Belgian Minister Defends Tesla FSD Approval Despite Warnings

Flemish Minister of Mobility Annick De Ridder is facing renewed scrutiny after it emerged that her June 10 approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system on Belgian roads was granted despite multiple critical reservations in an official advisory report from her own department. The minister has firmly defended her decision, citing positive safety data from the Netherlands and insisting the system meets all requirements.

Background of the Approval

On June 10, 2026, De Ridder signed the approval for Tesla’s FSD Supervised system on all Belgian roads, just weeks after testing began in Flanders on May 26, according to VRT NWS. The system is a Level 2 driver assistance feature that can steer, maintain lane position, and change lanes, but requires the driver to remain attentive and ready to take control at any moment.

Belgium became the fifth European country to approve FSD Supervised, following the Netherlands, Lithuania, Estonia, and Denmark. All approvals rest on the Dutch RDW certification, which the EU Commission can potentially override, as reported by EVXL.

Critical Advisory Report

The Department of Mobility and Public Works (MOW) issued an advisory report listing several critical concerns about the system’s readiness for Belgian roads. According to the report, which was reviewed by De Morgen and VRT NWS, the system showed “limited adaptation to the Belgian (and Flemish) traffic context,” repeatedly struggling with traffic signs, road markings, and infrastructure elements such as railway crossings.

The report also warned about the “offset function,” which allows the vehicle to exceed legal speed limits, and raised concerns about driver vigilance. “The driver evolves from an active participant in traffic to a supervisor, which leads to reduced involvement and a decrease in ‘situational awareness,’” the advisory report stated. “In such circumstances, it is uncertain whether drivers are capable of taking over control of the vehicle in a timely and adequate manner when needed.”

Testing in Flanders covered approximately 5,000 kilometers. By comparison, the Netherlands conducted 13,000 test trips covering 1.6 million kilometers before granting approval.

Minister’s Defense

In an interview on Radio 1’s “De Ochtend,” De Ridder pushed back against the criticism, emphasizing that FSD Supervised is not a fully autonomous system. “I have said from the beginning: it is not a self-driving car where you can drink coffee in the back seat,” she said. “It is a driver assistance system. You must be able to take over the steering at all times.”

The minister cited Dutch data showing 3.5 times fewer collisions with the assistance system compared to normal driving, and noted that an interim report from the first two weeks of Belgian operation showed no accidents caused by the system. “It is striking: we are very lenient regarding human errors,” De Ridder added. “But from an IT or AI system, we expect it to be 100 percent error-free. And that appears to be almost the case here, based on those interim reports.”

Broader Controversy: Tesla’s Safety Data

The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of broader European debate over Tesla’s safety claims. On June 15, Reuters published an investigation alleging that Tesla presented misleading safety statistics to European regulators. The report found that Tesla compared FSD-equipped vehicle accidents involving airbag deployment against all US vehicle accidents — including minor ones — and compared new Tesla vehicles against the average older US vehicle fleet, skewing results in the company’s favor.

Steven Latré, an AI expert at the Imec research center, characterized the methodology as “comparing apples to oranges.” Speaking to VRT NWS, Latré warned: “With the safety of cars and the introduction of new technology, we must not be careless. The bar should be set very high, and that is not the case here.”

Opposition and Political Fallout

Bogdan Vanden Berghe of the opposition Groen party called the 5,000 kilometers of testing “very limited” and referenced the Reuters investigation, calling for more extensive evaluation before approval. De Ridder’s office has insisted that the Belgian decision was based on independent testing, not Tesla’s data, and that conditions were attached to the approval, including mandatory instructional videos for users in all national languages.

European Regulatory Fragmentation

The Belgian case highlights the fragmented nature of autonomous vehicle regulation in Europe. While the EU’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles works toward a bloc-wide framework, individual member states are moving ahead with national approvals based on mutual recognition of the Dutch certification. All national approvals carry a six-month provisional status that could be invalidated by a negative EU Commission decision.

What’s Next

The EU-wide approval process through the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles remains ongoing with no scheduled vote as of late June. De Ridder has promised to share interim testing data with the Belgian parliament, though she noted the data belongs to a private company and will require careful handling regarding public disclosure. The key question remains whether the advisory report’s concerns will lead to any modification or revocation of the Belgian approval — or whether the EU Commission will ultimately settle the matter with a continent-wide decision.