5 ms·

Why will they not, do they fear they will not get a fair trial in the US or will be punished worse than their crimes dictate?

quakeguy 9y ago
In the land of "rolling coal" (0.0), and no TÜV+AU (0),(1), any sudden punishment of violators from outside reeks of market protection. (0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technischer_Überwachungsverein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technischer_Überwachungsverein (1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgasuntersuchung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgasuntersuchung (non english WP link, basically it means "emission checking") Edit: (0.0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
- wl 9y ago
  There's a big difference between a few rednecks illegally modifying their personal vehicles and a company selling millions of vehicles that fail emissions standards and trying to cover it up.
  - quakeguy 9y ago
    Not really, both are stupid and should be punished.
  - dom0 9y ago
    > selling millions of vehicles VW sold approximately 475000 affected diesel vehicles in the US (compared to approx. 84.5 million car sales in the same time period).
    - ams6110 9y ago
      This has always been my problem with the whole case. Yes they violated the law and yes they probably should be some punishment but the real impact was almost nothing, the vehicles would have met the restrictions of only a few years prior, and the limits are almost entirely arbitrary and politically motivated.
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        I agree. If we weren't on a forum filled with mostly people from CA who take for granted things like byzantine HOA rules and intrusive bylaws we'd be questioning why emissions requirements made "screw it, we're cheating on this one" a defensible decision for anyone at VW. You shouldn't have to break the law to be competitive.
        simonh 9y ago
        How many other car manufacturers broke the law in this way? We're none of the ones that didn't competitive? What a patently ridiculous argument.
        dom0 9y ago
        Last time I checked all tested diesel cars displayed anomalies between their supposed emissions and their actual emissions. So at this point: Likely all car makers. And while this hasn't been public knowledge, it is not that surprising, because it has been public knowledge how much the mileage tests are gamed, so it's not surprising that all other tests are gamed as well (and, specifically, using defeat devices is also illegal).
        Reason077 9y ago
        The technology exists for diesel engines to meet emissions regulations. However, German car-makers secretly formed an agreement not to use certain emissions reduction technologies (such as large, refillable AdBlue tanks) in order to save money: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/24/16021292/german-car-companies-cartel-diesel-emissions-90s https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/24/16021292/german-car-compa...
        rurban 9y ago
        There were a few who actually didn't cheat, or pulled out of the market. Opel is a prominent one as I remember.
        greglindahl 9y ago
- dubyah 9y ago
  "Rolling coal" remains an illegal modification, practiced by scofflaws. TÜVs are not immune to conflicts of interests.[0] And while generally not a separate sticker from annual car registrations, annual or biennial emissions testings are carried out by most states.[1] >any sudden punishment of violators from outside reeks of market protection. Perhaps it's because the EU lacks the authority of the member states to regulate & police emission laws. They started legal proceedings against their member states precisely because of their inaction. "The European Commission on Thursday began the so-called "infringement procedures," calling Germany, Britain, Spain and Luxembourg to account for not imposing the same kind of penalties Volkswagen faced in the United States for using illegal software to mask health-harming emissions."[2] Isn't that market protection as well? [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/business/international/cozy-relations-complicate-europes-bid-for-new-car-tests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/business/international/co... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States#Jurisdictions_requiring_periodic_vehicle_emissions_inspections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit... [2]: http://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-legal-case-against-germany-six-other-countries-over-vw-scandal/a-36690366 http://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-legal-case-against-germany-...
  - NegativeLatency 9y ago
    Most states emissions testing requirements are not stringent. Having lived in Washington, Oregon, and California I can say that WA's and OR's tests don't do much.
    - sitkack 9y ago
      This "hack" by VW should have been caught in weeks by the EPA. It was detected simply by driving the car around with a sensor in the tailpipe. And yes, when emissions testing switched to relying on the OBD codes, all was lost. Even I thought about hacking the ECU to report "all good"
      - valuearb 9y ago
        This intentional evasion of emissions standards couldn't have been caught by the EPA test process. That should be changed (which will open other doors for other ways to game the tests) but it doesn't have anything to do with VW's willful violation of the law.
- hueving 9y ago
  Did you even read the article about rolling coal? It's illegal in the US.
DominikPeters 9y ago
If they are German citizens, then the German constitution prevents the state from extraditing them (to a non-EU country). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_16.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_16.html
- vinay427 9y ago
  It's strange to me that many countries sign "bilateral" extradition treaties with Germany or other countries with similar policies such as Brazil.
  - leipert 9y ago
    Well. Is there any case where any western country did extradite their own citizen for non-spionage, non-military, non-war and non-capital crime? I hope not. I certainly do not approve of the scam and deception VW did (and possibly other automobile manufacturers?), but I think I do not approve extraditing citizens of your own country for some non-capital crime. Or even some capital crimes for that matter. I (and most of the other Germans and EU citizens [1]) oppose death penalties. So extraditing someone to the US, which could result in death penalty if someone committed a murder, would be a really big ethical and/or diplomatic issue. [1]: http://www.eidhr.eu/highlights/death-penalty http://www.eidhr.eu/highlights/death-penalty
    - jburgess777 9y ago
      There are several examples where the US has successfully extradited people from the UK on charges related to financial crimes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/british-trader-pleads-guilty-to-wire-after-us-extradition https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/british-trad... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three The US doesn't always gets what it wants, for example with Gary McKinnon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138
      - leipert 9y ago
leipert 9y ago
Maybe because the Volkswagen AG employs 0.6 million people worldwide, 220 thousand of them in Germany?
- rurban 9y ago
  If the Volkswagen AG would be the only culprit. So far it looks like Audi persuaded Bosch to add the cheat detection code into it's ECU used in almost every Diesel car, and consequently almost every car was using it. The scandal is much bigger than VW.
  - leipert 9y ago
    FYI: Audi is part of the VW AG.
    - rurban 9y ago
      FYI: Audi is the technological part of VW who actually develops and produces the engines. VW has not much to do with engines. Audi and Porsche also do own VW.
interfixus 9y ago
Honestly, US penal standards are so out of whack with those of the rest of at least the "western" world, that no country ought ever consider extradition as an option.
Tomte 9y ago
Our constitution forbids extradition of citizens to foreign countries. There's an exception for other member states of the European Union, but that's it.
rurban 9y ago
Because they knew it upfront. The whole Diesel testing system was rigged to eliminate costly end machine testing as done in the US, which historically led to costly cheating on the roll by the US manifacturers. They paid experts passing those tests which were paid as much as a Formula 1 driver. So the Europeans improved that to reproducible test cases, and much cheaper, only with the engine. So when the problem with the overly large AdBlue tanks came up, the Europeans knew they can cheat that away, because legally they thought they can get away with it. The engine test passed legally, and there was no legal framework to protect actual sold cars from emitting too much NOx. This is of course entirely the fault of the politicians, which were of course lobbied into that, and didn't ask much. That's why VW insisted all the time that they acted legally in Europe. In the US of course not, because in the US the big three always had the advantage of special drivers to pass the emission tests. So they still don't fear any legal woes in Europe. So the strategy is to keep calm, and protect the rest of the industry, the politicians, the workers, change the ECU's, and either add bigger tanks or change AdBlue more often. It's insane to ask for 2 years AdBlue storage anyway. 6 months if enough. And the good engines can pass the new EURO 6 limits, because their injection system is highly optimized. Those engines are miles better and more effective than a normal otto, which enables them to actually use the crap diesel oil. Problematic are only the overly large engines or the cheap ones.

quakeguy 9y ago

In the land of "rolling coal" (0.0), and no TÜV+AU (0),(1), any sudden punishment of violators from outside reeks of market protection. (0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technischer_Überwachungsverein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technischer_Überwachungsverein (1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgasuntersuchung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgasuntersuchung (non english WP link, basically it means "emission checking") Edit: (0.0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

wl 9y ago
There's a big difference between a few rednecks illegally modifying their personal vehicles and a company selling millions of vehicles that fail emissions standards and trying to cover it up.
- quakeguy 9y ago
  Not really, both are stupid and should be punished.
- dom0 9y ago
  > selling millions of vehicles VW sold approximately 475000 affected diesel vehicles in the US (compared to approx. 84.5 million car sales in the same time period).
  - ams6110 9y ago
    This has always been my problem with the whole case. Yes they violated the law and yes they probably should be some punishment but the real impact was almost nothing, the vehicles would have met the restrictions of only a few years prior, and the limits are almost entirely arbitrary and politically motivated.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      I agree. If we weren't on a forum filled with mostly people from CA who take for granted things like byzantine HOA rules and intrusive bylaws we'd be questioning why emissions requirements made "screw it, we're cheating on this one" a defensible decision for anyone at VW. You shouldn't have to break the law to be competitive.
      - simonh 9y ago
        How many other car manufacturers broke the law in this way? We're none of the ones that didn't competitive? What a patently ridiculous argument.
        dom0 9y ago
        Last time I checked all tested diesel cars displayed anomalies between their supposed emissions and their actual emissions. So at this point: Likely all car makers. And while this hasn't been public knowledge, it is not that surprising, because it has been public knowledge how much the mileage tests are gamed, so it's not surprising that all other tests are gamed as well (and, specifically, using defeat devices is also illegal).
        Reason077 9y ago
        The technology exists for diesel engines to meet emissions regulations. However, German car-makers secretly formed an agreement not to use certain emissions reduction technologies (such as large, refillable AdBlue tanks) in order to save money: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/24/16021292/german-car-companies-cartel-diesel-emissions-90s https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/24/16021292/german-car-compa...
        rurban 9y ago
        There were a few who actually didn't cheat, or pulled out of the market. Opel is a prominent one as I remember.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
dubyah 9y ago
"Rolling coal" remains an illegal modification, practiced by scofflaws. TÜVs are not immune to conflicts of interests.[0] And while generally not a separate sticker from annual car registrations, annual or biennial emissions testings are carried out by most states.[1] >any sudden punishment of violators from outside reeks of market protection. Perhaps it's because the EU lacks the authority of the member states to regulate & police emission laws. They started legal proceedings against their member states precisely because of their inaction. "The European Commission on Thursday began the so-called "infringement procedures," calling Germany, Britain, Spain and Luxembourg to account for not imposing the same kind of penalties Volkswagen faced in the United States for using illegal software to mask health-harming emissions."[2] Isn't that market protection as well? [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/business/international/cozy-relations-complicate-europes-bid-for-new-car-tests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/business/international/co... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States#Jurisdictions_requiring_periodic_vehicle_emissions_inspections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit... [2]: http://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-legal-case-against-germany-six-other-countries-over-vw-scandal/a-36690366 http://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-legal-case-against-germany-...
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  Most states emissions testing requirements are not stringent. Having lived in Washington, Oregon, and California I can say that WA's and OR's tests don't do much.
  - sitkack 9y ago
    This "hack" by VW should have been caught in weeks by the EPA. It was detected simply by driving the car around with a sensor in the tailpipe. And yes, when emissions testing switched to relying on the OBD codes, all was lost. Even I thought about hacking the ECU to report "all good"
    - valuearb 9y ago
      This intentional evasion of emissions standards couldn't have been caught by the EPA test process. That should be changed (which will open other doors for other ways to game the tests) but it doesn't have anything to do with VW's willful violation of the law.
hueving 9y ago
Did you even read the article about rolling coal? It's illegal in the US.

DominikPeters 9y ago

If they are German citizens, then the German constitution prevents the state from extraditing them (to a non-EU country). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_16.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_16.html

vinay427 9y ago
It's strange to me that many countries sign "bilateral" extradition treaties with Germany or other countries with similar policies such as Brazil.
- leipert 9y ago
  Well. Is there any case where any western country did extradite their own citizen for non-spionage, non-military, non-war and non-capital crime? I hope not. I certainly do not approve of the scam and deception VW did (and possibly other automobile manufacturers?), but I think I do not approve extraditing citizens of your own country for some non-capital crime. Or even some capital crimes for that matter. I (and most of the other Germans and EU citizens [1]) oppose death penalties. So extraditing someone to the US, which could result in death penalty if someone committed a murder, would be a really big ethical and/or diplomatic issue. [1]: http://www.eidhr.eu/highlights/death-penalty http://www.eidhr.eu/highlights/death-penalty
  - jburgess777 9y ago
    There are several examples where the US has successfully extradited people from the UK on charges related to financial crimes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/british-trader-pleads-guilty-to-wire-after-us-extradition https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/british-trad... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three The US doesn't always gets what it wants, for example with Gary McKinnon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138
    - leipert 9y ago

leipert 9y ago

Maybe because the Volkswagen AG employs 0.6 million people worldwide, 220 thousand of them in Germany?

rurban 9y ago
If the Volkswagen AG would be the only culprit. So far it looks like Audi persuaded Bosch to add the cheat detection code into it's ECU used in almost every Diesel car, and consequently almost every car was using it. The scandal is much bigger than VW.
- leipert 9y ago
  FYI: Audi is part of the VW AG.
  - rurban 9y ago
    FYI: Audi is the technological part of VW who actually develops and produces the engines. VW has not much to do with engines. Audi and Porsche also do own VW.

interfixus 9y ago

Honestly, US penal standards are so out of whack with those of the rest of at least the "western" world, that no country ought ever consider extradition as an option.

Tomte 9y ago

Our constitution forbids extradition of citizens to foreign countries. There's an exception for other member states of the European Union, but that's it.

rurban 9y ago

Because they knew it upfront. The whole Diesel testing system was rigged to eliminate costly end machine testing as done in the US, which historically led to costly cheating on the roll by the US manifacturers. They paid experts passing those tests which were paid as much as a Formula 1 driver. So the Europeans improved that to reproducible test cases, and much cheaper, only with the engine. So when the problem with the overly large AdBlue tanks came up, the Europeans knew they can cheat that away, because legally they thought they can get away with it. The engine test passed legally, and there was no legal framework to protect actual sold cars from emitting too much NOx. This is of course entirely the fault of the politicians, which were of course lobbied into that, and didn't ask much. That's why VW insisted all the time that they acted legally in Europe. In the US of course not, because in the US the big three always had the advantage of special drivers to pass the emission tests. So they still don't fear any legal woes in Europe. So the strategy is to keep calm, and protect the rest of the industry, the politicians, the workers, change the ECU's, and either add bigger tanks or change AdBlue more often. It's insane to ask for 2 years AdBlue storage anyway. 6 months if enough. And the good engines can pass the new EURO 6 limits, because their injection system is highly optimized. Those engines are miles better and more effective than a normal otto, which enables them to actually use the crap diesel oil. Problematic are only the overly large engines or the cheap ones.