Published : 07 Oct 2026, 06:39 PM
Updated : 07 Oct 2026, 06:39 PM
Tesla is stepping up pressure on European regulators to approve its “Full Self-Driving” technology, using safety claims and social media campaigns to argue that regulatory delays are costing lives, even as traffic-safety researchers question the evidence behind those claims.
The US automaker has pushed regulators to reduce the scope of safety reviews, submitted its own research claiming the technology can reduce crashes and encouraged Tesla supporters to demand faster approvals.
The campaign has already secured a key approval in the Netherlands, clearing the way for an EU-wide vote involving regulators from the bloc’s 27 member states. Seven other EU countries, including the Czech Republic, Belgium and Denmark, have also granted national approval for the driver-assistance system, which is not fully autonomous.
Seven traffic-safety researchers who reviewed Tesla’s European research for Reuters said the studies did not support the company’s claim that FSD prevents fatal crashes. They also questioned the methods used to measure safety, including Tesla’s comparison of professional engineering drivers using FSD with ordinary Tesla owners driving manually.
Tesla’s Europe-specific study did not contain enough miles driven using FSD to make a meaningful comparison with hundreds of millions of miles driven manually, the researchers said. Instead, Tesla relied on driving behaviours such as horn use, indicator use, rapid acceleration and braking, automatic emergency braking and hard cornering as substitutes for crash data.
The researchers said some of those measures were poor indicators of crash risk, while others had limitations and were not sufficiently linked to actual crash rates. Tesla has also not subjected its methodology to outside peer review.
Tesla’s own study cautions that its comparisons cannot be interpreted as causal estimates, meaning the results cannot establish that FSD itself leads to fewer crashes. Researchers said that limitation conflicts with stronger public claims made by Tesla and CEO Elon Musk.
“When you start getting into ‘lives saved,’ that’s where it gets nonsensical,” said Marco Benedetti, an assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and former statistician at the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Tesla Pushes Back Against Dutch Regulator
Reuters reviewed hundreds of pages of correspondence between Tesla and regulators in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Estonia, Italy and Switzerland, as well as safety studies distributed by Tesla across Europe.
The correspondence showed Tesla repeatedly challenged the scope, cost and timing of the Dutch safety assessment conducted by the RDW, which ultimately found that FSD could improve safety when used correctly and recommended EU-wide approval.
Tesla sought changes to the evaluation process, including its testing methods and costs. In one November 2024 exchange, a Tesla representative urged the regulator to begin testing immediately, saying the start date was “mission critical for our leadership”.
Tesla later disputed the cost of the Dutch review, including a 365,000-euro bill for testing permits, technical work and other services. An RDW employee subsequently offered to reduce the intensity of the review and invited Tesla to suggest ways to lower the required effort.
In another exchange, Tesla questioned the need for certain tests and proposed that some could be handled remotely. The RDW responded in one instance by saying it did not want to “dive too deep in technical details” and did not question the quality and process of Tesla’s software updates.
Five autonomous-vehicle regulation experts who reviewed the correspondence for Reuters raised concerns about the regulator’s impartiality. One said Tesla could have been using complaints about costs as a way to reduce regulatory oversight.
RDW said it conducted an extensive independent investigation, including tests on closed tracks and public roads, and said engagement with manufacturers was a routine part of regulatory assessments.
Safety Claims Draw Criticism
Tesla has a long history of making ambitious claims about the safety and readiness of FSD and has faced US federal investigations and lawsuits involving crashes linked to its driver-assistance systems.
A Reuters investigation in May found that Tesla had used flawed statistical methods to claim that FSD was up to 10 times safer than human drivers. Tesla also submitted that US research to European regulators alongside its newer Europe-specific study.
Researchers said the European study was more transparent about some methodological limitations, but still fell short of proving that FSD prevents fatal crashes. They noted that human drivers remain responsible for supervising the system and can switch it on or off depending on road conditions.
Tesla has also used social media to pressure regulators. When French Transport Minister Philippe Tabarot said in July that France could not support EU-wide expansion of FSD because of safety concerns, Musk posted that delaying approval would cost lives.
Tesla supporters subsequently flooded Tabarot’s social media account with messages accusing regulators of putting motorists at risk by delaying approval. Similar messages were sent to regulators in Sweden and Norway.
Norwegian road authority engineer Stein-Helge Mundal said regulators did not approve systems simply because they were popular and warned that the term “Full Self-Driving” could lead drivers to assume the technology could do more than it actually can.
In France, however, Tabarot struck a more positive tone last month after a virtual meeting with Musk, describing their exchange as constructive and saying officials were working with Tesla on changes that could allow France to support approval.
Tesla would be the first automaker to receive EU approval for an advanced driver-assistance system allowing hands-free operation on any road. Under current EU rules, hands-free systems are permitted only on highways.
For EU-wide approval, Tesla needs support from regulators representing 55 percent of member states and 65 percent of the bloc’s population.
