-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Practicing Engineering without a license?
- Thread starter brudgers
- Start date
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
What a load of crap. The state was probably upset that the report prepared by a bunch of citizens was better than their report prepared by experts. If the letter did not have a PE stamp or purport to be from an engineer, how is it considered "engineering"?
chris kennedy
ADMIN
So easy a caveman could do it?
fatboy
Administrator
I agree, and add to that it wasn't done for any sort of payment or profit.
If I walk outside and say it looks like rain, I'm not practicing meteorology........I'm making an observation, and voicing an opinion.
If I walk outside and say it looks like rain, I'm not practicing meteorology........I'm making an observation, and voicing an opinion.
Jobsaver
REGISTERED
In my opinion, thinking, performing mathematical calculations to support an idea, and offering advice does not constitute practicing engineering without a license.
Presenting oneself as a registered engineer constitutes practicing engineering. Not having a license constitutes not having a license. Put the two together is the only way to get practicing engineering without a license.
Keep us posted on the outcome.
Presenting oneself as a registered engineer constitutes practicing engineering. Not having a license constitutes not having a license. Put the two together is the only way to get practicing engineering without a license.
Keep us posted on the outcome.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Office filters block news items - I'll have to wait until later for this juicy tid-bit.
Rats!
Rats!
High Desert
REGISTERED
They're acting like engineering is some kind of science or something.:wink:
Jobsaver
REGISTERED
Delete..............................
Last edited by a moderator:
fatboy
Administrator
Here you go, for those that can't see it.......sorry about the spacing.
BY BRUCE SICELOFF - Staff Writer
Tags: traffic | Wake County | Raleigh | David N. Cox
RALEIGH -- David N. Cox says he was merely exercising his right to petition the government, but a state Department of Transportation official has raised allegations that Cox committed a misdemeanor: practicing engineering without a license.
Cox and his North Raleigh neighbors are lobbying city and state officials to add traffic signals at two intersections as part of a planned widening of Falls of Neuse Road.
After an engineering consultant hired by the city said that the signals were not needed, Cox and the North Raleigh Coalition of Homeowners' Associations responded with a sophisticated analysis of their own.
The eight-page document with maps, diagrams and traffic projections was offered to buttress their contention that signals will be needed at the Falls of Neuse at Coolmore Drive intersection and where the road meets Tabriz Point / Lake Villa Way.
It did not persuade Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, to change his mind about the project. Instead, Lacy called on a state licensing agency, the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, to investigate Cox.
Cox says Lacy is trying to squelch dissent.
"All we ever tried to do was express our view about this," said Cox, a computer scientist. "We never expected something like this. We think it's wrong. We're just trying to make our neighborhood safe."
Lacy said his complaint "was not an accusation" against Cox.
"I'm not trying to hush him up," Lacy said.
Cox has not been accused of claiming that he is an engineer. But Lacy says he filed the complaint because the report "appears to be engineering-level work" by someone who is not licensed as a professional engineer.
The city will start construction this spring on the 1.3-mile project to widen Falls of Neuse, a busy commuter route, from Fonville Road to Raven Ridge Road. Cox's group has been lobbying elected city, state and federal officials to help push for the added traffic signals.
The City Council agreed last year to add signals at the two intersections if DOT agrees that they are warranted by traffic conditions. But an engineering firm hired by the city concluded that the signals were not needed.
The North Raleigh group contends that the city's engineer erred by failing to predict how traffic conditions will change after Falls is widened to four lanes and medians are installed to block left turns from some side streets.
Lacy said he had told the group last year that it should hire an engineer to make its case. He said he was surprised to see engineering-quality work in a report that was not signed by a licensed professional.
"When you start applying the principles for trip generation and route assignment, applying judgments from engineering documents and national standards, and making recommendations," that's technical work a licensed engineer would do, Lacy said.
DOT gets many reports and petitions from residents opposing road plans and engineering decisions. Lacy said this is the first time he has referred a case to the professional licensing board.
Andrew L. Ritter, executive director of the engineers licensing board, said it will take three or four months to investigate Lacy's allegation against Cox. He said there is a potential for violation if DOT and the public were misled by "engineering-quality work"- even if the authors did not claim to be engineers.
"We don't take the side of the DOT," Ritter said. "What's best for the public is what we'll find."
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.
Cox would not identify the report's authors.
"I helped pull the report together," he said. "Because of this investigation, I'm not going to say who was involved in it and who wasn't involved. All we're saying is our association prepared the report."
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/964781/citizen-activist-grates-on-state.html#ixzz1CwOmhfLO
BY BRUCE SICELOFF - Staff Writer
Tags: traffic | Wake County | Raleigh | David N. Cox
RALEIGH -- David N. Cox says he was merely exercising his right to petition the government, but a state Department of Transportation official has raised allegations that Cox committed a misdemeanor: practicing engineering without a license.
Cox and his North Raleigh neighbors are lobbying city and state officials to add traffic signals at two intersections as part of a planned widening of Falls of Neuse Road.
After an engineering consultant hired by the city said that the signals were not needed, Cox and the North Raleigh Coalition of Homeowners' Associations responded with a sophisticated analysis of their own.
The eight-page document with maps, diagrams and traffic projections was offered to buttress their contention that signals will be needed at the Falls of Neuse at Coolmore Drive intersection and where the road meets Tabriz Point / Lake Villa Way.
It did not persuade Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, to change his mind about the project. Instead, Lacy called on a state licensing agency, the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, to investigate Cox.
Cox says Lacy is trying to squelch dissent.
"All we ever tried to do was express our view about this," said Cox, a computer scientist. "We never expected something like this. We think it's wrong. We're just trying to make our neighborhood safe."
Lacy said his complaint "was not an accusation" against Cox.
"I'm not trying to hush him up," Lacy said.
Cox has not been accused of claiming that he is an engineer. But Lacy says he filed the complaint because the report "appears to be engineering-level work" by someone who is not licensed as a professional engineer.
The city will start construction this spring on the 1.3-mile project to widen Falls of Neuse, a busy commuter route, from Fonville Road to Raven Ridge Road. Cox's group has been lobbying elected city, state and federal officials to help push for the added traffic signals.
The City Council agreed last year to add signals at the two intersections if DOT agrees that they are warranted by traffic conditions. But an engineering firm hired by the city concluded that the signals were not needed.
The North Raleigh group contends that the city's engineer erred by failing to predict how traffic conditions will change after Falls is widened to four lanes and medians are installed to block left turns from some side streets.
Lacy said he had told the group last year that it should hire an engineer to make its case. He said he was surprised to see engineering-quality work in a report that was not signed by a licensed professional.
"When you start applying the principles for trip generation and route assignment, applying judgments from engineering documents and national standards, and making recommendations," that's technical work a licensed engineer would do, Lacy said.
DOT gets many reports and petitions from residents opposing road plans and engineering decisions. Lacy said this is the first time he has referred a case to the professional licensing board.
Andrew L. Ritter, executive director of the engineers licensing board, said it will take three or four months to investigate Lacy's allegation against Cox. He said there is a potential for violation if DOT and the public were misled by "engineering-quality work"- even if the authors did not claim to be engineers.
"We don't take the side of the DOT," Ritter said. "What's best for the public is what we'll find."
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.
Cox would not identify the report's authors.
"I helped pull the report together," he said. "Because of this investigation, I'm not going to say who was involved in it and who wasn't involved. All we're saying is our association prepared the report."
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/964781/citizen-activist-grates-on-state.html#ixzz1CwOmhfLO
Yikes
SAWHORSE
Agree with Coug Dad. Funny story, and I wish I cold tell Design Review Boards that they are practicing architecture without a license.
However, under the state's logic, every piece of homework prepared by a civil engineering student would be suspect.
However, under the state's logic, every piece of homework prepared by a civil engineering student would be suspect.
Get the ACLU involved. The city engineer is trying to prevent individuals from reporting problems to the governing bodies. This is equivalent to sa SLAPP and in some jurisdictions is illegal.
They are not claiming to be engineers and no individual will be putting themselves at risk by relying on the document.
They are not claiming to be engineers and no individual will be putting themselves at risk by relying on the document.
FyrBldgGuy
Silver Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 356
I brushed my teeth I must be a dentist.
I put a bandage on my knee I must be a doctor.
Funny comments aside. About two years ago I wrote a white paper covering a issue with a large wood pile in a forest. There was a propsal to burn the wood pile to reduce the fire threat. I opined that burning a wood pile in a forest, at the bottom of a ravine, below a small community in the wildland interface could result in a significant liability and potentially cause legal action. The attorney responsible for the project stated I was practicing law without a license. I told the attorney that practicing law was an action for attorneys, I simply enforce the law. I have always wondered why attorneys never get past practicing. Two months later the attorney was using the information in the white paper as if she created it.
If I ride a horse can I be a cowboy?
I put a bandage on my knee I must be a doctor.
Funny comments aside. About two years ago I wrote a white paper covering a issue with a large wood pile in a forest. There was a propsal to burn the wood pile to reduce the fire threat. I opined that burning a wood pile in a forest, at the bottom of a ravine, below a small community in the wildland interface could result in a significant liability and potentially cause legal action. The attorney responsible for the project stated I was practicing law without a license. I told the attorney that practicing law was an action for attorneys, I simply enforce the law. I have always wondered why attorneys never get past practicing. Two months later the attorney was using the information in the white paper as if she created it.
If I ride a horse can I be a cowboy?
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
After reading the post I can see why all the comments are the way they are.
Kudos to the group to try and find a way to get a detailed analysis presented. Some of the best and brightest minds were never engineers. I'm thinking about two guys from Dayton who made bicycles.
If I sit in the garage , can I be a car?
Kudos to the group to try and find a way to get a detailed analysis presented. Some of the best and brightest minds were never engineers. I'm thinking about two guys from Dayton who made bicycles.
If I sit in the garage , can I be a car?
Mac
Gold Member
If the DOT geniuses are so smart, why do we still have traffic jams??
Yikes
SAWHORSE
The guy certainly sounds ridiculous.
Having said that, I've seen people with limited knowledge really mess things up. They know just enough to think they have the whole picture, and they ask short, pointed questions that really need a more thorough knowledge base to answer correctly.
For example:
"My building meets code, so I'm "safe", right"? (or, it's "earthquake-proof" or "fire-proof", right?)...
A true engineer's answer would discuss the nature of risk, maximum probable loss, and even the very definition of the word "safe". Further discussions may include nuances about what is considered "safe" for different kinds of users (children vs. adults). You may need to clarify the safety issues of furnishings within the building, etc.
But if you give a long answer in a public hearing, then you're a boring windbag who can't get to the point.
If you give a short answer ("trust me, I'm the expert"), you come across as rude and condescending.
Anything in-between these two extremes, if not carefully nuanced, can look like you're weaseling or hiding something.
The short versions usually involve one of two responses:
1. Explaining that engineering often involves complex and interactive variables, like solving a Rubik's cube, and then ask if they want to set up a separate hearing to get a fully informed briefing -- (almost no one takes up my offer).
2. Defining the trust required in deferring to a professional.
In my example about 'earthquake-proof', I try to answer with a short analogy: "My car is probably more earthquake-proof than any building, but if the ground opens up underneath it and it falls into a giant fizzure, it may stay in one piece, but I've still got big problems down in the bottom of the pit. No one can guarantee safety against forces of nature - -all we can do is minimize risk, and build it as if it is our own loved ones are going to live there. I can tell you that when the next big quake hits, I hope I am in THIS building that we're talking about."
Having said that, I've seen people with limited knowledge really mess things up. They know just enough to think they have the whole picture, and they ask short, pointed questions that really need a more thorough knowledge base to answer correctly.
For example:
"My building meets code, so I'm "safe", right"? (or, it's "earthquake-proof" or "fire-proof", right?)...
A true engineer's answer would discuss the nature of risk, maximum probable loss, and even the very definition of the word "safe". Further discussions may include nuances about what is considered "safe" for different kinds of users (children vs. adults). You may need to clarify the safety issues of furnishings within the building, etc.
But if you give a long answer in a public hearing, then you're a boring windbag who can't get to the point.
If you give a short answer ("trust me, I'm the expert"), you come across as rude and condescending.
Anything in-between these two extremes, if not carefully nuanced, can look like you're weaseling or hiding something.
The short versions usually involve one of two responses:
1. Explaining that engineering often involves complex and interactive variables, like solving a Rubik's cube, and then ask if they want to set up a separate hearing to get a fully informed briefing -- (almost no one takes up my offer).
2. Defining the trust required in deferring to a professional.
In my example about 'earthquake-proof', I try to answer with a short analogy: "My car is probably more earthquake-proof than any building, but if the ground opens up underneath it and it falls into a giant fizzure, it may stay in one piece, but I've still got big problems down in the bottom of the pit. No one can guarantee safety against forces of nature - -all we can do is minimize risk, and build it as if it is our own loved ones are going to live there. I can tell you that when the next big quake hits, I hope I am in THIS building that we're talking about."
Last edited by a moderator:
High Desert
REGISTERED
I'm sitting in my office. I hope I don't get in trouble for impersonating an "officer."