sggoodri

The degree of harm that an engineer can do through negligence or incompetence is so great, and can potentially affect so many people, that rigorous certification of competency was developed to protect the public. It is part of the engineering culture to self-police to promote high professional standards so bridges are less likely to collapse and people are less likely to be sickened by their water supplies.

Great economic harm can be caused through failures of IT systems, and certification of IT professionals is a public good. While there is much overlap between some engineering fields and IT fields, they are different disciplines, with different skill sets. Some engineers are undoubtedly elitist about some things, but I'd like to count myself among the more enlightened engineers who know that IT professionals are every bit as smart and important as engineers are, and I like to have IT people on my projects at the earliest design stages to compensate for my inability to keep up with the pace and scope of the IT field. It's unfortunate that there is so much contention about the term "engineer" in the IT field since the IT folks I work with do nearly as much real engineering as I do on a daily basis.

The traffic engineers I talk to on a frequent basis encourage my participation and feedback on planning/design projects and before/after comparisons. When I do express an opinion about a design, I try to use the correct engineering terminology as a courtesy to them and to better communicate with them, not to deceive others about my qualifications, and I think they understand and appreciate that. When I do seek to influence the opinions of others, I try to provide references to other PE's work if appropriate, with context, and I try to get the local PE's to make my arguments for me. For instance, at a planning and zoning meeting, instead of saying "that signal is non-compliant with MUTCD due to its split phase cycle that never provides a circular green for pedestrians" I will ask the engineer there "What does the MUTCD say about split phase signals and pedestrians?" I give the engineer the opportunity to correct any misunderstandings I may have. I have backed engineers into a corner this way before, forcing them to admit that a design was seriously flawed, but usually I try to lead them into making my argument for me, and that can be most satisfying for all of us.

( Edit: FYI here is a link to an article I wrote a long while back on pedestrian safety and MUTCD requirements at signals: http://www.humantransport.org/univer...cdsignals.html )