Tesla is once again asking regulators to move faster than the rest of the world is comfortable with, this time in Europe, where the company is pushing to accelerate approval of its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system. And the pitch is familiar: the technology is improving rapidly, the data set is massive, and delays are supposedly holding back innovation.
But the response from European regulators so far has been polite, procedural, and notably cautious, which feels appropriate, given what’s actually at stake, i.e., FSD still doesn't see motorcyclists, and still runs cars off the road.
At the center of the latest push is the Netherlands’ RDW, the Dutch vehicle authority responsible for evaluating Tesla’s request to test and eventually deploy higher levels of automated driving. According to Reuters, Tesla is expected to begin FSD testing in February 2026 under controlled conditions, with the RDW overseeing the process. That alone doesn’t mean approval is imminent, but it does signal that Tesla is trying to move the conversation from theory to real-world validation as quickly as possible.
Tesla has also been unusually vocal about its frustration.
In a public call to action, the company urged European regulators to speed up approval processes, arguing that fragmented rules across EU member states slow deployment and prevent consumers from benefiting from advanced driver assistance systems. The RDW responded with a carefully worded statement emphasizing that safety—not speed—remains the priority, and that European approval requires far more than software confidence or U.S. precedent. This is where things get complicated.
Full Self-Driving, despite its name, is not fully autonomous. Even Tesla’s own documentation still requires active driver supervision, hands ready, eyes forward. And yet, the branding, the marketing, and the way the system is discussed publicly often suggest a level of autonomy that simply doesn’t exist yet. That gap between perception and reality is where a lot of the discomfort lives, especially in a regulatory environment that tends to be more conservative than Silicon Valley would like.
Europe, historically, has taken a slower, more methodical approach to vehicle safety regulation. UNECE rules, national transport authorities, and layered approval processes are designed to prevent the kind of “move fast and fix it later” rollout that tech companies often favor. When you’re talking about software updates that directly affect two-ton vehicles operating in mixed traffic, with pedestrians, cyclists, and families involved, caution stops being bureaucracy and starts looking like responsibility.
There’s also an uncomfortable irony baked into Tesla’s argument.
The company frames faster approval as a path to safer roads by reducing human error. At the same time, history offers plenty of examples where rushing potentially fatal technology—medical, mechanical, or digital—into public use under the assumption that problems can be corrected later ends badly. That track record doesn’t inspire blind confidence. And Tesla's own track record of producing a system that routinely fails, crashes, and even kills the passengers or those outside the car, should be enough cause for concern.
There’s some promise in automated systems reducing fatigue-related accidents, improving reaction times, and eventually reshaping how cities move. But the timeline matters. Europe’s regulators seem keenly aware that the cost of getting it wrong isn’t a delayed product launch or a bad quarterly report, it’s lives. That’s a very different risk calculation than beta-testing consumer software.
What’s happening now feels less like a standoff and more like a stress test. Tesla wants iteration in public. Europe wants proof before permission. The RDW’s willingness to test FSD under supervision suggests openness rather than obstruction, while reinforcing the idea that confidence alone doesn’t substitute for validation. And given Tesla's own ham-fisted path toward autonomy, the crack-a-few-eggs approach in that the public are those eggs, RDW's path seems like the better option.
For consumers, especially those watching from outside Europe, this moment is telling. The real issue is who gets to decide the pace, and under what conditions. Do we prioritize speed to market, or do we accept that some technologies require more time, more data, and more restraint than their creators would prefer?
I’m still undecided where I land emotionally. The idea of autonomous vehicles is fascinating. The responsibility of deploying them at scale is sobering. Europe’s hesitation doesn’t feel anti-progress so much as it feels…grown-up. If Full Self-Driving is truly ready, it should survive scrutiny. If it isn’t, no amount of urgency should make us pretend otherwise.
