I don't think you can separate out the "doing math" bit from the rest of paragraph 14:
"and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and 'worldwide' traffic signals..."
(Edit: Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree? Maybe I've been unclear, or something, but it seems obvious that paragraph 14 isn't about doing the calculations, it's about doing the calculations and presenting them as engineering work. The first clause of the sentence doesn't stand on its own.)
What you've quoted does not describe anything that a member of the general public should not be allowed to do. Making informed proposals to your government is not something that requires a professional license. It would behoove the government to get a relevantly licensed professional to evaluate proposals before they are enacted, but that's the responsibility of the governing body, not the citizen making a proposal.
The only thing that would make his traffic analysis and proposal fall under any sensible purview for the engineering licensing board would be if in presenting his proposal to the government and the public, he had misrepresented his qualifications. Paragraph 14 does not allege any such misrepresentation; it cites him for doing math and science.
I don't disagree with you. But it's still disingenuous to claim that the board is punishing him solely for doing math. Maybe the law should be changed, but the law isn't against doing math.
Doing the math and telling anyone about it, then, if you want to be unnecessarily pedantic. They're counting it as a separate offense from anything relating to the use of the word "engineer". It's not disingenuous to claim that the board is punishing him for doing the math. It would be wrong to say that doing the math is the only offense they're citing him for, but it is an independent offense that they're complaining about.
The law is pedantic. Perhaps unnecessarily so, but an awful lot of law is there specifically to address issues that have come up due to prior ambiguities. That old saying comes to mind: "Don't tear down a fence until you know what's on the other side."
On that note, I think there is a real and significant difference between just doing the math and doing the math and then telling people about it, especially when you're telling people about it under the guise of your engineering expertise. Similarly, there's a difference between me reading this document, and me reading this document and then writing this comment, especially if I were claiming to have expertise in the law. (Though just to be clear, I am not a lawyer.)
You're right that there are separate offenses: asserting that he is an engineer, and practicing engineering. But the practicing engineering goes beyond simply doing the math. As section 8 of the document describes, it involves "Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects."
So doing the math is not independent. The statute makes explicit that "special knowledge of the mathematical... sciences" must be "[applied] to such professional services or creative work as [examples]."
Again, I'll agree that the law may be more pedantic than it ought to be. But "doing math without a license" genuinely misdescribes the issue in a way that should be clear with a reading of that paragraph. I'd expect better from a news agency that tries to be reputable, rather than trying to simply draw clicks and generate outrage.
> especially when you're telling people about it under the guise of your engineering expertise.
Paragraph 14 of the board's complaint makes no claim that he was presenting his analysis under the guise of engineering expertise. Paragraph 14 is solely about him publicizing an analysis whose subject matter the board claims regulatory jurisdiction over. The board makes no reference to the manner of presentation being a factor at all, either as an aggravating factor or a prerequisite for the publication to be an offense at all. The board also does not feel the need to cite any context that made the publication qualify as providing a professional service or otherwise qualifying as professional engineering activity under their own rules (but this aspect may end up being another Oxford Comma case), nor do they attempt to provide evidence in support of the claim that doing this kind of work (even in this non-professional context) requires special engineering education, training and experience.
The board is claiming broad authority to punish anyone who gets caught doing the wrong kind of math problem in the state of Oregon without a license, whether or not they call themselves an engineer in the process. The doing of the math problem is in the board's eyes sufficient to make the activity fall under their regulatory domain.
They do not recognize the possibility for anyone lacking one of their licenses to legally do the math in question; there's no amateur category, no exemption for a layman to do preliminary analysis prior to retaining the services of a licensed engineer, no provision for a student to do work of this kind for any purpose without professional supervision from a licensed engineer. If you do the math and show your analysis to anyone in any context, you need a license. So yeah, it's not a stretch to say that they're considering it an offense to do the math without a license.
Paragraph 14 of the board's complaint makes no claim that he was presenting his analysis under the guise of engineering expertise.
Yes they do. Specifically: to advise members of the
public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing - page 7, lines 3 and 4.
I think the thing is pretty ridiculous, and a result of an over-litigious society. The point isn't so much to shoot this guy down. It is to make sure that next time somebody pretends to be an engineer (and starts building a bridge or designing a powerstation or something) and they want to stop him, this person wouldn't be able to point at this case and say "but he pretended to be an engineer, and you didn't do anything". This organisation must be seen as to uphold their monopoly on deciding who gets to use the terms engineer and engineering.
It is a result of not enough common sense in court cases, and too many frivolous suits.
> Yes they do. Specifically: to advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing - page 7, lines 3 and 4.
That's only asserting that he communicated his findings. It's not asserting that he did so under false pretenses of being a licensed professional engineer or any other kind of regulated or certified traffic authority. The board could make the same claim against any average Joe who does some math relating to traffic and tells anyone else that he thinks there might be a better solution. There's still nothing in the charge leveled by paragraph 14 that narrows its scope so that it doesn't apply to everyone who makes a complaint about a traffic light that is more specific than "it sucks".
That's only asserting that he communicated his findings. It's not asserting that he did so under false pretenses of being a licensed professional engineer or any other kind of regulated or certified traffic authority.
Actually, Paragraph 14 specifically states that according to the law, the guy pretended to be an engineer. You can be as obtuse as you like about this, but it doesn't say "you are sanctioned for doing math", it says "you are sanctioned for engaging in the practice of engineering" to the general public", the rest of paragraph 14 simply explains how they came to that conclusion. It isn't about doing the math. It is about what he did with the math.
Let me explain it to you LY5: If I do some math that calculates the required gauge for wire required to carry a 250A load for 400V, I am not breaking any laws anywhere in the world. I can amuse myself with doing this math all day long, anywhere I like. If I communicate my findings in public, I have again broken no laws. If I communicate my findings, and say "you know, I know a lot about electricity and stuff" I have still not broken any laws. However, should I communicate my findings and state "Here are my findings, fix your inefficient power supply, and by the way I am an engineer" I will be in trouble in most countries (and rightly so).
Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree
The idea of downvoting for not contributing to the discussion left HN a while ago. You are downvoted because you said something somebody doesn't agree with which is human nature: "our opinions differ, and I have the power to punish you for this, so you will be punished". Human nature, we suck as a species. They are just imaginary internet points. Don't worry about it.
Or, I could genuinely be interested in having my false beliefs corrected, communicating more effectively next time, or promoting a good conversation that will be informative to others. You're right that the downvotes are an expression of disagreement, but I'm calling it out specifically because I think elucidating that disagreement is valuable.
"and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and 'worldwide' traffic signals..."
(Edit: Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree? Maybe I've been unclear, or something, but it seems obvious that paragraph 14 isn't about doing the calculations, it's about doing the calculations and presenting them as engineering work. The first clause of the sentence doesn't stand on its own.)