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."
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!
"...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?
Than citizen volunteers who would dare to do something for free.
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 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.
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?
Also the summary is incorrect It should read:
"Kevin Asshat, chief traffic asshole for the state DOT, and the shitbag who filed a complaint, protested that in trying to have Computer Scientist and Esteemed Citizen David Cox investigated while not licensed as a professional engineer: "I'm not trying to hush him up. I'm just trying to be a tyrant and make his life miserable, because I enjoy acting like Mubarak."
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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/
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."
Well, I think the issue here is:
In most fields of engineering (electrical engineering is what I am most familiar with), there isn't a requirement for an engineer to be licensed. The PE organization would beg to differ in that regard, but in general you rarely see EEs, MechEs working in non-civil fields, etc licensed as PEs:
Within the field of civil engineering, nearly all states require any project to be signed off by a licensed civil engineer with a PE certification. In general, I believe most civil engineers need a PE certification or they simply can't function in the current regulatory environment. One should assume in this case that "engineering = civil engineering" when a civil engineer talks about engineering.
The claim here is that supposedly a non-licensed person practiced civil engineering in generating this work product. However:
1) It was not an official work product, it was a complaint to an organization that DOES contain licensed engineers
2) There were no claims made that anyone involved in the document preparation were civil engineers, licensed or otherwise
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Exactly.
Lacy said this is the first time he has referred a case to the professional licensing board.
Right, so before this, Mr Lacy has always said "The petition is rejected because the petitioner doesn't know what he's talking about." Now Mr Lacy is trying a new way to reject a claim: "The petition is rejected because the petitioner does know what he's talking about."
Wow. With logic like that, Mr Lacy must have an easy job.