Europe’s Robotaxi Race Runs Through National Rules and Local Training
Europe’s national routes to robotaxi service are advancing at different speeds, but regulatory progress does not make a deployment portable, Frank McCleary, a partner at Arthur D. Little, told Bloomberg’s Ed Ludlow. Operators must train their systems in each new environment, McCleary said, so experience gained in China does not by itself establish that a vehicle will work in a European city. Ludlow framed Europe as an option for Chinese operators facing constrained access to the US; McCleary described the US restrictions behind that constraint.
Europe’s national routes still require local proof
Europe presents robotaxi operators with a deployment opportunity and a constraint: countries are creating routes from pilots to commercial service, but success in one market does not establish that a system will work in another. Frank McCleary said there is no EU-wide regulatory framework, and he does not expect one. Instead, countries are developing their own rules at different speeds, while sharing a desire to move beyond pilots.
The examples vary. Germany has laid out a Level 4 regulatory framework. Croatia has advanced pilots in Zagreb, while the UK has a national framework. Spain is taking a more stepwise approach; McCleary also named Norway, Austria and Switzerland as smaller markets developing their own paths.
Croatia is his clearest example of a relatively fast transition: its framework allowed Pony AI and Verne to move from pilot to commercial operations quickly. Spain illustrates a more gradual path. The contrast makes regulatory transparency important—not because every country offers the same route, but because operators need to understand how a pilot can progress to service.
That regulatory progress does not make a deployment portable. Asked whether extensive experience in China gives Chinese operators an advantage in other jurisdictions, McCleary answered:
No, 'cause you still have to train in the new environment.
He compared the requirement with Waymo’s US operations: systems still need a training period in each new setting. Waymo, he said, is getting better at training and reaching commercial operations more quickly. But millions of miles driven elsewhere do not by themselves show that a vehicle will work in Croatia, the UK or another urban environment. Weather and local conditions still matter.
The implication is that a country’s regulatory route and an operator’s accumulated driving experience solve different problems. A clear path from pilot to service can reduce uncertainty about the process; it cannot substitute for adapting and training the system locally.
US limits and partnerships help explain the European push
Ed Ludlow framed Europe as a place Chinese robotaxi operators may pursue because access to the US is constrained. McCleary said US connected-vehicle and advanced driver-assistance software regulations introduced at the end of the Biden administration effectively shut Chinese automakers out of bringing vehicles from China. He did not describe a complete prohibition on a Chinese company operating in the US: manufacturing and development there might remain possible, but would require a US-based software-development stack or reliance on other technology providers. He said he did not expect that route to be taken soon.
McCleary traced the connected-vehicle rules to an initial effort during the first Trump administration that was later carried through under Biden. Because he sees the policy as spanning both administrations, he does not expect it to change in the short to medium term. He contrasted the US’s state-by-state landscape with Europe’s country-by-country approaches, and said he had not seen NHTSA set out a framework for managing safety and regulation.
Europe is also part of a broader expansion by Chinese manufacturers, McCleary said, including through infrastructure and foreign direct investment. He cited Uber’s efforts to secure partnerships with technology providers. Those deals, he said, could preserve an asset-light model while allowing Uber to shift demand from one provider to another.
These points explain why Europe matters to the companies, without making it a single open market: US restrictions narrow one route, while European national frameworks offer distinct paths that operators must assess individually. Partnerships may give a platform flexibility across providers, but they do not remove the country-specific regulatory and training work.
Tesla’s naming dispute turns on what the product claims
The Tesla exchange offered a brief parallel between consumer driver assistance and robotaxi ambitions. Ludlow said Tesla had dropped the FSD name in some European jurisdictions and noted that he uses the product for a 60-mile daily round trip. McCleary said he had not examined Tesla’s software stack closely, but described the technology used for the Cybercab in Austin as similar. He also recalled the earlier proposal to redeploy off-lease Model 3s in a robotaxi service.
On the European naming change, McCleary offered an interpretation rather than a detailed account of the regulatory decisions: he saw regulators pressing on product liability and on calling the product what it is. The exchange leaves the larger deployment distinction intact: claims about a consumer product’s capabilities, plans for a robotaxi service and authorization to operate commercially are related, but not interchangeable.