Tesla

[alexis]

Spoiler: The path to FSD in Europe 3/4

Over time, you’d expect the formal requirements (speed limits, driver monitoring specs, fail-safe criteria, etc.) to be revised in line with the real-world data and safety measures demonstrated by Tesla (and any other OEMs pursuing similar exemptions). Once those regulatory acts are amended and in force, Article 40 says any restrictions imposed on Tesla’s FSD type-approval will be lifted. Meaning FSD would no longer be an “exemption” but rather just a compliant feature under the new rules. At that stage, Tesla’s vehicles (and those of other manufacturers) could have similar autonomous capabilities without needing special permission and the path pioneered under Article 39 would lead to a permanent regulatory change enabling Level 3/4 driving features across the industry. This perfectly fits the intent of Article 39/40: to use specific cases like Tesla’s FSD as a catalyst to modernize the rules for everyone. In summary, Tesla’s FSD Supervised is exactly the kind of “new technology or concept” Article 39 was built for, and if approved via this route, it will bridge the gap until UNECE and EU regulations formally incorporate higher-level automated driving.

Role of RDW and Other EU Regulators

RDW (Netherlands) as Approval Authority: The Dutch Road Authority (RDW) plays a prominent role in the European type-approval system, and in the context of Tesla it is particularly significant. As noted, Tesla has historically homologated its vehicles for Europe through RDW in the Netherlands. In the EU type-approval framework, any Member State’s designated authority can issue an approval that is valid EU-wide, so manufacturers often choose an authority based on expertise, efficiency, or established relationships. RDW is known for its experience with innovative vehicle technologies and it has been involved in projects and discussions around automated driving. In an Article 39 exemption scenario, RDW would be the entity to which Tesla submits its application for the FSD Supervised exemption approval. RDW’s responsibility would be to evaluate the technical file and safety case that Tesla provides. This includes examining how FSD operates, what parts of current regulations it conflicts with, and how Tesla mitigates any risks. RDW may work with its own technical experts or even third-party technical services to assess things like the performance of Tesla’s driver monitoring system, the reliability of FSD’s object detection and response, fallback strategies if the system fails, etc. Only if RDW is convinced that the system is safe and meets the Article 39 criteria (equivalent safety/environmental performance) will it grant the provisional EU type-approval for the Tesla vehicle type in question. This provisional approval (sometimes informally called national exemption type-approval) will be valid for the territory of the Netherlands initially, and RDW must promptly inform the European Commission and all other Member States of its decision and share the documentation. In essence, RDW acts as the initial gatekeeper doing the heavy lifting of vetting the new technology.

Coordination with Other Regulators: Once RDW issues a provisional approval under Article 39, other EU regulators get involved in two ways. First, RDW’s notification to them allows each national authority to decide whether to accept the vehicles under that approval on their own roads prior to EU-wide authorization. Regulators in other countries will review the info RDW provided (and they may have bilateral discussions or ask questions). They have the option to “pre-approve” the innovation domestically by accepting the Dutch provisional approval. This mechanism is meant to promote some harmonization even before the Commission’s decision – if multiple countries are comfortable, the technology can see broader usage. However, some regulators might be more cautious and await the formal Commission decision. The second, and more important, involvement is through the Technical Committee (TCMV – Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles) at the EU level. All Member States’ approval authorities (including RDW and others like Germany’s KBA, France’s UTAC, etc.) sit on this committee, which is chaired by the European Commission. When the Commission prepares the implementing act for Tesla’s Article 39 exemption, these national authorities will debate and vote on whether to authorize the exemption EU-wide. In this phase, regulators act collectively: they will consider RDW’s assessment, perhaps share any national concerns or experiences (for instance, Germany’s regulator might share results of any independent tests or views of local experts on the system). The goal is to reach a common position. A majority vote in favor would allow the Commission to adopt the decision authorizing the type-approval. RDW, having issued the provisional approval, will naturally advocate for its case by providing confidence to others that due diligence was done. Other regulators might bring up conditions, for example another country might insist on a certain safety condition or limitation before they’re comfortable. The Commission’s final decision can incorporate such conditions (e.g. limiting use to specific scenarios, or requiring a certain driver monitoring threshold) which then RDW and Tesla must adhere to.

Post-Approval Oversight: If the Commission grants the authorization, RDW will then issue the finalized EU type-approval certificate for Tesla’s FSD-equipped vehicles (with the Article 39 exemption noted). From that point, all EU nations must accept vehicles of that type for registration and use, just like any other type-approved vehicle. RDW would continue to be the lead authority for any compliance monitoring or updates related to that type. For example, if Tesla wants to update FSD software significantly during the approval’s 36-month period, RDW would likely need to evaluate if that requires an amendment or re-validation under the exemption terms. Similarly, if any safety issue arose, RDW in coordination with other authorities would handle recalls or corrective measures (the same way standard type-approval issues are handled, but with extra scrutiny due to the innovative nature of the system). Other regulators (through the Forum established by Regulation 2018/858) would share information and can audit or monitor how the system performs in their territory as well, but RDW remains the primary point of contact for that vehicle type. In summary, RDW’s role is central in granting and shepherding an Article 39 exemption for Tesla, while the European Commission and the other Member State authorities collectively ensure that the approval is justified and then work together to integrate that exemption into general regulations (per Article 40). This cooperative approach is meant to balance innovation with unified safety standards. No single country unilaterally sets a long-term rule but they can lead the way (as RDW may for Tesla) and bring others on board through the EU’s processes.

 

[alexis]

Spoiler: The path to FSD in Europe 4/4

UNECE Type-Approval vs. EU-Specific Exemptions

The European vehicle approval system is deeply intertwined with UNECE regulations but the Article 39/40 mechanism represents an EU-specific flexibility within that system. Here’s a comparison of the two approaches:

Basis of Requirements: UNECE Type-Approval (as used in the EU) means that vehicles must meet the technical requirements of various UNECE Regulations (or equivalent EU regulations) for safety, emissions, etc. In a standard type-approval, every system on the vehicle (brakes, steering, lights, etc.) must comply with the applicable UNECE regs listed in Annex II of Regulation 2018/858. For example, advanced driver assistance must comply with UNECE Reg.79 (steering) or Reg.157 (ALKS) as they stand. In contrast, an EU Article 39 Exemption explicitly allows a deviation from one or more of these regulatory acts when a “new technology or concept” is involved. It acknowledges that some innovations may not fit neatly into the old rules. Rather than blocking the vehicle from approval, the EU framework permits an exemption if the manufacturer can show an alternative way of achieving the safety intent. This is an EU-only provision; UNECE regulations themselves do not have a formal “exemption” process – they apply uniformly unless amended. So the EU exemption is a unilateral regional measure that effectively says: “We will allow this technology on EU roads even though our adopted UNECE rules don’t yet cover it, provided we’re convinced it’s safe.”

Approval Process: Under normal UNECE-aligned type approval, a manufacturer tests the vehicle according to the set UNECE test protocols (usually via a technical service), and an approval authority issues an EU type-approval. Once issued, that type-approval is valid in all EU states automatically (the principle of mutual recognition). The process is straightforward if you meet all requirements – there is no need for Commission involvement; the authority can issue the certificate and EU-wide acceptance is mandatory. By contrast, the Article 39 process adds extra layers. The manufacturer must go to a single Member State authority (e.g., RDW) and essentially ask for permission to not fully follow certain UNECE regs, substantiating why. The national authority can only give a provisional approval for its own country initially. Other countries may or may not honor it until the European Commission steps in. The Commission’s authorization is required to elevate this to an EU-wide approval. So, the exemption route is more complex and political: it involves a committee vote and an official Commission Decision, whereas a standard UNECE-based approval is a purely technical sign-off by one authority. This means the timeline for an Article 39 approval can be somewhat longer upfront (to prepare documentation, go through committee, etc.), but it might still be faster than waiting for a UNECE regulation to change, which could take years.

Speed of Regulatory Change: The UNECE process operates on international consensus. Changes to regulations (like raising the speed limit in ALKS or allowing different autonomous functionalities) must be negotiated among dozens of countries (the EU, UK, Japan, etc.), which is deliberate and can be slow. Indeed, observers have noted that UNECE bodies meet infrequently and have “consistently slowed the deployment of self-driving technology” through cautious rulemaking. The EU-specific exemption offers a way to circumvent that delay for the EU market. It allows a Member State and the Commission to act together to approve a technology in advance of global agreement. The trade-off is that it’s temporary and exceptional. Article 40 ensures the EU doesn’t fork off entirely from UNECE in the long run. Instead, the EU will leverage the exemption to push UNECE to accelerate its work. For example, if Tesla’s FSD gets an exemption the EU can go to the UNECE and say, “We have real-world proof and a safety framework for this system. Let’s update the UN Regulation accordingly.” So the EU exemption can be seen as a bridge or pilot leading to broader regulatory change whereas UNECE type-approval changes are a more consensus-driven evolution. One key regulatory difference is that during the interim, the EU might allow something that other UNECE countries do not. (e.g. if the EU permits FSD via exemption, a Tesla in Europe might have capabilities that the same Tesla in, say, Japan or Australia, which also follow UNECE rules, cannot legally use until those countries adopt the updated UN regs or have their own exemption policies.)

Mutual Recognition and Scope: Under the UNECE 1958 Agreement, any contracting party can accept or grant approvals per UN Regulations (and those approvals can be accepted by others that apply the same Reg). The EU’s system takes it further by making any EU type-approval valid across all EU states by law. An Article 39 exemption approval, once Commission-authorized, becomes an EU type-approval that all Member States must accept but it might still not be a UNECE type-approval in the eyes of non-EU countries. In other words, the vehicle will be legal across the EU, but a non-EU country that adheres to UNECE regs (and wasn’t part of the EU decision) might not recognize that approval until the UNECE Reg is amended. This showcases a regulatory difference: UNECE regulations aim for global harmonization, whereas EU-specific exemptions are a regional solution that prioritizes EU innovation while ultimately feeding back into the global harmonization process via Article 40. Additionally, a standard UNECE-based type approval has no special expiration. It remains valid as long as the vehicle type is produced or until regulations change with transitional provisions. An Article 39-based approval, however, can be time-limited or conditioned. The Commission might say, for example, “Approval valid until X date or for Y vehicles, whichever comes first,” to ensure it’s a controlled trial. This is a regulatory difference in how approvals are treated, conditional vs. open-ended.

Examples and Use-Cases: To date, we have seen the normal UNECE type-approval pathway used for technologies once the rules exist. For instance Mercedes-Benz’s Level 3 “Drive Pilot” system was approved in Germany in 2022 but that was only possible after UNECE Regulation 157 (ALKS) was adopted (allowing Level 3 at up to 60 km/h). In contrast, truly novel concepts like Tesla’s FSD, or certain automated valet parking systems, have been discussed as candidates for Article 39 exemptions because they emerged before regulations fully permitted them. The European Commission’s own documentation anticipated using the exemption procedure for “automated vehicles that can drive themselves in a limited number of situations (SAE Level 3 and 4)” as early as 2020. This indicates regulators expected OEMs to come forward with systems needing exemptions. The difference is that UNECE type-approvals generally follow the rulebook once it’s written, whereas EU exemptions help write the rulebook anew by testing innovative systems in the market.

In summary, UNECE type-approval represents the status quo. A vehicle must comply with all existing internationally agreed regs to be approved, whereas EU-specific exemptions (Article 39/40) represent a flexibility mechanism. Essentially allowing a vehicle that deviates from some rules (for a good innovation reason) to still be approved under strict conditions and oversight. UNECE Regs ensure broad uniformity and have the weight of multilateral agreement, but they can lag technological progress. EU exemptions sacrifice a bit of uniformity in the short term to let innovation proceed, using a controlled, transparent process (application, provisional national OK, Commission approval, then regulatory update) to eventually bring the uniform standards up to speed with the innovation. This combination of approaches lets the EU both adhere to global standards and lead on new technologies when appropriate. It’s a careful balance between safety, international harmonization, and technological advancement – with Article 39 and 40 serving as the legal tools to maintain that balance when something truly new comes along. Concluding, if this exemption is granted in May this is the most likely scenario for FSD roll-out in Europe: Since RDW (Netherlands) is expected to be the primary approval authority, Tesla would first receive a provisional approval for FSD Supervised in the Netherlands before the European Commission grants full EU-wide authorization. If RDW approves Tesla’s FSD Supervised it can immediately launch in the Netherlands. Other EU countries can choose to accept RDW’s decision and allow Tesla to operate in their markets before full EU approval, but this is voluntary. Dutch Tesla owners with eligible hardware could be the first in Europe to receive FSD Supervised. The period from May till June would serve as a testing & regulatory compliance phase under RDW’s oversight. The Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV) will review RDW’s exemption decision and if the European Commission authorizes the exemption for all EU member states, Tesla can begin rolling out FSD Supervised across Europe.

 

[alexis]

Η UNECE λοιπόν, δεν έχει καν τα εργαλεία να ασχοληθεί με την αυτόνομη οδήγηση. Για να πάρουν άδεια τέτοια συστήματα στην Ευρώπη θα πάρει χρόνια. Καλό 2030 και αν.

Το άρθρο 39 του κανονισμού 2018/858 όμως ανοίγει το δρόμο σε νέες τεχνολογίες, που δεν μπορούν να ενταχθούν στο υπάρχον σύστημα που τρέχει η UNECE, να πάρουν άδεια εξαίρεσης. Να δείξουν τι μπορούν να κάνουν, και αν περάσουν ενεργοποιούν αυτόματα το άρθρο 40 το οποίο υποχρεώνει την UNECE, μέσω της ΕΕ, να προσαρμόσει τους κανονισμούς σύμφωνα με τα νέα δεδομένα.

Αν ενεργοποιηθεί το άρθρο 40, το FSD (και κάθε άλλο σύστημα αυτόνομης οδήγησης) αποκτά νόμιμη πρόσβαση στην Ευρώπη. Δηλαδή με τον τρόπο που πάει η Tesla να βάλει το FSD στην Ευρώπη (και εδώ που τα λέμε δεν υπάρχει και άλλος για την ώρα), ανοίγει το δρόμο για την δημιουργία του απαραίτητου πλαισίου κανονισμών στην ΕΕ για την αυτόνομη οδήγηση γενικά.

Οι μέχρι σήμερα κανονισμοί είναι φτιαγμένοι για ψηφιακά βοηθήματα οδήγησης. Δηλαδή Level 2 και στο πολύ κέφι Level 3. Τα ψηφιακά βοηθήματα οδήγησης ξεκίνησαν από το Level 1 και έχουν ταβάνι το Level 3. Η αυτόνομη οδήγηση ξεκινά από Level 4 με στόχο το Level 5. H μέρα με τη νύχτα δηλαδή.

 

[costas EAR]

Μόνο για HW4

Tesla Updates Safety Score to V2.2: Removes Forward Collision Warning and Makes Speeding Improvements

Tesla has launched Safety Score 2.2 and removed forward collision warnings and improved the detection of speeding.

www.notateslaapp.com

 

[alexis]

Είδα δύο Juniper σήμερα. Ένα μαύρο και ένα σκούρο γκρι. Συμφωνώ με το Σίμο. Δεν λέει και τίποτα από κοντά. Ίσως σε άλλο χρώμα να αποκτήσει κάτι. Σε αυτά τα δύο σκούρα δεν. Ειδικά το μαύρο είναι ένα μαύρο χάλι. Το 3άρι παραμένει το ωραιότερο όχημα τους.

 

[Dimifoot]

Εχει όμως μοχλό για φλας

 

[alexis]

Και φωτιζόμενες μπάρες. Δύο.
Πήγαινε να το πάρεις.

 

[Dimifoot]

Αν δεν υπήρχαν τα γνωστά προβλήματα, και αν δεν έβγαινε και η μερσεντέ, τότε θα το σκεφτόμουν…
Αν και μου αρέσει το 3 πολύ περισσότερο, μου τη δίνει άσχημα το θέμα με τον μοχλό φλας.

 

[Μιχάλης Π.]

Έκανα test drive το Juniper και εκτός από την εμφάνιση που είναι καθαρά θέμα γούστου, σε όλους τους άλλους τομείς οι βελτιώσεις είναι σημαντικές: ο θόρυβος στην καμπίνα έχει μειωθεί, είναι πολύ πιο άνετο στις ανωμαλίες του δρόμου, τα καθίσματα βελτιωμένα και δεν ακούγονται καθόλου τριγμοί.