71–80 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally don't think that jail for simply emitting NOx above limits is worth it
An estimated 60 people have died because of these excess emissions. What penalty would you consider appropriate for someone breaking the law, resulting in 60 deaths? Should it matter what law was broken, or how those deaths were caused?
When the EPA fines a company (e.g., $4.3Bn for VW), where exactly does that money go?
When the EPA fines a company (e.g., $4.3Bn for VW), where exactly does that money go?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This is a result of the cold hard engineering fact that our current level of technology is insufficient to hit the numbers without raising costs significantly. But once one automaker starts to fudge the numbers at a given price point, all the others must do the same thing or they fall behind." I'm going to have to remember to bring this up as an example whenever people claim private industry can police/regulate them…
there'd be no incentive to lie if the EPA wasn't forcing these "standards" on them. Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to actually do what everyone else is lying about. This isn't damming of private industry - it's damming of the regulation. (Er, to me. Obviously you might come to a different conclusion. Just wanted to throw in how this article can be read both ways.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An estimated 60 people have died because of these excess emissions. What penalty would you consider appropriate for someone breaking the law, resulting in 60 deaths? Should it matter what law was broken, or how those deaths were caused?
Are you saying that 60 people died because of excess FCA NoX emissions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An estimated 60 people have died because of these excess emissions. What penalty would you consider appropriate for someone breaking the law, resulting in 60 deaths? Should it matter what law was broken, or how those deaths were caused?
60 people was just an estimate from statistics, and NOx emissions are not a new problem either.
Oh, oh, let me guess: it's the fault of a single rogue engineer, and does not in any way implicate company upper management.
I am assuming your comment is referencing Volkswagen's emissions controversy? It doesn't really fit considering six executives have been charged [1] over the incident. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/volkswagen-diese...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This is a result of the cold hard engineering fact that our current level of technology is insufficient to hit the numbers without raising costs significantly. But once one automaker starts to fudge the numbers at a given price point, all the others must do the same thing or they fall behind." I'm going to have to remember to bring this up as an example whenever people claim private industry can police/regulate them…
So instead we overregulate to the point where affordable car's can't exist furthering the divide between the rich and the poor. Wonderful.
These diesel vehicles were not truly "affordable" to start with, they are a very costly upgrade (> $4000) over the base engines. A truck that starts at over $37,000 and an SUV start at over $40,000. While these are obviously vehicles the average middle-income person might be able to afford, it's a far cry from the $27,000 starting price of the RAM and these aren't leaving the lot without being almost $10k more than the average new car.
How about blaming the execs or the other people actually responsible. GM, BMW, MB, and Ford among others have been able sell diesel vehicles in the US without (afaik) cheating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though I see a slight grayish tint to your comment indicating some down votes, you're spot on. Does anyone really think someone's automotive buying decision goes something like, "yeah, it's hard to park and the mileage sucks, but at least I don't have to take 30 minutes out of my day once every few years to go get emissions tested. That'll make the rough ride and the hundreds of extra dollars in fuel expenses worth i…
Big cars were always popular in the US. Until the mid 1970s when fuel economy standards and an oil crisis or two changed the market. The oil crisis passed, but the economy standards did not. Trucks weren't held to the same standards as cars, so manufacturers started making more carlike trucks to meet consumer demand for larger vehicles. The improved visibility and image of toughness and independence also helps drive…
Bad drivers driving huge cars through dense places are scary...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An estimated 60 people have died because of these excess emissions. What penalty would you consider appropriate for someone breaking the law, resulting in 60 deaths? Should it matter what law was broken, or how those deaths were caused?
60 people was just an estimate from statistics, and NOx emissions are not a new problem either.
If you randomly shoot 30 people, what is the appropriate penalty? What if you were shooting blindfolded and couldn't see when or who you killed? What if you were being paid money to take shots?
That is an exact analogy to what Volkswagon did when it sold cars that exceeded regulatory limits.