8 ms·

This is truly despicable. Shame on any company who attempts to skirt the laws that were instilled by the people who allow the company to operate within their bo

This is truly despicable. Shame on any company who attempts to skirt the laws that were instilled by the people who allow the company to operate within their borders in the first place. Truly shameful and sad.

metalliqaz 9y ago
I'd be more eager to cast scorn if I could find a company that hasn't skirted the law.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- widowlark 9y ago
  It's not that I'm surprised, I just wish it was better
- simonsarris 9y ago
  Well, there's always Tesla. All the more reason to consider EVs a moral good.
  - ATsch 9y ago
    Well, last I remember Telsa violates the GPL
    - mohaine 9y ago
      Source?
      - foldor 9y ago
        I would assume since they're violating the GPL that there is no source, and that's the issue.
      - ATsch 9y ago
        Well, we don't have it sadly. Jokes aside, there is no "offical" source for my claim. But the fact that they use a linux based system yet have no place to download it is all the evidence you need really. You can find a number of people detailing their (unsucessful) GPL requests in forum posts etc. by searching for "tesla gpl" or "tesla gpl violation"
  - CalRobert 9y ago
    Reducing the marginal cost of driving in terms of cash (fuel) and time (self-driving) may have second and third order effects which are deeply problematic. I like EV's, but we're foolish to think that making driving effectively free won't have downsides.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      EVs also don't make driving "effectively free." We don't really have a good handle on the long-term maintenance costs associated with EVs but even the electricity itself (at residential power rates) is about 1/3 to 1/2 of gasoline costs in the US. A substantial savings but not free.
  - awqrre 9y ago
    Do you include manufacturing environmental costs of their batteries and the environmental costs of the energy they consume that is produced by someone else?
- chc 9y ago
  AFAIK none of the Japanese companies have messed around with emissions laws, and obviously Tesla wouldn't even need to.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    Mitsubishi cheated on fuel efficiency tests. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-fuel-tests-25-years/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-ch...: > The automaker said last week that it had used improper fuel economy tests on hundreds of thousands of vehicles, including some sold to Nissan
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  That means that GM is no better than Volkswagen. It doesn't mean that they're good, though. What they did is still just as wrong, no matter how many other companies did it too.
  - jerf 9y ago
    For a while now, I've been beating the drum on HN that if you keep raising regulations on the car companies faster than they can develop technology for, we will eventually reach the point where it will be economically impossible to build a car. This story suggests a possibility I hadn't considered yet, which is that it may already be economically impossible to build a car that complies with the law. At this point, while you are welcome to castigate the automakers for cheating, one must also consider that the authors of the regulation may bear some responsibility here too. And I do mean both bear some responsibility; the cheating of the car companies has prevented the feedback from getting to the regulators that they've created an impossible situation. But they may still have created an impossible solution, and it may mean that people just going "Well just comply with the regulations then!" are proposing a non-solution to the problem without realizing it. It is also worth pointing out that three years ago the idea that regulations were already impossible to comply with would have been met with hoots of derision, and probably someone is going to reply to me to dismiss it even now. We're asking auto companies here to forfeit billions of dollars, but the regulators themselves have no risk if they are creating an impossible situation. Just because someone wrote a regulation somewhere doesn't mean it's good, or possible, or economical.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      Theoretically, your position could be true. Empirically, VW released patches for their cars to bring the non-test characteristics in line with their test-mode characteristics. The outcome was that the diesel-engine vehicles had reduced fuel economy and acceleration. [1] Most customers still enjoyed their cars after the patch was applied. 1. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswagen-dieselgate-emissions-recall- http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswa...
- cptskippy 9y ago
  So now we can't castigate lawbreakers until we can prove someone actually adheres to the law?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - stupidhn 9y ago
    >So now we can't castigate lawbreakers until we can prove someone actually adheres to the law? No, but we could at least hold out on castigation until it's proven they've broken the law. A class action lawsuit isn't proof of anything.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I'm okay with scorning every one of them, actually.
mindcrime 9y ago
Nothing has been proven yet, so you might want to put the torches and pitchforks away for just a few moments.
- widowlark 9y ago
  True. Not too much can be done either way.
hourislate 9y ago
Not that it would be right if proven true... Lets put it in perspective. A lawn mower (Chain Saw, Weed Wacker, Small Engine Device) creates more pollution in 1 hour of use than one of these vehicles creates in 8 hours of driving. Even motor cycles will emit more pollution during use. Can you imagine how much extra pollution is creating daily just because of tire under inflation? or oil changes that are too frequent and not necessary? Just think of all the equipment out there that doesn't have any pollution controls and these vehicles could be considered green in comparison. Lets see what the outcome is.... PSA: The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your vehicle in good running condition as long as you can (10-15 years).
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > 10-15 years That's short. My daily driver is going on 20 and doing just fine.
- dashundchen 9y ago
  > PSA: The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your vehicle in good running condition as long as you can (10-15 years). I think the best thing drivers can do for the environment and society's health is to stop driving and start cycling, walking and using public transport.
megablast 9y ago
The car and oil industry is the dirtiest one around. Lets not pretend this isn't the first or 10th time they have been caught. If you own a car, you are involved.

metalliqaz 9y ago

I'd be more eager to cast scorn if I could find a company that hasn't skirted the law.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
widowlark 9y ago
It's not that I'm surprised, I just wish it was better
simonsarris 9y ago
Well, there's always Tesla. All the more reason to consider EVs a moral good.
- ATsch 9y ago
  Well, last I remember Telsa violates the GPL
  - mohaine 9y ago
    Source?
    - foldor 9y ago
      I would assume since they're violating the GPL that there is no source, and that's the issue.
    - ATsch 9y ago
      Well, we don't have it sadly. Jokes aside, there is no "offical" source for my claim. But the fact that they use a linux based system yet have no place to download it is all the evidence you need really. You can find a number of people detailing their (unsucessful) GPL requests in forum posts etc. by searching for "tesla gpl" or "tesla gpl violation"
- CalRobert 9y ago
  Reducing the marginal cost of driving in terms of cash (fuel) and time (self-driving) may have second and third order effects which are deeply problematic. I like EV's, but we're foolish to think that making driving effectively free won't have downsides.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    EVs also don't make driving "effectively free." We don't really have a good handle on the long-term maintenance costs associated with EVs but even the electricity itself (at residential power rates) is about 1/3 to 1/2 of gasoline costs in the US. A substantial savings but not free.
- awqrre 9y ago
  Do you include manufacturing environmental costs of their batteries and the environmental costs of the energy they consume that is produced by someone else?
chc 9y ago
AFAIK none of the Japanese companies have messed around with emissions laws, and obviously Tesla wouldn't even need to.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  Mitsubishi cheated on fuel efficiency tests. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-fuel-tests-25-years/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-ch...: > The automaker said last week that it had used improper fuel economy tests on hundreds of thousands of vehicles, including some sold to Nissan
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
That means that GM is no better than Volkswagen. It doesn't mean that they're good, though. What they did is still just as wrong, no matter how many other companies did it too.
- jerf 9y ago
  For a while now, I've been beating the drum on HN that if you keep raising regulations on the car companies faster than they can develop technology for, we will eventually reach the point where it will be economically impossible to build a car. This story suggests a possibility I hadn't considered yet, which is that it may already be economically impossible to build a car that complies with the law. At this point, while you are welcome to castigate the automakers for cheating, one must also consider that the authors of the regulation may bear some responsibility here too. And I do mean both bear some responsibility; the cheating of the car companies has prevented the feedback from getting to the regulators that they've created an impossible situation. But they may still have created an impossible solution, and it may mean that people just going "Well just comply with the regulations then!" are proposing a non-solution to the problem without realizing it. It is also worth pointing out that three years ago the idea that regulations were already impossible to comply with would have been met with hoots of derision, and probably someone is going to reply to me to dismiss it even now. We're asking auto companies here to forfeit billions of dollars, but the regulators themselves have no risk if they are creating an impossible situation. Just because someone wrote a regulation somewhere doesn't mean it's good, or possible, or economical.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    Theoretically, your position could be true. Empirically, VW released patches for their cars to bring the non-test characteristics in line with their test-mode characteristics. The outcome was that the diesel-engine vehicles had reduced fuel economy and acceleration. [1] Most customers still enjoyed their cars after the patch was applied. 1. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswagen-dieselgate-emissions-recall- http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswa...
cptskippy 9y ago
So now we can't castigate lawbreakers until we can prove someone actually adheres to the law?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- stupidhn 9y ago
  >So now we can't castigate lawbreakers until we can prove someone actually adheres to the law? No, but we could at least hold out on castigation until it's proven they've broken the law. A class action lawsuit isn't proof of anything.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
I'm okay with scorning every one of them, actually.

mindcrime 9y ago

Nothing has been proven yet, so you might want to put the torches and pitchforks away for just a few moments.

widowlark 9y ago
True. Not too much can be done either way.

hourislate 9y ago

Not that it would be right if proven true... Lets put it in perspective. A lawn mower (Chain Saw, Weed Wacker, Small Engine Device) creates more pollution in 1 hour of use than one of these vehicles creates in 8 hours of driving. Even motor cycles will emit more pollution during use. Can you imagine how much extra pollution is creating daily just because of tire under inflation? or oil changes that are too frequent and not necessary? Just think of all the equipment out there that doesn't have any pollution controls and these vehicles could be considered green in comparison. Lets see what the outcome is.... PSA: The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your vehicle in good running condition as long as you can (10-15 years).

jacquesm 9y ago
> 10-15 years That's short. My daily driver is going on 20 and doing just fine.
dashundchen 9y ago
> PSA: The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your vehicle in good running condition as long as you can (10-15 years). I think the best thing drivers can do for the environment and society's health is to stop driving and start cycling, walking and using public transport.

megablast 9y ago

The car and oil industry is the dirtiest one around. Lets not pretend this isn't the first or 10th time they have been caught. If you own a car, you are involved.