The Professional Engineer title in much of the United States is an additional level of credentialing and is more rigorous than just completing an undergraduate degree in an engineering field (though I guess some areas let you qualify with years of regular demonstrable experience).

The Engineer license came up particularly to address quality control in civil engineering works [1]. So it's actually important to protect that, lest a bunch of folks start deciding they're qualified to give opinions on complicated structures or earthworks.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...

Yes but the man didn't claim to be a registered PE, qualified and entitled to practice in Oregon, he simply said that he has an engineering degree and is employed as an engineer. There are many many people who are engineers but who are not registered Professional Engineers.

Your description of his description is easily confused with him saying he’s an Engineer.

That’s a licensed position when you’re providing services to the public.

I think we’re desensitized by the software industry’s tendency to use the term for developers and technicians. “Software engineer” is not the same thing as an Engineer in the civil or electrical trade, for example.

No, it's not confusing at all. The guy never offered engineering services to the public.

This isn't anywhere near the same thing as "Software Engineer"

We're discussing this because he went and spoke at a public forum, and gave his expertise as foundation for why his speech should be influential. That can indeed be confused, and his obtuseness with not modifying his statements after multiple requests by the licensing organization would indicate that he meant this to stand.

The public are not experts on all things. Someone ignorant to the stages of licensing are likely to hear "I studied engineering and work as an engineer" and think, "I can trust this person with topics related to engineering." This used to happen, to undesirable effect, which is why calling yourself "an engineer" especially in civil engineering fields requires a license.

In the real world, professional engineers are bonded and are liable for errors like lawyers.

Are there jobs, other than being a judge or politician, where you are not liable for errors?

Software engineer

Software engineers, like everybody else, are absolutely liable for errors. However, their work is invariably licensed using a contract that disclaims liability.

Regulated professionals, by contrast, are often limited by law from disclaiming liability or otherwise shielding themselves from liability (e.g. by using a corporation). This is especially true for highly regarded professions like lawyers and doctors. Professionals and licensed workers more generally are also usually required to be bonded or carry insurance so that they're not judgment proof.[1]

[1] The reason you would rarely see a software engineer employee (or any employee) sued for negligence is that it would be a waste of money--they wouldn't be able to to pay a judgment. You sue the employer not because the employee isn't liable, but because 1) it's easier to prove a case against an employer and 2) the employer is the only one able to afford a judgment. For example, if a UPS truck driver runs you over, you always sue UPS. You may or not may not sue the truck driver, but unless the truck driver is secretly rich it's UPS you're expecting to pay out.

To cue up the old saw: Weathermen.

"You can be wrong half the time and still have a job" har har har

Are there many examples in the real world of this actually happening?

Countless.

Here's [1] an example of the Board pursuing a company and their Professional Enigneers for an org structure that facilitated signing off of engineering work without satisfying the 'direct supervision' clause of the act. Specifically, the guy signing it off was based about 1500 km away from the team doing the work, and the head of the team doing the work, who was in reality supervising it, was not qualified to do so as a Professional Engineer.

As a second example, the coroner's investigation into the Dreamworld fatalities from a few years ago came out just last week [2,3]. In it the coroner recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers investigate the engineering firm that signed off the certification for the ride, over potential gross failures of practicing with due diligence. This may result in the approving Professional Engineer having their license to practice revoked.

[1]: https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/76335

[2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-24/dreamworld-accident-i...

[3]: https://www.smh.com.au/national/queensland/dreamworld-inques...

The discipline notices for these sorts of organizations are always public. You can browse through the cases on their website [1]. Most of the enforcement actions against licensed professional engineers in Oregon seem to be for failing to complete their required professional development hours (e.g. [2]), though I did find an interesting case of a P.Eng. who was sanctioned for revealing client data [3].

[1]: https://www.oregon.gov/osbeels/rulesstatutes/Pages/Disciplin... [2] https://www.oregon.gov/osbeels/Documents/FinalOrders/2019111... [3] https://www.oregon.gov/osbeels/Documents/FinalOrders/2019071...

Yeah, looking at the lists of violations makes it pretty clear that the system is obsolete. These are the same people that claimed they could fine every single engineer working at Intel for not technically being certified.

I'm sure that if they actually started going after people, everyone's job title would magically shift to "Technology Developer" or something similar.

Close to home... yes, the FIU bridge engineers could have been charged with manslaughter (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article23659748...)

I'm pretty sure anyone that works on something that kills people "could" be charged manslaughter. The entire PE system seems antiquated and obsolute.

Yes but that has nothing to do with the State Board of Engineering Examiners or whatever Florida's equivalent is.

Appeal to authority is generally not a healthy line of arguing. Only the argument itself should be considered.

A valid choice if you have the time to make yourself enough of an expert on any argument that gets presented to correctly understand and judge its contents. Most people do not have that time or even the patience to waste it when we have various ways to identify people that should know what they are talking about.

If you do not use the validity of the argument itself, then you will keep ending up in this very same situation.

Remember, the original system was caused by "experts" in the area, whose authority far exceeded the person claiming the system incorrect.

Using authority as a measure would have lead to continued failure. It is always an error to use authority as proof.

Is that mentioned somewhere? As far as I am aware red light cameras are often abused as money makers and cities have been known to reduce wait times in order to maximize profit over the safety of drivers. So the "experts" in question most likely wouldn't have been engineers, they would have been bean counters.