> The ones who are getting off easily, IMHO, are the regulators. ...and the politicians who are supposed to oversee them. I agree 100%. > This is utter intell

> The ones who are getting off easily, IMHO, are the regulators. ...and the politicians who are supposed to oversee them. I agree 100%. > This is utter intellectual laziness It's not. Of course this was done under a laughably thin guise of impartiality ("if we use real-world tests, we would introduce an unfair element of randomness"), but in truth it was clear to anyone who cared that the regulations are deliberately softened to make it easy for manufacturers. Boring example: the European driving cycle only defines measurements up to a top speed of 130km/h. So it's legal for manufacturers to ignore regulations from 131km/h onwards. Why not enforce adherence up to the rated top speed? Because... uh... > How is it possible that it never occurred to anyone there, to test cars in real-world conditions It has occurred to many people. Manufacturers have fought it tooth and nail -- I wonder why. Even in Germany, which all but depends on its automotive industry, this is widely considered a disgrace (except, of course, in the circles relevant to the inception of regulations). In fact, many people consider it a strategic mistake to go soft on the German auto industry, allowing them to fall behind. I'm sure it'll bite them. But only after the current politicians and CEOs have left office, so why should they care? Grrrr.