen from professional engineers. Becoming licensed doesnt change what you know they just charge you a fee to be able to use your knowledge. Its completely unamerican. Let the market decide who is good and who is bad. Trust me, people wll figure it out quick.
There could always be a chance that the computer scientist happens to be an expert in computer traffic simulation and, using data from various public sources, ran his own analysis.
I have a degree in City and Regional Planning and know about a lot of the data that goes into transportation planning. I've also done some traffic modeling using simulation software, so I know results can vary a lot depending upon your assumptions. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do think of myself as a well informed citizen.
I have found, as an informed citizen activist, that some groups assume that you don't know as much as they do. A few 'experts' have even claimed that the studies are 'too complex for you to understand' when asked for details in public sessions.
It would be very tempting to use the Freedom of Information Act to get the raw data used for various transportation projects and see if the results can be duplicated. I suspect that some engineering firms will claim that it is proprietary information and refuse to release it. Of course if it is for a public project, one funded by public money, it should be public information.
As with any red state, being an unlicensed smart person is illegal in North Carolina. If you're smart enough to have an well researched opinion on this subject, you need a license in order to express it.
Support SETI@home
You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
no... wait, that's not the one...
No good deed goes unpunished.
that's the one.
The Admin and the Engineer
The board should be intelligent enough to realize that the work was not done by a professional. All the DOT has to do is point out that it is NOT the professionally recognized product of a licensed traffic engineer. A disclaimer would have helped though.
Of course, the DOT may have to respond to the issues brought up by the report, which may be valid. I could see the board requesting additional information from the activist group AND the DOT and having an independent group review it. That investigation might show that there were mistakes made in the original analysis.
If those mistakes were caused by faulty data provided by the DOT, then people in the DOT may find themselves in hot water.
While there is always a chance that the activist group is also using faulty data, I would expect them to build as strong a case as possible using unimpeachable sources that are hard to take down. If I were in their position, I'd make it bullet proof and perhaps even use PEs for the analysis. The PEs might not want to let their names be know, for fear of being blacklisted.
Actually, he was right in reporting it.
The fact is, it was a report that appeared at first glance to be the work of a professional engineer. Those types of technical work (especially those involving civil, mechanical, electrical, structural, and YES transportation) are restricted to those who practice engineering, or who work under the supervision of a professional engineer. Fundamentally, the first rule of the engineer is to Protect the Public Safety. What's the first rule of an amateur?
Cox did the right thing by not claiming to be an engineer, or anything like that. That's why the complaint isn't against him, and it isn't an accusation. But Lacy did the right thing too, by recognizing that the quality and depth of the work might be MISTAKEN for engineering work, work that has certain legal issues, protections, and responsibilities. If anyone had acted upon that report, they could have found themselves in a world of trouble.
In this case, it's probably a minor issue. But in the past, work done by well meaning, but unlicensed, amateurs has killed people. One of the reasons why is that the public at large generally has no idea of the responsibility and legal issues surrounding being an engineer. The rule, and the ethics that we follow, is that when we see work that could be mistaken for engineering work it gets reported. And yes, even engineers get it wrong sometimes, but we are held to higher standards than amateurs, we know it, and we plan accordingly to protect the public first.
At the end of the day, how do you know that the recommendations Cox's group, if implemented, wouldn't have hurt or killed people? Did they do a site soil analysis? Did they check pavement depth? What about ice and snow? Stopping distances and speed limits? Fatigues on pavement due to new starts and stops? Truck and Semi clearances? I don't know if Cox did, but I know that transportation and traffic engineers do those types of due diligence studies, because they are legally responsible too.
At the end of the day, it's been reported as amateur work. NOW, the DOT is allowed to take a look at it, and address the complaint that Cox had, without fear that recommendations in the report will accidentally be put into practice by someone without getting advice from a professional engineer. This is how the system works, because when the system didn't exist a lot of people died.
~Sticky
Cox assembled a very good-looking report that contradicted the findings of Kevin Lacy's contractors. No doubt it helped him rally more people into his association. But there's a big difference between sounding smart and being smart. Lacy is justifiably irritated that a bunch of amateurs assembled a professional-sounding document that tells him that his department is wrong. Now he has to pay someone AGAIN to go debunk the association's research.
I know we don't like big government keeping the little guy down and/or keeping the little guy dumb, but I think Lacy's concern is justified. What he's DOING about it doesnt' seem appropriate, but the concern is perfectly reasonable. He don't want a slick sales presentation to blind people to facts. Or at least blind them to well-reasoned, city-funded supposition.
I have a little experience with CalTrans with this type of compliant. It is all about who is filling the "Official" request for change that gets added to the log of shit for the DOT to get money to fix. Before the DOT can have the guys in trucks show up to do anything, they have to have approval so they can pay for materials and labor and the head engineer's office that has to take responsibility for the repair. It seems overkill but it is the only to manage a project backlog of 100,000 items.
In my case I saw that a protected turn light and a pedestrian walk signal would give cars the right of way to run over anyone in the crosswalk that was crossing when indicated. I went to the DOT office and filed a compliant, but since I did not work for the city's or county's public works office, I didn't have the authority to file an official complaint. So I went to the city's public works office and they went and looked at it and saw that it did not meet code and filed a compliant on behalf of the city. The guy in the article probably skipped this step therefore making the DOT guy look like an Asshat.
"Get them before they get....
Sorry about the bad English in the title but I am not a licensed English Professional.
David Cox is probably smarter than a whole lot of the PEs out there so maybe they should just give him his license since he proved himself. As a degreed engineer who provides engineering services to a company that has a PE or two and who has not applied for a PE License but has looked at the requirements, the previous reply is spot on that this guy's analysis is just that and since he didn't try to pass it off as engineering work Mr. Lacey's complaint is hogwash.
As a PE Mr. Lacey should lose his license for unethical behavior. He is just an embarassed jerk. Since most scientist are not PE's, the jerk, Mr. Lacey, should not use any of the data they develop since it is engineering like but not done by a PE. Therefore he would have nothing to work with and would die in poverty. Mr. Lacey is just a bueracartic lump of male bovine excrement. I wonder if Mr. Lacey does any work that is normally done by a licensed person? Does he prescribe medicene (asprin, etc.) even though he is no a licensed MD? Does he work on the electrical in his house though he is not a licensed Electrician?
The sad thing is that the asshat probably just had a knee-jerk protectionist reaction. We can't have people going around doing stuff without hiring a professional from our brotherhood of expensive asshats...
Is NC one of those states where homeowners cannot do their own electrical wiring or plumbing either? Where it is not simply a requirement to meet code or pass inspections, but also to be gouged by a licensed worker no matter how mundane the task?
This should ensure that the report submitted appears amateurish enough not to incur legal action. The side-effect would be that the report would be simple enough for Kevin Lacy to understand it.
sic is also latin for quoting something, even though it's messed up
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sic
for instance: "NC Official [sic] 6 License Police...."
of course, thanks to l33tspeak, illiteracy, etc., these things are too numerous to flag for the most part except in scholarly works.
-I'm just sayin'
Did you know you can pretty much just buy books on any subject?
As long as he is not purporting to be a professional engineer in the offering of the services, he may perform engineering. He may not seal the work, or offer to perform professional services, but he may perform research and write reports on technical topics.
Either way, there is nothing in the article that states Cox was suggesting he was a PE. Lacey needs a public reprimand as a disgrace to the engineering profession. It's that kind of engineer that gives us all a bad name. The goal of engineering is progress and safety, not bureaucratic parochialism.
If there are legitimate concerns, he should have the data to back up his studies. Have him open the calcs for the project and see if their contractor really did miss that stuff. It happens - engineers are human, too. Is he so obsessed with being right that he's willing to risk lives to make a point? If I make a mistake, I sure as hell want someone to point it out so that I can fix it before concrete goes into the ground. Even if you discount the public safety aspect, it's cheaper to build something right the first time than to have to build it twice.
An interesting aside is that PE boards can generally only tell him not to do it again, and refer the case to the AG for prosecution (which the AG usually ignores as not being interesting enough to prosecute) . My understanding (I'm a NC PE, as well as four other states, but do 99% of my services in Virginia) is that the PE board can only discipline and fine members (i.e. PEs), not the general public.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Tuttle, Heating Engineer at Your Service That was the first thing I thought of when I heard about this.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
Sure, there is Resarch Triangle Park, Duke, UNC Chapel
Hill, and NC State, and there are doubtless some smart people
in North Carolina outside of the above.
But ( and I live in NC ) the prevalent attitude in North Carolina is one
of ignorance and a "don't confuse me with facts" mindset. The folks who run the
government here like it that way, because that's what they have always known.
The DOT guy who criticized the report for being excessively competent probably feels
threatened by the presence of a person who is probably smarter than he is. And
that is the sort of person you will be surrounded by more often than not if you find
yourself ( God forbid ) living in North Carolina.
North Carolina has more idiots per square mile than anywhere else I've ever lived, and
I have lived all over the US. If you aren't stupid, and you are considering moving to NC,
I caution you to think long and hard about the quality of life you will have as a result.
It's really quite innovative, actually. The guy seems to be claiming that "engineering" is a thing you do, like driving, and that you can't do it without a license. By this logic, there would be no licensed engineers, only people with their "engineering" license, presumably the only ones allowed to operate an engineerotron without someone over 21 in the passenger seat.
As delightful as this is, it is worrying that this Ritter clown is saying there might be weight to the argument even if no claim of professional qualifications is made. It is very likely that his interests are not in enforcing licensing laws for their own sake, but to extend the monopolization of the profession in the way the medical profession is charged with by homeopaths and faith healers. It is evident the phrasing "if the DOT or the public were misled" is not contingent on the report being right or wrong, but rather on the report being convincing. In the service of this impulse, the legal philosophy it confirms is a very dangerous one.
Engineering is a very broadly practiced activity, and it is done in the service of many professions and applications. Scientists might write whole papers detailing the construction of a certain instrument or apparatus, applying methods indistinguishable from those employed by engineers: are these unlicensed scientists then to be prosecuted for "misleading" the scientific community? By this definition, anyone who calculates efficiency could be considered in violation of a law. I don't think this will seriously be considered, but I believe the consequences if it is are very, very dire.
Actually, professional organizations are intended to limit damage by practitioners of fields who can cause serious harm via misuse (Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers). That's not what they've become, just like unions aren't about protecting employees from unfair management anymore.
Kevin Douche obviously took Goldilocks and the Three Bears very seriously back in kindergarten, which was apparently last week. Not too little information, not too much information...just enough information.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
This is stupid on so many levels it boggles the mind. I'll have to limit to just a few:
If this guy decided to start selling traffic analysis to the city, then he should be stopped. However, the individual who did this work was not doing it for a profit therefore the complaint is meaningless. With the proliferation of the internet, anybody can easily obtain and use once obscure and hoarded knowledge. If someone takes the time to research and complete a well thought out and presented argument, it is incumbent on the city to respond in a well thought out manner. If he made a mistake, reply and point it out at the level he or she is engaging you on. Obviously in this case, someone in the city got caught with their pants down and doesn't like it. There are a lot of cocky people out there who think that they are gods gift to... (fill in the blank)... and that they are irreplaceable. They don't like it when they are shown up. People need to realize that no matter how highly skilled and how much education you have, OTHER PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT YOU DO TOO! ( Sometimes even better than you;) )
If this complaint is allowed to stand, the precedent it sets is scary: Any government councilor had better not question the engineer of any project. Same goes for the public at large. At least nobody better complain using any sort of intelligent argument.
Please place a comment to the Office of The Governor at http://www.governor.state.nc.us/eTownhall/suggestionBox.aspx The NC Department of transportation also has a comment box at https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/contactus/PostComment.aspx?Unit=PIO You can also contact Kevin Lacy directly at jklacy@dot.state.nc.us (919) 733-3915
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kevin-lacy/7/816/488
I think the solution is to prevent the transportation official from using a computer until he gets a computer science qualification. That should make it a bit harder for him to cause problems for others.
In a recent book, Newton and the counterfeiter, Newton pursued a counterfeiter for testifying to Parliament that the Mint (of which Newton was the Warden) was badly run. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction although some reactions may be more equal than others.
So, I need to have a medical license to diagnose a cut on my finger and apply a band-aid? Better yet, I make an observation, but can't present it to a city council because the work may be comparative to a licensed professional's work? If I do, then I can be charged with a misdemeanor?
What kind of chicken-shit is that? I'm thinking that there is more behind the scenes than has been revealed at this time... I'm only hoping that Cox winds up fired for absolute stupidity and wrongful prosecution.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
It also depends on the field. As a computer engineer, I can do engineering level work in my field without a stupid PE. And the world is a better place because of it.
I can see why a license might be required for the actual constructiong ofa building that could fall on someone's head or other physical objects that have a high likelihood of killing people if not designed correctly, so I agree with the parent in that respect. But I think things covered under that clause should be kept to a minimum. Can you imagine of a PE was required for computer engineering? Sorry Woz, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg. You guys are too young to have the years of experiece required for a PE, so you can't build your product.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
From the bottom of TFA: "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."
Either Cox's work/assumptions/math are completely correct or not correct and flawed somehow. So: If the work is correct then how could it be "misleading"? But if the work is not correct then how can it be "engineering-quality"?
So Lacy's allegations aren't even logically coherent.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
...best
http://www.online-literature.com/donne/920/
"The Sons of Martha, Rudyard Kipling "
But, it is a little more complicated than that.
See, there are unions, and you have to work within their rules and guidelines.
* If you're "unlicensed" then you aren't union.
* And, if you aren't union, and you're preparing reports for someone, you're working outside of the union.
* Then they are obligated to leave you a nice letter letting you know that sidewalks are slippery this time of year and they sincerely feel for your broken kneecaps.
The great thing about a union of course, is that anyone you do somehow get to prepare your report has orders from the union to simply charge you a hefty fee to tell you the same thing the union is already telling you.
You lose either way.
When camera came to corner of Dobson and Warner To make a left turn from Warner on to Dobson to get into lee lee's store.
Only 2 cars can make the worlds fastest left turn signal while the turn lanes hold about 20 cars.
Tricking you into going.
Before the camera 5 cars easy could make it.
Chandler, AZ 85224
Whoever is responsible should be hung by his ball sack with fish hooks from the lights as a warning to others.
Can I cook myself a dinner without having license in this free country?
Kevin Lacy should be investigated for being a narcissistic asshat and receive a letter telling him not to act like an asshat again.
A good engineer would be thankful and encourge people to come forward and question their work.
The very act of being an asshole can be dangerous.
What would have happened if LeMessurier wasn't willing to question his design after the fact?
http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/ce131/citicorp1.htm
Are there any engineering schools in N.C.???
Heck they should be ALL over this.
To be an engineer you MUST demonstrate engineering
competency. Kafka would be proud...
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
I'm going to post this, even though it's going to be waaaay down where nobody sees it, just because it needs to be in here somewhere.
For starters, yes this bureaucrat is being a dick. However, I submit that he does not really think that David Cox made on his own a traffic report that is of "engineering quality". As people have pointed out, in this circumstance it would not be a crime.
What he is most likely thinks is that David Cox had an engineer produce an "engineering quality" traffic report, and the said engineer delivered it to Mr. Cox unsealed. This is not okay. I'm not sure about NC, but in Virginia if you are a PE, and you do engineering work, you must seal it (confirming it as your work product). This is an important requirement that helps to ensure the quality of work done by PEs. A PE who prepared an anonomys report could be in serious trouble with the licensing board.
This is the real angle Mr. Lacey is driving at, the other is just trying to put some kind of pressure on Mr. Cox to divulge where he got his help from. Notice the statement that Mr. Cox has refused to say who worked with him on the report, and probably won't, since they really have no leverage on him. All the same, there's likely and engineer down there sweating a bit, wanting this thing to blow over.
Though this might be an interesting way to get around the usage caps in canada. Last time I had local phone service it was around 14 dollars per extra line. If I had 2 extra lines and really nice discount internet I might be able to get the same monthly throughput for the same cost as capped broadband.
A man with a lot of construction experience - but NOT a Professional Engineer - designed a new church for the congregation he belonged to. Somehow it got built and was then inspected. The building was rejected for the glaringly obvious and justified reason that the plans had no PE stamp, as no Professional Engineer was even tangetially involved in the project.
As he was a devout Christian in the Topeka area, he was well-connected in the state house. The Kansas legislature - always the bastion of level-headed reasoning and logic - carved out an exemption for him as he did the work for free.
But perhaps the legistature has done us a favor in the long run, if all the people standing in the way of reason and progress continue to meet in their self-built temples constructed out of paper mache and styrofom heated by open flames.
BS! Licensing requirements are about limiting competition. I hold five professional Licenses in NC, under 5 different boards. 3 of them are useless, serving only to lock out competition. 1 of them is semi-useful, but way too restrictive in terms of requirements, and the last one actually serves a useful public safety function, in albeit limited capacity.
He is only complaining that if he submitted something as entered into the public consideration he needs to have it approved by a P.E.
Same thing with outsourcing designs for power plants and bridges to India. As long as a P.E. stamps it approved, it can be used.
If not then it can't. The main reason is that if something goes wrong there has to be someone with a license that can be sued.
I believe Mr. Lacy; that his real motive is that he suspects someone in his department assisted with the calculations, and he wants to shut him up by requiring that whatever engineer did the calculations reveal themselves so they can be fired.
Ibid.
test
Kevin Lacy
State Traffic Engineer
jklacy@dot.state.nc.us
(919) 733-3915
The rest of it is misdirection by the embarrassed Civil Eng who filed the complaint.
This is just some arrogant ass saying "Who in the are you to question me, you little unlicensed pissant?"
Maybe Cox "practiced Engineering" without a license. I can't tell--where's the definition of "practiced Engineering"
Did he stamp and sign his work with a fake license? Did he hang out a shingle and say 'I'm an Engineer"? Did he charge money for an "engineering design"? Did he try to pass off his work as something other than what it was?
Are we to believe that the simple exercise of competence beyond some undefined level by an unlicensed individual should be criminal?
Hacking, anybody?
The purpose of professional licensure goal is to protect the public from shoddy work.
Bad engineering, medicine, pharmacy, accounting, nursing, etc. can cost lives and money.
If the work he did was so good that a licensed engineer mistakes it for "engineering", then the argument that an unqualified person is passing off shoddy work as engineering--and thus endangering the public--sorta falls flat.
His petition if valid (and the state's accusation appears to support the quality of work that went into it) will have the effect of rectifying an omission by the Civil Engineer responsible for allocating the traffic signals.
So, again, it is in the state's interest to encourage his activities the state also has an interest in allowing any person to point out their errors and omissions.
In fact, by preventing competent criticism of the work, the state defeats purpose of
BTW, here's the place where it says you can't do eng. work w/out a license:
Ref 89C23. Unlawful to practice engineering or land surveying without licensure; unlawful use of title or terms
Ref: 21 NCAC 56 .1302 UNLAWFUL PRACTICE BY AN UNLICENSED PeRSON
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
...and kids making forts from cardboard boxes. "Sorry, Timmy, that fort looks a little *too* good. You need a license to do that."
Simple solution - Don't put in the traffic lights and improve the road. Whichever report tracks traffic patterns better wins. If the non-PE report is better, Lacy looses his job. If the PE report is better, No money was spent on the lights in the first place.
You practiced thought without being a philosopher.
Here's an official response from NCDOT when asked about the conduct of Mr. Asshat aka Kevin Lacy:
Dear JMonty42:
Transportation decisions - especially those involving safety - need to be made based on data and the decisions of educated, trained and licensed professional engineers. Nothing should ever come before public safety.
We value public input - we seek it at every opportunity. But when the research and data show that one option is safe and another is less safe, NCDOT is always going to choose the safest option and we make no apologies for that.
Our engineers have met extensively over the last year with Falls of Neuse neighbors to discuss the project, always with the primary emphasis on safety. And we have made significant changes based on their input.
We stand behind the work of Mr. Lacy. He is a licensed traffic engineer. His initial findings were supported by the engineering consultants to the City of Raleigh. When the North Raleigh group undertook a response to the city's report, our department told the group we would consider an analysis if it came from an independent licensed engineer.
Instead, the group produced a technical document that appeared to be in violation of N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors standards for public safety. Mr. Lacy was concerned enough that he asked the Board what he should do, and he was instructed to file a report with the Board. As a licensed professional, Mr. Lacy was obligated to do so.
NCDOT Contact Us
He is a public servant and on the directory at the NC DOT (thanks to whomever provided the link).
Search Results for: First Name - '' AND Last Name - 'lacy'
919 773 2800 jklacy@ncdot.gov
A link to the site where this was found:
https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/dot/directory/authenticated/UnitPage.aspx?id=661
I looked up the statues of the NC PE licensing board. Unfortunately, they support the complainant in this. However, they also basically set up guild law, where anyone who does anything kind of engineering-y, with a broad definition thereof, is in violation. "It shall be unlawful for any person to practice or to offer to practice engineering or land surveying in this State...unless the person has been duly licensed" (http://www.ncbels.org/GeneralStatues/Chapter89c/02.htm) "A person shall be construed to practice or offer to practice engineering...who does perform any engineering service or work not exempted by this Chapter" (http://www.ncbels.org/GeneralStatues/Chapter89c/03.htm) So you don't actually have to call yourself an Engineer to be in violation. The exemptions don't list any that seem to apply. (http://www.ncbels.org/GeneralStatues/Chapter89c/25.htm) The rules are positively draconian and guild-like. You can't do "Any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience, in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services " unless you're licensed or one of the few exceptions. (http://www.ncbels.org/GeneralStatues/Chapter89c/03.htm) And I, as my resume says I'm a Software Engineer, but have no PE, am also in violation. (http://www.ncbels.org/GeneralStatues/Chapter89c/02.htm)
jklacy@dot.state.nc.us
(919) 733-3915
Mr. Eugene Conti sent me the following (presumably canned by now) response. I thought I should share Transportation decisions - especially those involving safety - need to be made based on data and the decisions of educated, trained and licensed professional engineers. Nothing should ever come before public safety. We value public input - we seek it at every opportunity. But when the research and data show that one option is safe and another is less safe, NCDOT is always going to choose the safest option and we make no apologies for that. Our engineers have met extensively over the last year with Falls of Neuse neighbors to discuss the project, always with the primary emphasis on safety. And we have made significant changes based on their input. We stand behind the work of Mr. Lacy. He is a licensed traffic engineer. His initial findings were supported by the engineering consultants to the City of Raleigh. When the North Raleigh group undertook a response to the city's report, our department told the group we would consider an analysis from an independent licensed engineer. Instead, the group produced a technical document that appeared to be in violation of N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors standards for public safety. Mr. Lacy was concerned enough that he asked the Board what he should do, and he was instructed to file a report. As a licensed professional, Mr. Lacy was obligated to do so. The matter is now before the North Carolina Board of Examiners, and we will respect any decision that is forthcoming from that body. Therefore it is not appropriate for us to comment any further at this point. Sincerely, Eugene A. Conti, Jr.
The eight page report focuses on traffic counts and the fact that the engineering firm seemed to use current conditions and not projected future use. One of the future conditions being ignored was growth in the area. Another was the fact that the road was being expanded from two lanes to four lanes. A third future condition mentioned that half of the current left turn opportunities for one area would be eliminated due to the addition of a median.
Speaking from the point of view of someone with a degree in City and Regional Planning, the analysis is something that a planning student could do if they know simple mathematics and logic.
Start with the fact that the road is going from two lanes to four lanes. That adds an additional risk factor that warrants a closer look at the future conditions.
Then factor in known future development in the area. The number of housing units multiplied by X trips per unit, spread out proportionally on a hour by hour basis gives you future loads. It is not rocket science folks.
Calculating the future loads caused by the closing of several left turn lanes is even simpler if you assume that the traffic from the closed left lanes will all feed into the single open left turn lane. You just add up the numbers on an hour by hour basis.
Since the City of Raleigh did the traffic counts used by the report, and since the report showed the math AND referenced the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, it is kind of hard to ignore the report based on numbers alone. It is also kind of hard to consider it to be engineering that needs to be approved by a PE because it is just looking at the loads that would justify putting in traffic lights and NOT suggesting the configuration of the traffic lights.
I wouldn't call it engineering. It involved taking the traffic count numbers provided by the City of Raleigh and creating projections of future use based on simple logic and mathematics. According to the report, the future use aspect had been ignored.
Anybody with a calculator, a few maps and the web accessible "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" could have done it if they were mathematically inclined.
If the report had presented traffic intersection layouts, it could be considered engineering. Since it only dealt with traffic counts, current and projected, it is more in the realm of transportation planning, not transportation engineering.
Mr. Lacy says..."the details of the analyses requires the understanding of a experienced engineer that is liscensed in the State of NC." It is this misunderstanding, and the assumption of the uninvolved that this type of person is an "expert," that leads to one fiasco after another in our world. His experts tried to engineer a six lane road thru the taxpayer's pocket and failed. So, with bitterness, time, and profit, His engineers took two years and 14 design "alternatives" to finally outlast the public and outwit a City Council on a 1 mile, median wasted, section of road whose disaster story is just beginning to be written. His experts have engineered rear end collisions, U-turn nightmares, and right turn only, into 1 mile that simply could have been economically safely and quickly widened to a five lane road. But the public is not an engineer and engineering expertise requires accidents, deaths, outcry, politics, and more money to place a traffic control light ANYWHERE! But I will submit to Mr. Lacy and his liscense. You see, like his experts, he has recieved a certificate saying he is an engineer and noone without it can "understand" engineering in NC. A doctor has studied and recieved a certificate, and noone without it can "understand" and practice medicine. A lawyer has studied and recieved a certificate, and noone without it can "understand" and practice law. I studied and recieved a certificate in Philosophy, and noone, without it Mr. Lacy, can understand, and expecially in this "engineered case," practice,.... thinking,.... common sense,....... and logical reasoning. Fair enough hypocrite, I understand
I like how you've attempted to drag the conversation away from the point: a non-trivial percentage of people in North Carolina (and apparently Slashdot users) labor under some delusion that a reasonable argument can be made supporting the case that Hawaii is somehow either not a state or not (in some vague sense that makes Obama ineligible to be President) a "part" of the United States.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Hehe, and David Wynn Miller is King of Hawaii! Long live the King!
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.