When a self-driving or highly automated car causes an accident in the Netherlands, criminal liability still lies with a person or a company: in most cases the driver, and in some cases the operator or the manufacturer as a legal entity. The car itself cannot be prosecuted; the main exception to driver liability is when the system made an error that the driver could not reasonably have seen coming or corrected.
Dutch criminal law has no separate rules for automated driving yet. Liability is assessed under the existing traffic offences of the Road Traffic Act 1994 (Wegenverkeerswet 1994, WVW) and the Dutch Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht, Sr).
Table of contents
Which traffic offences apply to automated cars?
The starting point is Article 6 WVW: causing a traffic accident through your fault that results in death or serious bodily injury. Articles 5 and 5a WVW prohibit dangerous and very dangerous driving, even when nobody is hurt.
The penalties follow from Articles 175 to 179 WVW and include a prison sentence, a fine and, as an additional penalty, a driving ban. Our article on what determines the punishment after a serious traffic accident explains how courts weigh these cases.
When is there fault under Article 6?
Fault requires more than a single mistake in most cases. The court looks at the driving behaviour as a whole, the nature and seriousness of the violation and the other circumstances of the case.
A brief lapse can be dangerous driving under Article 5 without being the culpable carelessness that Article 6 requires. Where the line lies between an administrative fine and a criminal traffic offence depends on the same assessment.
When is the driver liable?
As long as a system is approved as a driver assistance system, the driver remains responsible and is the person to whom Articles 5 and 6 WVW apply. Relying too heavily on the system, ignoring warnings or using it outside the conditions it was approved for can therefore lead to liability.
If the system makes an error that the driver could not reasonably have noticed or corrected, fault under Article 6 is much harder to prove. Each case turns on what the driver knew, saw and could have done.
Is a car with Tesla FSD Supervised a self-driving car?
No. In April 2026 the Netherlands Vehicle Authority (RDW) granted a type approval for FSD Supervised, initially valid in the Netherlands only. The RDW classifies it as a driver assistance system: the driver must keep watching the road and be able to take over at any moment.
Under criminal law this means the driver stays responsible. The system’s advanced capabilities can, however, make the factual question of fault in an individual case more complex.
What rules apply to experiments with driverless vehicles?
Vehicles without a driver on board may only be used on public roads in an experiment for which the Minister of Infrastructure, after consulting the Minister of Justice and Security, has granted a permit under Article 149aa WVW. Under Article 149ab WVW the permit runs for at most three years and records the roads, times, weather conditions, safety measures and monitoring of the experiment.
The permit can exempt the experiment from many rules, but never from Articles 5 and 6 WVW. These continue to apply to the person designated as the driver, wherever that person is located. After an incident, the permit file is often the first source of evidence about who was supposed to supervise and from where.
Can a manufacturer or operator be prosecuted?
Yes, in theory. Under Article 51 Sr, a legal entity can commit a criminal offence, and the persons who ordered or actually directed the conduct can be prosecuted as well.
A software error alone is not enough. The accident must be traced back to concrete, culpable choices within the organisation, such as inadequate testing, ignoring known safety warnings or rolling out an update with known defects.
Why are causation and technical evidence so important?
Several causes often coincide: a supervision error by the driver, a software or sensor fault, wrong map data or the behaviour of other road users. The prosecution must show that the fault it alleges, and not another factor, caused the accident.
Evidence therefore shifts to software versions, event data recorder data, vehicle logs, sensor data and update history. Under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the defence must have a fair opportunity to test such evidence, for example by asking for the source data or an independent expert. Read more on admissible evidence in Dutch criminal cases.
Can the courts stretch the law to find someone liable?
No. Under Article 7 ECHR and Article 1 Sr, criminal liability must rest on accessible and foreseeable law. Courts may interpret existing norms, but may not expand them in an unforeseeable way.
The absence of specific rules for automated driving does not rule out prosecution. It does mean that liability must be based on the existing, sufficiently clear offences in the WVW and the Sr.
What should you check as a driver?
After an accident with an automated car, your own use of the system is the first thing investigators look at. Check these points:
- Was the system used within the conditions and road types for which it was approved?
- Did the system give warnings, and when did you respond to them?
- Which software version was installed at the time of the accident?
- Has the vehicle data been secured before repair or an update?
- Have you used your right to remain silent until you spoke with a lawyer?
What should you check as a manufacturer or operator?
For companies, the question is whether an accident can be traced to choices within the organisation. Check these points:
- Are test procedures and their results documented for each software version?
- Is there a record of how safety warnings and incident reports were handled?
- Is it clear who decides on rolling out updates?
- For an experiment: does the permit under Article 149aa WVW record who supervises and from where?
- Can vehicle and log data be produced quickly and with a verifiable chain of custody?
What can we do for you with criminal liability for automated driving?
Our criminal lawyers assist drivers and companies:
- We attend the police interview after an accident and prepare you for it.
- We request the vehicle data, logs and software history from the file.
- We ask the court to appoint an independent technical expert.
- We test whether the fault and causation required by Article 6 WVW can be proven.
- We review the internal documentation of manufacturers and operators on testing and updates.
Summary
- A self-driving car cannot be prosecuted; liability lies with the driver, the operator or the company.
- Articles 5, 5a and 6 WVW apply to automated cars as they do to other vehicles.
- Driver assistance systems such as Tesla FSD Supervised leave the driver responsible.
- Driverless experiments need a permit under Article 149aa WVW and do not exclude criminal liability.
- Companies can be prosecuted under Article 51 Sr only for concrete, culpable organisational choices.
Frequently asked questions
Is the driver always criminally liable in an accident with a self-driving car?
No. The driver is in principle the person to whom Articles 5 and 6 WVW apply, but liability requires fault. If the driver used the system correctly and could not reasonably have intervened, fault is hard to prove.
Can a car manufacturer be prosecuted for an accident?
In theory yes, under Article 51 of the Dutch Criminal Code. The accident must be traced back to concrete, culpable choices within the company, such as inadequate testing or ignoring known safety warnings.
Are fully driverless cars allowed on Dutch roads?
Only in an experiment with a permit from the Minister under Article 149aa WVW. The permit runs for at most three years, and Articles 5 and 6 WVW keep applying.
What role does vehicle data play in a criminal case?
A growing one. Software versions, event data recorder data, logs and update history often show what happened. The defence can ask for access to this data and for an independent expert.
