What does Flanders’ green light for self-driving Teslas mean on the public road?
Flemish Minister of Mobility, Public Works, Ports and Sport Annick De Ridder has approved the use of self-driving Tesla functions on public roads in Flanders, according to VRT NWS and De Morgen. The competence picture is split.
In 30 seconds
- VRT NWS and De Morgen report that Flemish Minister Annick De Ridder has approved self-driving Tesla use on public roads in Flanders.
- The decision concerns Flanders; it should not automatically be read as a Belgian-wide authorisation for Brussels or Wallonia.
- EU law distinguishes automated vehicles requiring possible driver intervention from fully automated vehicles without driver supervision.
- Flemish mobility powers, federal traffic rules and EU type-approval rules all remain relevant to how the system is used.
The subject is the Flemish authorisation of self-driving functions on public roads. The named political actor is , , Flemish Minister of Mobility, Public Works, Ports and Sport in the , which began after the 9 June 2024 regional elections. The technology at issue should be treated carefully: in public language it is often called self-driving, but EU law distinguishes between an automated vehicle, where driver intervention is still expected or required, and a fully automated vehicle, which is designed to move without any driver supervision. That distinction matters for liability, police enforcement, insurance and what drivers may actually do behind the wheel.
Background
Belgium’s road policy is institutionally layered. Successive state reforms gave the regions major powers over roads, mobility planning and road safety policy, while core traffic rules and vehicle-law questions have remained partly federal. That structure worked reasonably well for speed limits, infrastructure and enforcement priorities, but automated driving exposes its complexity. A car does not know constitutional boundaries in the way administrations do. Since 2022, EU vehicle safety legislation has added a further layer by creating common type-approval concepts for automated and fully automated vehicles. Flanders’ decision therefore sits inside a broader European shift: road authorities are moving from pilot projects to controlled public-road deployment.
What to do
Drivers should treat the approval as conditional permission to use a supervised system, not as permission to disengage. Keep hands and attention ready as required by the vehicle and traffic rules, check whether the function is enabled for the exact road and software version, and do not assume the same rule applies after crossing a regional border.
Impact
Regional — The impact is strongest in Flanders because the reported approval concerns the Vlaamse openbare weg. Drivers crossing into Brussels or Wallonia should not assume identical rules or enforcement practice unless the relevant authorities make the same decision or a harmonised Belgian approach follows.
EvidenceWell established · 1 primary source + 4 official documents + 1 independent reporting sourceExplore evidence →Hide evidence ↑
- Published:
- 29 Jun 2026, 02:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 29 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 29 Jun 2026, 02:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 29 Jun 2026
- Publication date unavailable
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 29 Jun 2026
- Publication date unavailable
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 29 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 16 Dec 2019, 01:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 29 Jun 2026
- Published:
- 26 Aug 2022, 02:00
- Retrieved by ODIN:
- 29 Jun 2026
Voices & reactions
What the main actors are doing
Reported positions, summarised — not direct quotationsFlemish government innovation-and-control frame
The De Ridder line is likely to present the approval as a controlled opening for new mobility technology rather than a free-for-all. In this frame, Vlaanderen should not wait passively while automated-driving systems develop elsewhere, but should allow deployment under conditions that fit Flemish roads and public safety responsibilities.
Road-safety and consumer-protection frame
Road-safety organisations, insurers and consumer groups are likely to focus on the gap between the phrase self-driving and the driver’s continuing duty to supervise. Their concern is not only crash risk, but also whether users understand the limits of the system in rain, roadworks, mixed cycling traffic and complex junctions.
Federal-regional competence frame
Federal mobility authorities, police and insurers have a separate interest in clarity. Even if Flanders controls access to regional public roads, the Highway Code, vehicle registration, liability and enforcement systems cannot be treated as purely Flemish matters when a car crosses a regional border.
Tesla-owner and technology-adoption frame
Tesla owners and pro-innovation groups are likely to welcome the decision as long-awaited access to functions already discussed elsewhere in Europe. Their argument is that supervised automation can reduce fatigue and improve consistency, provided the rules are clear and the software is not treated as a substitute for legal driver responsibility.
The story, connected
Explore the people, places and ideas in this story
Go beyond the headline. Open a card for sourced context, maps, official links and the other subjects connected to this report.
Continue reading
This story was assembled from verified evidence, with its sources and reasoning recorded as it was written.