Over the past 18 months, Tesla has been working with the Dutch vehicle approval organization, RDW, to get approval for its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) semi-autonomous driving system.

After a long consultation period, which included covering almost one million miles with FSD (Supervised) active and offering ride-along trials with 13,000 people in numerous European countries, the RDW deemed the technology safe to be given the green light.

Teslaโ€™s controversial CEO, Elon Musk, has long-promised to introduce the partially autonomous cruise control system to other markets outside of the US, where it has been on sale for years. But the company has regularly butted up against regulatory red tape.

According to a press statement put out by Tesla to promote its European debut, the company says that when FSD (Supervised) is engaged, collisions are up to "seven-times less likely per kilometer driven compared to manual driving alone".

However, safety campaigners, such as Dan Oโ€™Dowd of The Dawn Project, reiterates that โ€œ59 people have been killed in over 3,000 crashes involving Teslaโ€™s self-driving software in the U.S. since 2021 aloneโ€.

"The RDW's decision is deeply troubling given Tesla FSD's myriad of well-documented safety defects," Oโ€™Dowd adds.

What's more, the companyโ€™s Robotaxis, which use a similar hardware suite that relies on the vehicleโ€™s external cameras and artificial intelligence to navigate the world, as opposed to a plethora of radar and Lidar sensors like rivals, have made the headlines because data suggests they crash four times more often than the average human driver, according to Fortune. Get daily insight, inspiration and deals in your inbox

Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more. Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors By submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.

In a bid to bolster its safety credentials, Tesla has made a number of changes to its software for the version that will go on sale in the Netherlands.

Not a Tesla App reported that those customers that had first-hand ride-along experience with Euro-spec FSD (Supervised) noticed that it differed to the technology found in the US.

Dutch owners will have to pass a mandatory safety quiz before FSD activates, for example, while the 'Sloth' to 'Mad Max' speed profiles in the US version have been ditched in favor of more straightforward 'Max Speed' setting in the Netherlands.

Analysis: Europe will be watching closely

While it is easy to think that the recent ruling in the Netherlands will automatically open the door for FSD (Supervised) to be used in the rest of Europe, it is highly likely that many other markets will continue to exercise caution.

Even RDW, the organization that gave the green-light to FSD (Supervised|) in the Netherlands, says that the system is not "self-driving," adding that the "driver remains responsible and must always remain in control."

This confusion with messaging used to promote the technologyโ€™s capabilities has caused plenty of problems in the US, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration launching an investigation into the safety of the technology.

Recently, it escalated its probe to "Engineering Analysis", which it says will evaluate the systemโ€™s ability to operate in reduced roadway visibility.

All the while, Elon Musk continues to promote the fact that every iteration of the FSD software will โ€œfar exceed human levels of safety" and that users will soon be able to text and drive, when realistically, itโ€™s simply a Level 2 semi-autonomous cruise control system that is also offered by the likes of Ford and BMW.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] 82 points 5 months ago (24 children)

I was baited by the mention of this famous country Europe, but was disappointed because "It is only legal in the Netherlands, but more regions could follow".

Multiple things are legal in the Netherlands, and most European regions did not follow.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [โ€“] 32 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    And it almost makes sense for the Netherlands. Almost. They have amazing infrastructure. Their world class cycling lanes are pretty much disconnected from roads for the most part and even their highways are very decently lit at night. Then again, allowing Teslas to self drive isn't the kind of mindset that got them there in the first place and I won't be surprised when Teslas still fail under these stellar conditions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [โ€“] 20 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    Teslas should be banned on headlight output alone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 5 months ago* (15 children)

    They have matrix headlights which are allowed in the EU, its probably not a problem there on the newer cars equipped with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    matrix headlights still aren't good enough

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 5 months ago* (11 children)

    Why not? They literally black out the area where another car is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [โ€“] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I look forward to when all cars with led lights have matrix headlights that work properly. I often feel as they blind you first before turning down, leaving my nightvision impacted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 5 months ago

    bingo

    and here's the thing - they will never be able to work "properly", it will always be reactive. and more dangerous road conditions (curves, hills, etc) only make it worse in a scenario where the effect greatly increases danger.

    it's for highway driving and that's it

    I nearly biked into a pothole once because of some asshole with LED headlights coming towards me. it was a big enough pothole I would likely have fallen and been run over by the suv right behind me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    That never works as advertised with a small curve on the road, or even when the teslas are 2 meters behind your sedan or coupe's bumper. It's not exclusive to teslas either, there are just too many variables.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 5 months ago* (4 children)

    It's reactive instead of the proactive

    it will simply never be good enough to work for all cyclists and pedestrians

    like sure use it on the highway whatever, but people already can't use auto high beam in appropriate settings (look at all the people using it in cities)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    Even being reactive it should be able to eventually work at least for other cars.

    You dont need to react right away if the car is a certain distance away, which gives it time to work and your car to see their lights. Someone else mentioned curves and crests, so they could somehow do it off of illuminated light before seeing it, or simply blacking out that immediate area in advance (becoming proactive)? Like as you get close enough to the crest, always keep the crest oncoming side blacked out.

    But I do imagine cyclists and pedestrians will be harder to not initially light up due to no lights, or much lower power lights making them harder to see.

    But ya, from all these replies, they apparently dont work as well in general as advertised.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    to be fair, I have a super extra hate hard on for blinding headlights

    I think it's entirely justified, but I definitely care more than the average person that I meet or talk to

    I'm also pretty tired of nearly driving off the road into the 15 ft deep rocky ditch at 90 km/h on a windy hill, and I've nearly driven into pedestrians who were crossing mid-block because I couldn't see them because of LED headlights on the other side. and I've seen people nearly get hit crossing in the crosswalk at a four-way stop because the driver ahead of me couldn't see them because the car on the other side had LED headlights.

    I recognize that some of those situations would be avoided with matrix headlights. but the key word is some - it's not all.

    as a side point, the invention of headlights that are so goddamn bright that you have to actually point them farther downwards so that you don't blind oncoming traffic to avoid them driving head-on into you at a hundred kilometers an hour, rather than aiming them to illuminate farther ahead on the road, that whole thing is a concept is just so fucking stupid

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    the invention of headlights that are so goddamn bright that you have to actually point them farther downwards so that you donโ€™t blind oncoming traffic to avoid them driving head-on into you at a hundred kilometers an hour, rather than aiming them to illuminate farther ahead on the road, that whole thing is a concept is just so fucking stupid

    I think this is the outcome of saftey guidelines paying more attention to the occupants, than surrounding environment.

    Cars get rated on how well they light up the road, and it's a big part of their scoring. So the lights get brighter and brighter so we can see further, so we can see more and so we don't over-drive our headlights (dear god people are fucking idiots always over-driving their headlights), but we end up with this new problem because of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [โ€“] 33 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Can we stop calling a single country in Europe "Europe"? Europe isn't like the US. It consists of different countries with different laws and regulations.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [โ€“] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    The trouble is: if only one European country green-lights these systems, they can kill people drive anywhere within the Schengen area. You'll have then on the roads, even outside NL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 26 points 5 months ago
    [+] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)
    [+] 17 points 5 months ago
    [โ€“] 15 points 5 months ago

    Full Self-Driving

    (Supervised)

    semi-autonomous

    partially autonomous

    Bake half a cake. Call it Full Whole Cake. Mention in the description that the cake is only semi-whole. There you go. You've just become a genius innovator.

    I can't think of many more capitalist things than selling something and marketing it as something else entirely.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 12 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    "reiterates that โ€œ59 people have been killed in over 3,000 crashes involving Teslaโ€™s self-driving software in the U.S. since 2021 aloneโ€

    more than 42,000 people were killed on the road in just the US alone, almost all by human drivers!

    The real need is not perfection, it is at least as good as humans. Better than humans would be nice. Don't be fooled by statistics, they can be manipulated to say whatever you want, and it isn't just Tesla doing it!

    Sadly even though I'm sure data exists I've never seen anyone independent publish anything trust worthy on how self driving compares to humans. All I've seen is data from someone with obvious biases. (they might be right but they still have a bias and so need independent analysis)

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 18 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It literally says the robotaxies crash four times as much as humans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 4 points 5 months ago

    That is a headline yes. However I have not been able to trace it down to anyone who is independent and has looked at what it really means. There are too many ways to cherry-pick numbers to make a point. I don't want headlines, I want someone who understands traffic safety and how to work with numbers to do an in-depth analysis. This is hard work, and so far it is missing (except as done by the self driving companies and thus biased)

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    It's easy to make numbers look scary yes, and it'd be better if we had more accurate numbers. The only way were going to get that though is better laws mandating their release. Even now, Tesla is allowed to redact information about crashes in their Robotaxis (which this isn't about) which is a problem.

    But lets just go by what he used on his site, which today lists 3013 crashes and 59 fatalities since 2021, but keep in mind, the FSD software was very beta until early 2024 when it finally went wide. This guy HATES Tesla, so I'm sure if there were more he'd have updated it accordingly.

    Today, just over 9 billion miles have been driven on FSD since 2021.

    So, 3013 crashes, over 9 billion miles is 1 crash every 2,987,056 miles, or 1 crash every 4,779,289 km.

    NHSTA says 1.06 fatalities happen every 100 million miles, and the year before it was 1.16

    So, 9 billion miles / 100 million miles * 1.06 = ~95.4 fatalities, and the year before would be 104.4

    So Tesla has had 59, and there would have been 95.4 And while sad that there were fatalities on earlier versions of software, that isn't the software on the road today, so they should hopefully be at a declining rate as well, but we'll need more data to track that.

    Before people used to say but Tesla's numbers are all highway so it's not a good comparison against the NHSTA numbers which includes city driving, and you know what, they are right about that, and it is a problem, but Tesla has finally started sharing city miles, and they're up to 3.3 billion now, so these statistics are starting to include them and will start giving a better picture.

    And I just want to stress, this is for SUPERVISED driving. Tesla's Robotaxi's are NOT this safe.

    Human + Robot > Human OR Robot in our current state.

    Edit: oh and it looks like Dan's numbers include Autopilot, not only FSD which this is about, which is far far inferior, but that probably increases the miles driven substantially as Tesla's reporting on FSD numbers is specifically about FSD, or would lower the crashes/fatalities in the numbers I was using. They've also stopped offering AP on new cars.

    Edit: Updated expected fatalities to 95.4, I accidentally used 1.05 instead of 1.06 when i calculated it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 10 points 5 months ago

    This is a terrible fucking idea.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 7 points 5 months ago

    Aaah! We are going to see so many of them in the tram ditches <3

  • source
  • [โ€“] 7 points 5 months ago

    Schwarze Schrift auf gelbem Grund - halte Abstand, bleib gesund.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    How can they sell it as โ€œfull self drivingโ€ if itโ€™s supervised?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 6 points 5 months ago

    People will get killed, and brown envelopes full of crypto keys will be slid under tables to politicians.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    The one good thing in this is that the car remains the responsibility of the person driving it. That won't keep everybody safe, but at least nobody will get away with saying they got a faulty/imperfect car.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 10 points 5 months ago

    It's completely and utterly unreasonable to expect full auto drivers to be capable of being responsible. How attention works makes it impossible and is exactly the opposite of the entire value of self driving cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 5 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    (Supervised) should become the new but not really

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Even supervised driving should only be legal if the remote driver resides in the same country with a legit drivers license and a taxi license. It's outlandish how "self-driving" cars rely on drivers from a different continent with no proof of proficiency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 6 points 5 months ago*

    What I understood is that supervised means that the driver still have to be paying attention to the driving and take control in case of something happens.
    That's so they can blame the driver when something goes wrong. It's not the Full Self Driving (supervised)'s fault, it's the supervisor's fault for not supervising correctly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 5 months ago

    Last time I checked you have to have car insurance in Holland, car insurers will quickly make this unaffordable for drivers if its as bad as we know it has been as the insurers simply will not want to keep paying out large settlements.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 3 points 5 months ago

    Disqusting move from my neighbors

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next โ€บ