Tesla Cybercab’s Global Expansion: The Hurdles Facing a Steering-Wheel-Less Car

On the morning of September 4, while scrolling through my timeline, I noticed something odd. Since it was the first passenger-boarding event for the Cybercab, I naturally expected a live stream with Elon Musk on stage making big announcements, but there was no stream at all. Apparently, even the invitees had to sign NDAs to enter. I wondered why it was so low-key, considering this was the moment a prototype was finally hitting public roads just two years after its reveal. As I looked into it, I found articles about federal regulators launching an investigation before the event had even ended. And this happened on the very same day the vehicles hit the road.

I had two questions.

What makes the Cybercab different from existing robotaxis like Waymo or Zoox, and why is this happening? And can this vehicle actually go beyond the U.S.?

As I dug deeper, I realized both questions were actually linked.

What sets the Cybercab apart from other robotaxis

The Cybercab is a two-seater with no steering wheel, pedals, or side mirrors. It is a design that eliminates the very premise of human operation.

It features butterfly doors, a gold-colored body, an EPA-estimated battery capacity of 47.6 kWh, a single front-wheel drive motor with 219 horsepower, and a combined range of approximately 472 km. Its only sensors are nine cameras.

There is no LiDAR or radar.

This is significant because Waymo and Amazon’s Zoox have taken the opposite approach.

Waymo uses a ‘multi-sensor fusion’ strategy, layering LiDAR, radar, and cameras. Even their recently unveiled 6th-generation vehicle, Ojai, still uses 13 cameras along with LiDAR and radar, despite reducing the total sensor count. Zoox also uses a cube-shaped chassis equipped with multiple sensors.

Tesla, on the other hand, has insisted on a ’vision-only’ path, relying solely on optical cameras and AI computing. The Cybercab is the most extreme realization of that philosophy.

The pricing is also different. The target is under $30,000; while not yet finalized, the calculation seems to be that they can produce them much cheaper and in higher volumes than the method used by Waymo or Zoox, which involves retrofitting existing mass-produced vehicles.

In fact, on August 31, seven Cybercabs were added to the Texas DMV registration records, bringing the total number of Tesla robotaxis registered in Texas to 276 (269 Model Ys + 7 Cybercabs). Although still at a pilot level, the move to increase volume is clearly visible.

One thing to note is that while the Cybercab is self-certified as SAE Level 4 on paper, initial operations still involve a safety operator in the passenger seat and remote monitoring.

This is different from Waymo’s fully driverless state (where the driver’s seat itself is empty). It is in a transitional phase where the design is made to exclude human intervention, but operations are still overseen by a human sitting right next to it.

Why an investigation began on launch day

In the U.S., automobile safety standards (FMVSS) are managed through a ‘self-certification’ system rather than pre-approval.

Manufacturers declare that they meet the standards and can put the vehicles on the road; if problems arise, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intervenes post-facto.

However, this system was originally designed with the premise that a human is driving. Regulations regarding brake pedals, steering wheels, and side mirrors all reflect this.

Tesla self-certified the Cybercab by determining that these requirements were ’not applicable.’

This is precisely what the NHTSA is scrutinizing. They want to see the technical data and processes behind that decision.

An Audit Query number has even been assigned, and coincidentally, this is a path Zoox already walked in 2022.

Zoox also self-certified its steering-wheel-less cube robotaxi, only to be hit with special orders and audit queries. The investigation ended on the condition that Zoox withdraw its claim that its vehicle met all federal standards. Afterward, they pivoted to seeking an ’exemption’ rather than self-certification, and they only received temporary exemption approval for commercial service in July 2026. However, it came with a catch: a cap of 2,500 commercial vehicles per year for the next two years.

Tesla chose a different path than Zoox. Instead of applying for an exemption, they self-certified that the Cybercab already meets all federal standards.

If this works, they can mass-produce and expand without volume limits. But if the NHTSA does not accept the basis for that certification, they could be held back.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is working on revising regulations to remove the requirement for manual controls in driverless vehicles, but it has not been finalized yet. Tesla is essentially pushing through the gap, and some media outlets have described this as a ’game of chicken with regulators’.

Musk’s side doesn’t seem to be hiding this. While their head of engineering mentioned an “excellent relationship” with the NHTSA administrator during an earnings call, it didn’t spare them from the investigation.

If this audit ends poorly, the problem is that the moment the NHTSA determines that ’the standards apply,’ the Cybercab could be forced to undergo a defect identification process despite already being on the road.

In the worst case, it could lead to measures equivalent to a recall.

Conversely, if the certification is accepted, they won’t be tied to the 2,500-unit annual limit like Zoox, allowing them to scale up immediately. From the company’s perspective, it was a gamble worth taking.

And this is just at the federal level; actual robotaxi operations are governed by additional regulations that vary from state to state.

Musk once described this situation as “extremely painful,” pushing for a unified federal framework instead of fragmented state-by-state regulations. Looking at what the Cybercab is going through, it’s easier to understand why he feels that way.

Passing a single federal standard is complex enough; adding state-level regulations on top means operators are practically having to redraw the map.

That’s the domestic U.S. situation. What happens when it crosses the border?

Europe — No overarching regulations yet

Europe follows international standards set by bodies under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).

While this body recently adopted global technical regulations distinguishing between Driver Control Assistance Systems (DCAS) and Automated Driving Systems (ADS), these are just ‘frameworks’ that each country or the EU must adopt into actual legislation. This means there is still a process of transposing them into national standards.

Furthermore, these UN standards themselves do not yet account for vehicles like the Cybercab.

Some analyses predict that Tesla’s urban autonomous driving features will be difficult to certify under UNECE regulations even by 2028.

In reality, what Tesla is doing in Europe right now is limited to FSD test rides (ride-alongs) for the general public in France, Italy, and Germany. It’s a stage for building trust rather than formal approval, and the approval process by the Netherlands Vehicle Authority (RDW) is considered the watershed moment for European expansion.

If FSD with a steering wheel is at this stage, the Cybercab, which lacks a steering wheel entirely, is much further back in line.

Europe isn’t necessarily blocking it; it’s more that the regulations required to make a judgment haven’t been completed yet.

China — Design philosophy and law in direct conflict

China is different. They have established their own regulations that are even stricter than the UN standards.

Not only is manufacturer liability codified in the event of an accident, but the law also mandates that a human must be able to regain control within at least 10 seconds.

But the Cybercab is a car without a steering wheel or pedals. There is no control device for a human to take over, whether in 10 seconds or 100 seconds.

This isn’t a problem that will resolve with time. It means that under the current design, there is no way to meet the minimum requirements of Chinese law. On top of this, there is a ban on cross-border data transfer.

Tesla’s core competitive edge in full self-driving comes from learning data accumulated on U.S. roads, but China restricts that data from leaving the country. Therefore, to enter the Chinese market, they would need to build new data centers and learning infrastructure locally, and the vehicle itself might need a redesign to add a steering wheel back in.

If Europe is a case of ’not going because there are no standards yet,’ China is a case of ’not going because the car itself doesn’t match the existing standards.’

South Korea — Guidelines exist, but not yet law

South Korea was actually quick to refine its system, becoming the first in the world to create Level 3 safety standards in 2019. However, when it comes to fully driverless, or Level 4, the story changes.

It wasn’t until July 2026 that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport released its first ‘Guidelines for Safe Operation of Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles,’ but these are administrative guidelines, not legislation.

The core requirement for a temporary operation permit is 15,000 km or more of demonstration driving, and it is said to have been created by referencing UNECE terminology and some overseas cases.

A more fundamental issue is that the Passenger Transport Service Act itself is built on the premise that there is a human driver. Special legislation to change this premise is targeted for 2027, so it will still take time for the actual laws to be overhauled, rather than just guidelines.

An interesting aspect is the speed limit. The UN R157 regulation limits robotaxi speeds to 60 km/h, but South Korea chose not to accept this and opted for no independent cap. This means there are areas that are actually looser than international standards. However, this doesn’t make the overall picture favorable, as commercialization is still confined to pilot operation districts and regulatory sandboxes.

While Waymo is said to have established a Korean subsidiary, we will likely have to wait for these guidelines to become law before we see cars actually on the road.

Isn’t the point that the types of barriers are all different?

Looking at these four countries, it’s interesting that while the conclusion of ’not being able to go’ is the same, the reasons are all different.

The U.S. market is open, but there is procedural risk regarding whether the gamble of self-certification will hold up.

Europe is a matter of time, as the overarching regulations that serve as the basis for judgment have not yet been created.

China has a structural problem where the current design directly conflicts with the law.

South Korea has a problem of institutional maturity, where guidelines have emerged but the law hasn’t kept pace.

It is too different in nature to group them all under the single term ‘regulatory barrier.’

Personally, I think the Cybercab’s biggest supposed strength—’no steering wheel’—could end up being its biggest obstacle abroad.

Especially in places like China, where the law requires the existence of control devices, they might eventually have to create variants for each region that add the steering wheel back in. If that happens, the original strength of ’lowering costs through purpose-built design’ might become blurred. However, this is just my speculation that no one has confirmed yet. Regulations often shift suddenly based on domestic industrial situations, so I honestly don’t know how valid this barrier map will be in a year or two.