Tesla Made Its FSD Europe Evidence Dashboard Public — the New 4.1x Collision Claim Uses Separate 2026 Data

Tesla has made its Article 39 FSD (Supervised) evidence dashboard publicly inspectable as it seeks broader European authorization, but the dashboard’s central fleet collision study is not the same dataset behind the newer 4.1x collision claim Tesla promoted this week.¹² The dashboard’s fleet study covers January through October of 2024 and 2025 and says that dataset was frozen in October 2025 for validation and audit with the Netherlands Vehicle Authority, RDW.¹

Reuters reported Sept. 1 that Tesla separately says newer customer-fleet data from April through August 2026 cover more than 100 million kilometres in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia and Lithuania and show 4.1 times fewer collisions with FSD (Supervised) engaged than with manually driven Teslas.² That is Tesla’s safety-performance claim, not an independently verified finding by this newsroom or an RDW endorsement of the new figure.

The distinction matters because the newly public dashboard gives readers much more detail about the evidence used in Tesla’s regulatory case, while also making clear that several comparisons do not represent a simple European-customer-FSD-versus-European-manual-driving collision study.¹

What Tesla’s dashboard actually measures

Tesla’s dashboard says its broad fleet analyses do not directly control for traffic density or congestion, weather and road conditions, time of day or lighting, or scenario complexity.¹ Those are stated methodological boundaries, not by themselves a finding that the analyses are invalid.

The European sections also mix several kinds of evidence. Tesla says some analyses compare an engineering FSD fleet in Europe with manually driven customer-fleet Teslas, while direct regional collision-rate comparisons use North American FSD collision data against European manual-driving baselines.¹ The dashboard says European FSD performance is also supported with surrogate metrics, engineering-fleet mileage and fixed-route testing.¹

That scope is different from the newer April–August 2026 customer-fleet data Reuters reported this week. The public material reviewed for the research packet does not establish that the dashboard itself is the underlying dataset for Tesla’s 4.1x claim.¹²

Tesla describes FSD (Supervised) as an SAE Level 2 driver-assistance system. RDW likewise says the system is not autonomous driving: the driver remains responsible and must remain in control.¹³

RDW says it did its own testing, too

The regulatory case was not based only on Tesla’s own analysis. RDW said in June that its data experts independently checked Tesla’s statistical analysis, that the agency collected its own evidence, and that its evaluation included more than 3,000 hours of testing and more than 1,000 test runs.⁴ RDW also said 1.8 million kilometres of European FSD driving were used in the evaluation and that, based on the overall process, it concluded the system met the applicable requirements for the approval it issued.⁴

That approval, announced April 10, was valid in the Netherlands rather than across the entire European Union.³ RDW said at the time that broader use would require additional European steps.³

Reuters reported in June that independent safety researchers criticized some earlier Tesla safety comparisons supplied to European regulators as methodologically flawed or misleading.⁵ That criticism does not establish that every analysis in the newly public dashboard is invalid, and RDW separately said its decision did not rely only on Tesla’s information and described its own independent validation and testing.⁴⁵ Tesla has not publicly confirmed Reuters’ characterization of that criticism in the public material reviewed for the research packet.

Wider EU approval is still unresolved

Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2018/858 provides a route for approving new technologies or concepts that require exemptions from existing type-approval requirements. The rule allows a member state to grant provisional approval on its own territory while broader authorization is pending, while EU-wide exempting approval requires European Commission authorization through the applicable process.⁶

That is why the Dutch approval did not automatically make FSD (Supervised) valid across the EU.³⁶ Reuters reported that a key vote could occur as early as Oct. 6, but the research packet did not establish Oct. 6 as a fixed official vote date.²

There is also public opposition. Reuters reported July 23 that France opposed EU-wide approval at that stage, with French Transport Minister Philippe Tabarot citing safety concerns.⁷ France’s position establishes disagreement in the approval process; it does not establish the eventual vote result.⁷

For now, the strongest new fact is not that Tesla has independently proven a universal 4.1x safety advantage. It is that the company has opened a detailed regulatory-evidence surface that can be inspected alongside — rather than conflated with — the separate, newer European customer data behind its current collision claim.¹²

Sources

Footnotes

1. Article 39 - FSD (Supervised) Dashboard — Tesla, publicly observed Sept. 1, 2026. https://www.tesla.com/fsd-evidence-dashboard — Establishes the dashboard’s existence and content; Tesla’s Level 2 framing; 2024–2025 study periods and October 2025 data freeze; stated exposure-control limitations; engineering-fleet/customer-fleet distinctions; use of North American FSD collision data in direct regional comparisons; and Tesla’s own regulatory-evidence conclusions. Tesla is an interested party, and the dashboard does not independently establish Tesla’s safety-performance conclusions or the separate April–August 2026 4.1x claim. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

2. Tesla touts European supervised self-driving safety data ahead of EU vote — Reuters, Sept. 1, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-touts-european-supervised-self-driving-safety-data-ahead-eu-vote-2026-09-01/ — Establishes same-day launch/context and reports Tesla’s newer April–August 2026 five-country customer data, more than 100 million kilometres, the company’s 4.1x collision claim and a possible vote as early as Oct. 6. The safety-performance figure remains a Tesla claim, and Reuters’ vote timing is not a fixed official date. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

3. RDW explanation of European type approval Tesla with provisional validity in the Netherlands — RDW, April 10, 2026. https://www.rdw.nl/en/news/2026/rdw-explanation-of-european-type-approval-tesla-with-provisional-validity-in-the-netherlands — Establishes Netherlands-only validity at approval, driver-responsibility framing and RDW’s description of the steps toward possible wider EU admission. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

4. Explanation of the type approval of FSD Supervised — RDW, June 17, 2026. https://www.rdw.nl/en/news/2026/explanation-of-the-type-approval-of-fsd-supervised — Establishes RDW’s description of its independent statistical review, data validation, more than 3,000 testing hours, more than 1,000 test runs, 1.8 million kilometres of European FSD driving used in evaluation and its conclusion that the system met applicable requirements. It predates and does not independently validate Tesla’s Sept. 1 4.1x claim. ↩ ↩² ↩³

5. Tesla presented misleading 'Full Self-Driving' safety data to European regulators — Reuters, June 15, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/tesla-presented-misleading-full-self-driving-safety-data-european-regulators-2026-06-15/ — Establishes Reuters’ report that independent experts criticized some earlier Tesla safety comparisons supplied to European regulators as flawed or misleading, and provides regulator/company context. It does not establish that every analysis in the Sept. 1 dashboard is invalid or that Tesla intentionally misled regulators. ↩ ↩²

6. Regulation (EU) 2018/858 — Article 39, Exemptions for new technologies or new concepts — European Union / EUR-Lex, consolidated text used by the research packet. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A02018R0858-20240701 — Establishes the Article 39 legal framework, including Commission authorization for EU-wide exempting approval and provisional member-state approval while authorization is pending. It does not establish Tesla’s specific vote date or outcome. ↩ ↩²

7. France opposes EU approval of Tesla’s FSD driver assistance software for now — Reuters, July 23, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/france-opposes-eu-approval-teslas-fsd-driver-assistance-software-now-2026-07-23/ — Establishes France’s time-bounded public opposition and cited safety concerns. It does not establish the eventual committee vote outcome. ↩ ↩²