Slovenia has become the sixth European nation to approve Tesla’s supervised Full Self-Driving system, following data releases showing a 76 százalékkal kisebb a balesetek valószínűsége reduction in crash probability compared to human drivers, while regulatory scrutiny intensifies over driver-assist safety after fatal highway collisions in the United States.
Europe’s adoption of advanced driver assistance systems continues to expand as Slovenia officially approved Tesla’s supervised automated driving system, as reported by Villanyautósok.hu. The authorization makes Slovenia the sixth European country to greenlight the software, following an initial rollout led by the Netherlands in April.
Following the Dutch authorization, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, and Lithuania also approved the system for public roadways. Industry analysts note that this wave of European approvals may have been influenced by the release of manufacturer data covering the initial five adopting countries after a summer pause in the approval process. Those statistics indicate that drivers in those nations have traveled more than több mint 100 millió kilométert kilometers using the software, with the statistical analysis claiming a 76 százalékkal kisebb a balesetek valószínűsége drop in accident probability relative to human-driven vehicles.
Regulatory Stance in Hungary and Technical Limitations
Már itt van a szomszédban a Tesla Full-Self Driving
While neighboring Slovenia opens its roads to the technology, drivers in Hungary must wait for the system. When questioned during the summer regarding potential early authorization, the Ministry of Transport and Construction stated that automated driving system approvals in Hungary follow European Union legal and professional frameworks—meaning no national advancement will occur ahead of unified EU-wide approval.
Technical hurdles also persist alongside regulatory delays. As previously discussed on Totalcar, the Full-Self Driving system continues to experience operational anomalies, such as phantom braking—an unexpected deceleration triggered by misidentified roadway hazards.
Federal Scrutiny and Highway Incidents in the United States
While European regulators evaluate safety statistics, federal filings in the United States highlight severe risks associated with automated driving systems. Federal reports submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration document two fatal nighttime collisions sharing identical signatures.
Tesla’s Self-Driving System Stopped Dead on a Highway
At 3 a.m. on October 31, 2025, a 2020 Tesla Model 3 sat completely still in a live eastbound lane on Loop 202 near Dobson Road in Mesa, Arizona, before a Ford F-350 hit it at speed, resulting in the death of the Tesla driver at the scene. Twenty-five days earlier, on October 6, 2025, another 2020 Tesla Model 3 was stopped at 0 mph in the center eastbound lane of I-4 near Lake Mary Boulevard in Seminole County, Florida, where a rear-end collision similarly killed the driver. In both instances, manufacturer filings confirmed that the automation engagement status was Verified Engaged
and pre-crash movement was listed as “Stopped” under normal road and weather conditions.
Transparency Concerns and Corporate Disclaimers
Federal safety mandates under NHTSA’s Standing General Order require manufacturers to report crashes where Level 2 driver-assist systems were active within 30 seconds of an impact. However, analysts tracking these incidents note that Tesla redacts 99.9% of its Standing General Order crash reports as confidential business information, sealing crash narratives, software versions, and operating zone data from public review.
Legal exposure for the manufacturer is mounting alongside these regulatory information gaps. NHTSA has already investigated Tesla for delayed crash reporting under the Standing General Order. Meanwhile, a 2025 jury found Tesla 33% liable in a different fatal Autopilot crash, with total damages in the case reaching into the hundreds of millions. Tesla’s official position holds that Autopilot and FSD stated that the systems require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle fully autonomous, per the company’s website—a disclaimer that places responsibility squarely on drivers while the system’s actual behavior stays hidden behind redactions.
Regulators are now examining whether malfunctioning ADAS systems should be required to pull safely to the shoulder rather than stop dead in traffic, leaving the harder question of how long a company can market something called Full Self-Driving
while redacting every document that might reveal how it actually drives.
