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).
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.