Tesla, dare we say, the notorious American manufacturer of electric vehicles, faces a lot of market pressure. As it turns out, it presented inflated, self-published safety data directly to government regulators in Sweden and the Netherlands. Official correspondence obtained by Reuters through public records requests shows that the automaker used heavily disputed numbers while aggressively lobbying for the European approval of its “Full Self-Driving” system, commonly known as FSD.
Government documents reveal that Tesla sent the questionable metrics to the Dutch road authority, RDW, in November 2024. The company claimed that a broad usage of FSD directly creates safer driving conditions on public roads. Following more than a year of testing and discussions, the Dutch authority granted national approval for the system and is now lobbying for a wider European Union permit on behalf of the carmaker. At the same time, independent traffic-safety experts warn that the data provided by Tesla lacks scientific integrity.
The most striking part of the promotional materials claims that the autonomous software could have saved 32,000 lives and prevented 1.9 million injuries. Independent transportation researchers quickly labeled this mathematical calculation absurd. To reach those massive numbers, a person must assume that an FSD-enabled Tesla replaces every single vehicle on United States roads, including heavy commercial trucks and traditional motorcycles. This impossible scenario forms the core of the company’s primary safety argument to foreign governments.
Independent traffic-safety researchers point out major flaws in how the American company calculates its crash frequencies. The automaker routinely compares the rate of serious crashes where its own airbags deploy against a broad government database of all US traffic accidents, which includes minor fender-benders. This mismatched comparison artificially inflates the apparent safety margin of the system by a factor of three. If that wasn’t enough, the company compares its brand-new EVs to the average American vehicle, which is roughly 12 years old and lacks modern collision-avoidance technology.
European regulators show varying levels of skepticism toward these claims. The Dutch road authority insists it relies on its own closed-track and public-road testing rather than corporate marketing decks, but it is unclear if they ever verified the American statistics. The Swedish Transport Agency said that its officials look past headline figures, but they declined to specify what other evidence they reviewed. In contrast, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration openly dismissed the numbers as self-produced, stating they fail to correlate with official public accident data.
The push for regulatory approval comes at a critical moment for Tesla on the European continent. The manufacturer watched its dominant position slip as regional sales dropped following public controversies surrounding Elon Musk’s leadership. Competing Chinese automakers, such as BYD, continue to beat Tesla in monthly European sales figures. Gaining legal permission for autonomous software is a key strategy for the Texas-based company to reclaim its slipping market share.
The legal landscape for FSD is fragmented across Europe. Individual nations have the power to grant temporary domestic permits, and four countries so far – the Netherlands, Lithuania, Belgium, and Denmark – have approved the software for their local roads. Universal European Union approval will need a formal vote in the European Parliament, where representatives of 55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the total EU population, must vote in favor of the technology before it rolls out across the entire bloc.
Safety watchdogs suggest a much more cautious approach before letting Tesla cars operate autonomously across the continent. The European Transport Safety Council stated that if the manufacturer believes its safety data is accurate, it should submit the raw files to an independent university for a formal peer review. Relying on unverified corporate slide presentations sets a dangerous precedent for international transportation safety, especially when independent experts overwhelmingly agree the statistics are deeply flawed. The truth is that regulators should hold a much higher standard than whatever slide deck a company emails over.
Source