Posted on 04/27/2017 2:34:41 PM PDT by artichokegrower
“Drivers here in Oregon are timid, dangerously polite, will fill only one lane when two are available, are unpredictable, and ignorant to their own driving behavior that will likely get them killed. They take forever to go when a light turns green and seem to be unable to perform even the slightest predictive reading of traffic patterns and flow. There is an unhealthy expectation when getting onto the freeways that everyone else will move out of their way and that the semi occupying the lane they are trying to enter will magically self divide just for them.”
Scary how perfectly you described Oregon drivers. I would add ignorant passive aggressiveness to that unpredictability. A lot of trouble understanding how to proceed with 2 lanes merging into one...any merging for that matter.
“Does the state fine newspapers about editorializing on scientific or legal subjects, e.g., global warming, in which they have no specialized training?”
I thought the same thing when I first read the article. I thought of all the idiot celebrities and politicians who preach how the sky is falling in order to add more regulations on everything, as well as tax increases on anything they say contributes to global warming. How many of those libtards have degrees in anything?
But he is an engineer... he was granted a degree in engineering. Just because the state has not licensed him in a specific field of engineering is irrelevant. What he did was pure statistical analysis which anyone trained in mathematics could have done. PRACTICING engineering is when one puts one's expertise on a plan or a design that certifies something the state requires be certified. Just doing a study of the timing of any obvious fact, such as the intervals of traffic lights to report on that timing is NOT DOING ENGINEERING because he is NOT DESIGNING IT OR EFFECTING THAT TIMING. He is merely analyzing existing facts that anyone with sufficient smarts and education in many fields can analyze. My education is in Economics, yet I could do it. . . and the analysis as well. The principles are the same.
Before I switched to Economics, I studied physics. That discipline could do it too. . . better than an engineer. Neither of those disciplines require state licensing, thank God. If the state got its fingers into licensing Economists, only Marxists would be permitted to practice.
The facts are that the vast majority of people with engineering degrees are most likely not registered with the state because they don't hang out their shingle and work for themselves but work for others. . .and operate under other licensed Engineers, as was pointed out above, because they simply don't practice their engineering in a way that NEEDS to be licensed, and their work will be signed off on by the licensed engineer they work under after he or she reviews it.
That depends on whether you take a case as an attorney. This man performed his own study, paid by no one, and truthfully identified himself as an engineer (in accordance to his degree).
If he claimed the title of Professional Engineer, perhaps he is wrong here. But the article says he called himself an "engineer", not a PE.
Calling himself an engineer is free speech.
The government can't intervene until he hangs out a shingle and takes money from the public for practicing "engineering", whatever the hell that is.
If they do, they've violated his civil rights, and the taxpayers of Oregon should pay to compensate him for his ordeal at the hands of their miserable State.
State laws regarding the professions are fairly explicit.
The timing and installations of traffic controls generally must first be approved by a license Traffic Engineer within the State.
Transportation and Traffic Engineering are explicit disciplines, whose sealed signed documents are required for properly designed highways, roads and intersections.
There likely is legal verbiage in state laws which require a Traffic Study prior to changing the traffic controls at intersections. Such studies are signed by professionals who typically are Civil Engineers and in some states have an additional Title License as Transportation or Traffic Engineer.
States also typically have regulations precluding the practice of engineering to those who have been licensed or registered by that State. That process is fairly rigorous and fairly well established throughout the US and internationally.
Prior to being fined, the person had been given a Notice of Intent, with a period of time for investigation, when he likely could have avoided a confrontation.
I would not recommend anybody represent themselves before a State Engineering Regulatory Board as an engineer, unless they met the qualifications they are entrusted to enforce.
There probably isn’t any problem in discussing the engineering problem as a topic of academic debate, but providing revisions to formulas used in professional standards, which are the basis of State Codes and then representing yourself as an “Engineer” in their representation for changes to engineered designs is a considerably different matter.
BTW, before the Board can levy the fine, they are required to provide a Notice of Intent and hold an investigation. While this is being presented as though it is a bureaucratic matter, there are some other clues that this might have far more ulterior motives.
Who/What is the Institute for Justice? Are they represented by Batman and Captain America? /s
I see 2 strikes. 1)-—he isn’t a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer but wants to change formal legal decisions of Professional Engineers, without meeting the qualifications of the profession. 2)-— he seeks to appeal a legal decision by appealing outside the judicial/ executive/professional system for appeals.
It appears to me he may be attempting to overthrow the professions in the US by foreign mechanisms.
Are you suggesting that professional licensing in its entirety should be eliminated? That's up to you ... but I'd suggest the "gubbermint" can't possibly build public infrastructure without some kind of licensing standards.
Alberta's Child, P.M. (Professional Moron)
From Case Number 2929 Final Order By Default Para 2
On September 3, 2014, Jarlstrom emailed the Board alleging that the City of Beaverton engineers were misapplying well-known traffic engineering formulas and asked the Board to investigate the City of Beaverton. In his email to the Board, Jarlstrom indicated that he was performing engineering work. The Board has no jurisdiction over the timing of traffic lights in the City of Beaverton. Jarlstrom was informed of this lack of jurisdiction. Jarlstrom was also cautioned by the Board against practicing engineering without being registered and was provided with copies of ORS 672.005(1) and ORS 672.007(1 ), which define the practice of engineering as including both engineering work and use of the engineering title. Jarlstrom agreed to comply with the law.
more at http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-Jarlstrom-Final-Default-Order-IJ084769xA6322.pdf
The Institute of Justice is a libertarian 501(c) organization.
Interesting case.
Reads as though he became more interested in the topic after his wife got a traffic ticket in the mail by a camera initiated system.
That really depends on how Oregon's statutes and regulations are written. I say this from experience. A general rule of thumb I always follow is this:
1. If I'm practicing as a professional and working on behalf of a client (or for myself), I say so in any correspondence with a public official.
2. If I'm writing or speaking about a matter related to engineering but I'm not making a representation that should be considered a professional opinion, I'll say this explicitly.
Here's what is interesting about this case: This guy is not licensed as an engineer. Anyone who is licensed as an engineer (but not in Oregon) would have proceeded much more carefully in their correspondence than he did.
My understanding of case law (again, depending on the state) is that courts have generally upheld the right of the general public to make public statements and comments in areas usually subject to professional licensing boards, but not if they make any claims that can be construed as adding the weight of professional judgment to the matter.
It turns out the Oregon licensing board for professional engineers didn't just chase down Jarlstrom because they didn't like what he said in a letter or e-mail to a government officials. Jarlstrom was the one who initiated contact with the licensing board, when he contacted them and asked them to investigate the professional engineer(s) working for the City of Beaverton.
If this is what happened with this guy, then what the hell was he thinking? Identifying himself as an "engineer" to a professional licensing board in a matter where he is asking them to investigate licensed engineers is really asking for trouble.
The Oregon licensing board for professional engineers didn't just decide to take action against the guy because they didn't like what he wrote. Nor was he reported to the licensing board by the City of Beaverton engineer(s) who he contacted about the alleged problem with the traffic lights in question. He himself contacted the Oregon licensing board -- and asked them to conduct a professional investigation of the City of Beaverton engineer(s) who were responsible for approving the traffic signal designs.
It was in this correspondence with the Oregon licensing board of professional engineers that he identified himself as an "engineer" and used that to support his case for a professional complaint.
As a licensed professional engineer, I can tell you that this is a big "no-no" in my profession. If you are going to take the extraordinary step of filing a formal complaint against a licensed engineer on technical grounds related to the practice of engineering, you had better be damn sure that you are covering your bases and avoiding even the slightest misstep that could cause you trouble.
Alberta's Child, P.M.
Belated reply: Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought he was just expressing an opinion as a private citizen, and I don’t think you need professional credentials to do that, no matter what the topic, even if you exaggerate your own expertise or training or qualifications. (Is exaggeration now a crime?) Now, if you are hired professionally, and claim credentials or training that you don’t have, that is a different matter. Bill Gates never finished his college degree, so does that mean he is unqualified to express opinions on IT issues?
IMHO, I suspect part of the problem may be his cultural background.
He’s probably more accustomed to European paths to the ING title than the PE in the US. That would nicely explain why he was only fined $500 vice $1000, but more than the minimal $250.
Considering this entire episode began with his wife receiving an automated traffic ticket from a camera system at an intersection, there still appears to be a tinge of arrogance in his approach. Appears she didn’t come to a full and complete stop prior to the light changing to red when she was turning right.
It appears each time he elevates this, the more he gets slapped back.
Yeah,..the other thing that smells fishy is the firm now attempting to go after the State.
Lawyers also have professional rules of conduct they should be following.
Notice the Final Order also documents Mats is operating a testing and design business without either professional registration, nor a business license.
Lots of states now use their business license enforcement forces instead of the professional registration enforcement, simply because the State tends to get more revenue from Business licenses and have more personnel to investigate those licenses, without having PEs themselves.
Methinks he’s inviting a world of compliance actions down upon himself.
It’s almost as if this whole thing doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Makes one wonder if something else isn’t going on here.
Of course, stupidity and arrogance explains alot of baffling events.
They're doing similar in Atlanta with new "express" toll lanes being added. What Atlanta really needs is a bypass that is truly a bypass - that is, extremely limited local access so that all the traffic that passes through to get to areas south or north doesn't have to put up with the daily crawl that is rush hour in ATL.
“Are you suggesting that professional licensing in its entirety should be eliminated?”
Why, yes i am. Caveat emptor, MFer.
“Alberta’s Child, P.M. (Professional Moron)”
Lol...That’s the spirit.
I've traveled to places where they don't have professional licensing boards. They're called Indian reservations. Caveat emptor, indeed. It's no coincidence that they have no lawyers, no doctors, and no engineers in any of the places I've visited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.