5 ms·
There is such thing as "evading the law" you know. It's not enough that you satisfy the regulation, if you act against the intent of the law in other ways. Or p
by literallycancer 10y ago
There is such thing as "evading the law" you know. It's not enough that you satisfy the regulation, if you act against the intent of the law in other ways. Or perhaps it's different in the US, but that's what I would expect in most of Europe.
- zde 10y agoIt seems that the main difference between law evasion (which is illegal) and law avoidance (which is legal) is that evasion is concealed. https://www.crunch.co.uk/blog/startup-advice/2015/05/20/tax-avoidance-evasion-difference-legal/ https://www.crunch.co.uk/blog/startup-advice/2015/05/20/tax-... Since VW has admitted to detecting test conditions, it's now no longer evading the regulations but avoiding it, right?
- freehunter 10y agoIt doesn't really matter what they're doing or saying now, what matters is what they were doing and saying at the time the evaded/avoided the law. If I admit to breaking the law, I still broke the law and I will still be punished for it. It doesn't retroactively make it okay just because I've admitted to it. At the time they submitted their cars for testing, they told the world these cars met the test standards and did not say they had software to detect the test and modify the engine tuning. They only admitted it after they got caught, so at the time of the testing, they were evading the law, not avoiding it. Avoiding the law would be not submitting their cars for testing.
- throwaway927315 10y agoNo, they were avoiding the law, by extra providing power to the drive train at the expense of emissions, when not on a treadmill. When on a treadmill, the car's emissions control performed within tested standards. That means they only avoided infractions under certain conditions. Do you always split hairs like this?