Re: N.C.: Have an Opinion? You're Violating the Law!



On Feb 12, 6:46 pm, Larry G <gross.la...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:56 pm, hanco...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Larry G <gross.la...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John.. the public can call their comments anything they want to call
them.
that's their right.

Claiming to be certified professional in a variety of fields when
you're not is a violation of law.  As it should be.

Claiming or implying a document is a true engineering study when it
isn't is and should be a violation of law.

no one made those claims. They did not claim to be PEs and they did
not claim tht their study was done by a PE.  ANYONE can do a study.
The only think they cannot do is make claim that they are a PE.

Anyone can submit a comment, call it an engineering study and not be
guilty of anything.

Even an engineer who is not a PE can submit a comment entitled
Engineering Study as long as he does not claim to be a PE and instead
says the is just a citizen who has knows how to do a traffic warrant.

Ya'll are totally confused on this and you're demonstrating a "DOT"
mentality that betrays your views about citizens and their ability and
right to make a substantiative comment.

The ONLY think they are not allowed to do is to claim they are a PE
and no one did that.

If I believe you - all these folks on the internet could be sued for
impersonating a professional - and they cannot .....UNTIL they put the
suffix PE or prefix Dr, etc on their name     THEN they can be accused
of impersonating a role that they are not.

This is all about intimidating citizens who dare make "too good" of a
comment on  project.

I think the behavior of the DOT needs to be punished for attempting to
suppress citizens comments.

At what point is enough enough? This group has presented many
comments/criticisms of the plans and decisions of engineers on this
project. Why was this the one that was sent to the board? Because it
was presented as an analysis for traffic signal installation. The
other comments were not presented to council and to a congressman with
engineering conclusions (my choice of words, although they
specifically said conclusion in their report.)

If there was an attempt to censor/shut this group up, why wasn't it
done two years or so ago? Because there was never such intent,
although clearly the way it was portraited in the paper people have
reached that conclusion. (it hasn't a great week of publicity for the
department.) Just as many have reached the conclusion that the work
done by this group was quality work (read the comments following the
original article, and continued in the N&O's editorial on Monday.).
Yet the original article never said this.

In my engineering opinion, which matches my boss's, the state
traffic engineer, this work is poorly done. It shows a clear
misunderstanding of basic traffic operation (yes, it does take
training and experience to analyze traffic counts, not the specific
counting of vehicles) and understand trip generation and distribution,
which is why this should be done by (or under supervision of) a
licensed engineer. They also did not apply the appropriate
methodology for determining if a site meets various traffic signal
warrants.

Had a registered engineer submitted this as a sealed document, it also
would have been sent to the board for review for competency.







.