> 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.

>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.

Just because it's not on the cycle, does not mean regulations don't apply. It means they are not verifying compliance.

Yep, but being in compliance with the regulations is defined as being in compliance with the cycle (I agree it's dumb).

Ah, well I haven't read the euro regs, but that's not how it works in the US or Canada.

"Volkswagen Emissions Scandal Could Cause 1,200 More Premature Deaths" (from vehicles in Germany alone!)

Seven years is a very light sentence for this. I would guess that sort of damage makes him easily a top 1% criminal. Of the entire world.

[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/volkswagen-deaths_us_58...

“could cause N deaths” is very different from “have caused N deaths beyond any reasonable doubt”.

Could cause 1200 deaths is definitely will cause 10 deaths and probably will definitely cause 300 deaths.

Probably you mean, has caused x deaths directly instead of has caused x deaths indirectly?

No. To be considered a criminal, you need to be found guilty of a crime, and for that the prosecutors need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you committed the act.

Good point. Furthermore, those deaths would have probably been caused anyway, since diesel technology doesn't suddenly make 2x less emissions. Maybe fewer diesels would have been sold, so there would have been 800 deaths instead of 1200 deaths, because the drivers would have bought one running on gas, but yeah, the law isn't designed for these number games.

It is proven that he was complicit in faking emissions tests, and it is proven that those extra emissions will lead to the premature deaths 100s of people.

That’s quite simply not how the law works. To convict someone of murder, you need a direct causal link between VW’s actions (as opposed to another car company’s actions) and a particular person dying. Statistics games don’t cut it.

Thank you for the lesson, but I never said the man should be guilty of murder. I'm merely stating that since his actions lead to the death or injury of hundreds or thousands of people he should be duly penalised to dissuade future would-be law breakers.

In a case like this maybe statistics do need to play a larger role.

We call that an ex post facto law.

Right. It needs to be proved beyond all _reasonable_ doubt, not beyond _all_ doubt. It's reasonable to believe that this person committed a crime.

He literally helped trick people to think they emitted less than they were, probably leading to a higher emission rate overall.

That effects everyone on the entire planet. I think committing a crime that affects ever single human life should be considered a very serious crime. That should lead to very serious punishments.

I do not think the punishment was harsh.

Seven years in prison for any person who ever got in a body spray fight as a kid/teen!

Seriously though, scale of impact only matters in the context of the weight of the impact, otherwise lots of preposterous things would be dire crimes.

Obviously you're missing the most critical words of my sentences. This effects all of humanity, including you and me. Even if your comparison is utterly silly, a spray fight would not emit more than it would otherwise since you still have manufactured the bottle already.

When lying about emissions people tend to get taxed lower for the lower emissions (at least in many countries in the EU) and also people rather buy a car with a low emission than a car with a higher emission rate.

Should we jail all police officers who fail to catch every criminal instead of disincentivizing crime, too?

We should demote police officers who run a search warrant and fail to find an obvious piece of evidence that was right in front of them because they didn't think of opening a door.

Let's not take it out on the people who did what they were required to do by law.