Citizen engineers, beware the Beaver State. If you want to discuss engineering in a public setting, you’d better have a license. If you don’t, you could end up like Oregon resident Mats Järlström — paying a $500 fine and being threatened with even larger civil penalties and jail time.
The story of how Järlström became ensnared in this unfortunate series of events begins innocently enough, and it’s a story that any Hackaday reader can probably relate to. After his wife received a traffic ticket in the mail from a red-light camera in the town of Beaverton, Järlström began pondering the math of traffic signal timing. After a little digging, he found the formula used for calculating the time traffic signals stay in the yellow stage. Moreover, he found a flaw in the formula, which dates back to 1959, that could lead to incorrect violations issued by automated traffic cameras.
Järlström began communicating his findings far and wide, as any of us might do in an attempt to right an injustice. But the first rule of engineering in Oregon is apparently not to talk about engineering in Oregon if you’re not a licensed professional engineer (PE), which Järlström is not. With a Bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering from his native Sweden, the twenty-year resident of Oregon is not qualified to practice engineering in that state, at least by the lights of the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying. We’ve looked at unlicensed engineering issues before and it’s interesting now to take a look at an example in practice.
That Board got wind of Järlström’s nefarious unlicensed engineering activities through a pretty direct route: he told them about it. He asked the Board to look into the traffic engineering practices in Beaverton, insisting that the city engineers were misusing traffic light timing formulas. They responded with a request that he stop practicing engineering without a license, and to stop referring to himself as an engineer without proper accreditation, lest fines and other actions be taken.
Although Järlström agreed to comply with the Board’s request, he continued to press the issue, this time on a much larger stage. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, local TV news, and even 60 Minutes were all contacted with his findings. At that point, the Board swept in with a criminal investigation and issued the $500 fine, which Järlström paid.
There’s much more to this story, including the appeals process that Järlström is going through now. The popular media has picked up the story, to the point where a Google search of “Mats Järlström” brings up nothing but first-page hits on this specific story. But for Hackaday readers, the pressing issue is: could such apparent bureaucratic overreach affect me?
Degree Versus License
Like I pointed out, the analysis that Järlström did was something that any of us might have done. But despite my snarky “Fight Club” reference before, I don’t think his problems began with talking about his findings, which any of us would likely do in one way or another. I think he ran afoul of the system by challenging the Board of Examiners to investigate one of their own.
It’s cliche to joke about rules and limitations placed on the “blue collar” fields by trade unions, snickering at rules that say which apprentice can carry what material across the job site or the like. But don’t fool yourself — the rules that are put in place by august bodies such as the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying are designed to protect the jobs of dues paying members, just like any trade union’s rules.
To a certain extent, that’s a good thing — none of us want ersatz engineers building bridges or wannabe electricians wiring homes. But recall Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy and realize that eventually, the whole point of a bureaucracy becomes protecting itself. In Järlström’s case, his challenge to the Board to investigate the city engineers was an affront to the bureaucracy, and they responded as bureaucrats often do: with a vengeance. Järlström is an engineer by degree but not by license. That distinction is at loggerheads in this affair.
So yes, dear Hackaday readers and fellow citizens scientists and engineers, you too might one day find yourself slapped with a cease and desist order pursuant to your non-accredited activities. Hack carefully, know your limits, and know the legality of how you represent yourself to the public. And above all, when you tug on a tiger’s tail you should have a plan to deal with the teeth.
[via r/nottheonion]
My grandpa had a similar experience while traveling in America. He was a PhD who worked for IBM out of Latvia and Italy and was basically told he needed a GED then bachelors by aerospace employers while there.. He came back to Latvia and instantly got a higher paying engineering position.. This was the 70s though..
Holy Crap!!! Some of you guys are missing the point!
If he was charging a fee for his report or doing work as an engineer for pay, he would then be liable for his work. Him calling himself an engineer is perfectly acceptable BECAUSE HE IS ONE.
AND it is entirely a matter of free speech that is the real issue here. The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America was put there first for a reason, namely to ensure that the citizens of this country would be free to criticize the government, it’s members and their activities.
The red light cameras and the companies and cities that use them are perpetuating a scam.
They are using regulations to retaliate against him for uncovering their malfeasance.
Oh and for all you engineers with a paper that says so, no offense, but civilization was mostly built WITHOUT YOUR DEGREE. Sorry
The term Engineer Is a broad subject and in fact needs to be better defined, When one attends University and the degree conferred on the graduate is in a discipline with the words Engineering or Engineer in the description of said degree the individual is in fact and beyond any question an ENGINEER. The fuss in this case is indeed a local issue and one of stepped on toes. If the License measured knowledge of a subject and was the measure for said subject that would be a different matter. Having a state PE is only useful if one is practicing an Engineering discipline for PROFIT. It is a matter of Professional Practice and is simply a States way of ensuring its fees are paid it also has implications for insurance and liability issues. HOWEVER SIMPILY USING ENGINEERING TOOLS such as RESEARCH and MATHMATICS when looking at a problem is NOT AN ACTIVITY that should or would need any form of LICENCING to be valid, The SUBJECT is the light timing and if the formula the Engineer / citizen refers to is in use then the matter is not his holding or not holding a valid engineers license but is a well thought out complaint with validation and support the municipality would rather not address! DO NOT think that only some person with a LICENCE can use solid proven methods to support a point or make a case! The other question should be was the firm who used the flawed math when implementing the traffic cams properly licensed? If they were and the guy the article is about is indeed correct, what action does the properly licensed firm face??
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Through the Looking Glass
I might be missing something, but a lot of these comments completely out of pace with the industry. In the state in which I live, rarely do engineers bother to pursue a PE license unless they are working in very specific industries that require it.
The majority engineers (by schooling) that I know don’t work in construction or HVAC do not have a PE license. Most employers find ABET accreditation of one’s university to be of much greater import unless working in a specific few industries in which a PE is required.
Meanwhile….back in the land of give a f*cks….
Funny how every HAD discussion thread turns into a stroke fest about everyone’s unverifiably big genitalia (non-descriminatory)…way to miss the forest through the trees…compartmentalization at its finest!
Hey!!! Hands off my genitalia!!!
</reallyBadSarcasm> see – I put a tag in my tag
Didn’t Bill Gates used to make traffic lights? Well that explains it.
If the math adds up, why does it matter if an engineer or a turnip provided the data?
This has to do with the overall personality of an engineer. Engineers HATE to be proven wrong, even by their own kind. I know many engineers and my father is a professional engineer a they all have this common trait. Engineers are very open to new ideas and others input, but to say an engineer is wrong about something is a big insult to them. This is about some butt hurt engineers and being wrong about their traffic calculations.
Ok, what prevents me form locating a formula, plugging numbers into it, calculating the result, and then publishing my findings?
I may not have a degree in Engineering, but then did Leonardo da Vinci?
Would Sir Isaac Newton’s degree be considered valid today?
If you’re an engineer who puts your name on documents that specify the design and implementation of a device that can cause damage or fatalities should it fail to perform properly, you need certification.
However, you can via either study or work experience rise to the level of Engineer. So long as you’re not signing off on a bridge or electrical system where failure can lead to damage or injury, you can keep the name.
I’ve been working as a Broadcast Engineer for almost 13 years. My 20+ years of experience has earned me that title. And while I do have to submit documentation on various items regarding some safety practices, there is nothing that I’m building that can cause damage or injury to another person. If these parameters are not met, I hire an outside firm to verify and do that portion of the paperwork.
But to fine someone over some PETTY vendetta is insane. He found the flaw in their plan. He brought it to light. They retaliated with the only thing they could do, fine him.
Oregon, California and a number of other states allow for this type of abuse of power. It must be stopped.
I had lines and lines ready, but reading a bit more i got to a very simple conclusion.
He said some stuff about the traffic lights publicly, and there is a law that specifically prohibits this except in cases where he has the official PE title, which very few can get.
the government of oregon thus has all right to sue him, arrest him, punish him, whatever is defined by this law, even if his actions had no damaging consequences if he succeeded on his attempts.
It is constitutional according to Oregon law, but in a nation-wide perspective the very existance and definition of this specific law affects the freedom of speech, thus it is a surprise it has survived in this form unchanged, the most likely reason being it was not sufficiently scrutinized during its conception.
He didn’t build a bridge nor even write a report for which he submitted a bill. He just thought and wished to express his thoughts (even if was in writing). He thought he had the right to think.
Reminds me of the scene in the movie “Inherit the Wind”; “Bertram Cates wishes to have the same rights as a sponge, he wishes to think!”.
I wonder how many non-degree union ‘Engineers’ there are in that state, who because they are in ‘tight’ with the Union are free to spout any BS they want, any time?
You can’t call yourself a Professional Engineer without certification, but you can certainly call yourself an engineer if you have a B.S.E.E. The more important question is why someone would leave Sweden to come live in this shithole country, especially the Pacific Northwest? That’s the head scratcher….
…Because ‘Islamic immigration’, is why.
The real argument/outrage here is shoot the messenger. From the few snippets I’ve read about the case he merely pointed out the deficiencies in the timing of the traffic lights while mentioning his qualifications as an engineer to give validation to his observations. No one was paid, harmed, etc. This is looking a bit like Mel Gibson in conspiracy theory where he accidentally hits on a real conspiracy while talking to one of the conspirators. I wonder if there’s some kind of threat to some cash cow going on here. It’s been known for municipalities to put cameras, speed traps, et al where there is no danger but simply to generate revenue while adding nothing to public safety. So does having an opinion violate Oregon law without having a license as a counselor, or for that matter a citizen of that state. I think deeper investigation into Oregon’s legal practices is in order. Or is this going to be another Wikileaks debacle where they go after the whistle-blower instead of the criminal?
I’m a chemist, although much of what I do might be called engineering. There’s a movement afoot in chemistry, too, that’s analogous to what’s happened in engineering. It’s all about a rich and powerful industrial/professional association (the American Chemical Association) wanting to enforce membership in order to call yourself a chemist, and introduce a set of expensive courses as a requirement for licensing. .
I’ve been pumping gas long enough to be a licensed engineer.. Where the eFF do I apply?
First: Most if not all, Laws/Civil ordinances are based upon “Slippery Slop Logic”, mores the pity.
“IF”, you perform a “California Stop”, people die. (Or not) Therefore, if witnessed, you are fined to save lives.
Classic “Slippery Slope Logic”.
The first year college student that attends a debate class, is told that “Slippery Slope Logic” is an invalid premise.
Who do we shoot first, Lawyers or Judges?