Again, that’s what licensing is supposed to solve. The politicians should not have the ability to say “okay if you won’t do [this unsafe thing] then I’ll just replace you with someone who will” because literally every licensed engineer should also refuse to do it.
Either the project gets built properly or it should not be built. It is every licensed engineer’s professional responsibility and legal obligation to ensure that is the case, regardless of political pressure.
Capitulating to pressure to build an unsafe design is literally criminal negligence and should be adjudicated as such.
The project is managed by the state/county/city DOT, with the project manager being a licensed Professional Engineer (PE).
The design of the project is contracted out to a private engineering firm, where the engineer in charge of the design is a PE (and the people working under him who actually do most of the work are either also PEs, or are at least licensed Engineers In Training (EITs)).
At least at the firm I worked at, the CEO of the company was also a PE.
The construction is contracted out to a private construction firm, where the engineer in charge of construction is a PE.
Except for the 10,000-foot level budgeting, everyone with a position of authority over the project is a licensed PE. It’s PEs all the way up. The buck stops at the PEs.
The problem here is not that PEs are being bullied by someone else into not doing their jobs properly. PEs are not victims in this scenario, not even a little bit.
The problem here is that PEs don’t think they have an obligation to make streets that are safe for anyone but drivers, because the entire industry standards of practice are wrong.
The problem here is that PEs don’t think they have an obligation to make streets that are safe for anyone but drivers, because the entire industry standards of practice are wrong.
OK this one landed.
Very valid point and thank you for crystalizing this.
Reminds of law and medicine tbh. It seem to be a structural issue where proffesions are captured by Brian rot who cares more about money, careers and good connections over doing their jobs.
So from that perspective, yes, we should start with people owning this.
Again, that’s what licensing is supposed to solve. The politicians should not have the ability to say “okay if you won’t do [this unsafe thing] then I’ll just replace you with someone who will” because literally every licensed engineer should also refuse to do it.
Either the project gets built properly or it should not be built. It is every licensed engineer’s professional responsibility and legal obligation to ensure that is the case, regardless of political pressure.
Capitulating to pressure to build an unsafe design is literally criminal negligence and should be adjudicated as such.
I agree with you 100% but I have so been around the block enough to know that there is the law and then there is practice.
So figuring out how things are done is best way to make the law work.
Systems are designed with “good” intetions but in practice we aee that wage slaves even pro grade type are just wage slaves who got families to feed.
Look, here’s how it actually works in practice:
Except for the 10,000-foot level budgeting, everyone with a position of authority over the project is a licensed PE. It’s PEs all the way up. The buck stops at the PEs.
The problem here is not that PEs are being bullied by someone else into not doing their jobs properly. PEs are not victims in this scenario, not even a little bit.
The problem here is that PEs don’t think they have an obligation to make streets that are safe for anyone but drivers, because the entire industry standards of practice are wrong.
OK this one landed.
Very valid point and thank you for crystalizing this.
Reminds of law and medicine tbh. It seem to be a structural issue where proffesions are captured by Brian rot who cares more about money, careers and good connections over doing their jobs.
So from that perspective, yes, we should start with people owning this.
Thank you for enagaging.