Volkswagen Still Talking Technicalities in Definition of 'Cheat'
Last we heard, Volkswagen’s small loophole that it could technically skate through on the definition of “cheating” in Europe was fairly well closed.
Last week, Volkswagen’s chief in the UK asserted in a letter to British Parliament that the company may not have have technically cheated in Europe.
“Volkswagen accepts that a defeat device was used in the USA in certain models, in the context of the very different regulatory framework and factual circumstances there,” Paul Willis wrote in a December letter ( via New York Times). “However we do not think that it is possible to make the same definitive legal determination in relation to the software that was fitted to those differently configured vehicles in the UK and EU.” (Emphasis ours.)
Holy shit. Really?
The letter is a lengthy response to inquiries made by British officials into the timing, rollout and response by Volkswagen when they admitted that 11 million cars worldwide were fitted with an emissions-test detecting device to reduce nitrous oxide emissions to pass.
In Willis’ own letter, he admits that the cars were fitted with a device to reduce emissions, and that the device was similar to a device used in America that Volkswagen has admitted “cheated” emissions tests over here.
“In very simple terms, the software did amend the NOx characteristics in testing. The vehicle did meet EU5 standards, so it clearly contributed to meeting the EU5 standards in testing,” Willis wrote.
But in further questions, Willis said it was impossible to tell if the cars could meet EU5 emissions standards without using the software because deleting the software would disable the car from running.
Which is like saying, “The cake calls for icing. If I don’t ice the cake, I can’t make it to the next step. So we’ll never know what the cake tastes like without icing because we can’t comprehend a universe without icing.”
Volkswagen’s PR machine rolls on.
More by Aaron Cole
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Lorenzo The original 4-Runner, by its very name, promised something different in the future. What happened?
- Lorenzo At my age, excitement is dangerous. one thing to note: the older models being displayed are more stylish than their current versions, and the old Subaru Forester looks more utilitarian than the current version. I thought the annual model change was dead.
- Lorenzo Well, it was never an off-roader, much less a military vehicle, so let the people with too much money play make believe.
- EBFlex The best gift would have been a huge bonfire of all the fak mustangs in inventory and shutting down the factory that makes them.Heck, nobody would even have to risk life and limb starting the fire, just park em close together and wait for the super environmentally friendly EV fire to commence.
- Varezhka Of all the countries to complain about WTO rules violation, especially that related to battery business…
Comments
Join the conversation
Reminds me of Bill Clinton's quibbling over the definition of "is".
Remember the words of North Carolina criminal defense attorney Larry L. Archie: "Just because you did it, doesn't mean you're guilty." What you have to realize is that this is legal posturing. What seems to us to be something innocuous, or even slightly illogical can, in court, be turned into a loophole big enough to sail a cruise ship through. No use trying to figure what the lawyers are saying, through Willis, they're not talking to us.