Hacker News Reader

Comment by supercoder | Hacker News Reader

Because the VW owners were the ones who paid their own money for a product that was falsely advertised.

Its not like these cars caused direct damage to the environment that can be cleaned up, they're still relatively low in emissions compared to a lot of other cars on the road.

View on HN

Well the VW drivers got to drive a car, so they did get some benefit out of owning it even if it wasn't exactly as advertised. Meanwhile the rest of us got to breathe their pollution and die sooner. It's not "they're lower emissions than other vehicles", it's that they aren't as low emissions as they said they were. If people were in the market for a LEV and they bought a VW over a car that actually produced the emissions that the VW claimed to, that's an insane amount more pollution than the alternative car.

It's not just VW owners who were lied to. It's everyone who had to breathe the air around them.

Given that VW owners now know, and are getting a payout, maybe you can sue them for harming you and profiting from it?

The first hurdle is standing. Since most of the other cars on the road are more harmful to you than the VW LEVs, you'd have to show that 'but for that purchase', you'd have been in better shape, which is unlikely. That said, the parent makes a decent point - if they were looking specifically for LEVs, they might well have bought an electric or hybrid vs. a diesel. In that case, you might be able to show standing. Of course, then you have to prove that the amount of emissions involved in producing the electricity for a Tesla are less than the emissions produced by the VW. I have no idea what the math on that looks like, so it could be impossible, or very easy, but you've got to prove it to win the suit. Because civil cases have a lower bar, you might be able to get to this point without too much effort.

What really kills you though, is in establishing mens rea, because it's absolutely impossible. Since consumers could not have known that emissions were falsified, they could not have had the intent to harm you for profit. Again here you slightly benefit from the lower burden of intent on civil cases, as negligence or recklessness can count, but that's out the window on the facts, as the owner was specifically choosing a lower emissions vehicle in the first place, presumably so that they would be killing their brethren less, or less quickly.

> Meanwhile the rest of us got to breathe their pollution and die sooner.

The people who own the cars breathed in the pollution too. Almost certainly more than people who did not own one.

I'm not sure about that. Pollution comes out of the back of the car, and the drivers sit well in front of the tail pipe. As long as they're not standing behind their running car for long periods of time, the person inhaling most of the exhaust will be the car behind them in traffic or more likely, the pedestrian standing beside them on the sidewalk at a red light.

Oh no, mind you, the tarmac didn't suffer, it's just another mil added to the cancer risk for every person in the cities these things are roaming wild.

(That must be reason #192845 why "capitalist healthcare" doesn't work: often, you only need it because other peoples actions require you to, and they're not paying for it.)

The VW owners get their money refunded as part of the settlement. So, they are no longer stuck with a lemon (And get to pocket depreciation.)

The extra $5,000/car could have been put towards planting trees, cleaning up an ex-industrial site, shingling San Francisco's city hall with solid gold...

Yes, there will be many more billions of fines levied at a later date (this is an admitted violation of the Clean Air Act which could be a fine up to $37,500 per vehicle or an additional $17.8B in fines). The EPA doesn't really care about getting their cash first, they would rather the vehicles fixed or off the road.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com