A for-profit company never deserves some benefit of doubt. Thats why we have and need all those regulations.
The argument is that they have shipped 3 cars in Europe. All their cars got among the best, if not the best, crash test ratings by every government and non-profit agency that tested their cars.
They deserve benefit of the doubt because they've demonstrated several times that they know what they're doing.
A can't say the same about randos speculating how Tesla will fail to certify their 5th or 6th car in Europe (after Model Y and possibly Roadster and Semi).
Being a TUV expert doesn't really make up for the fact that the guy is commenting based on a video of an early prototype.
Not to mention that people seem to arguing that Cybertruck is not safe... for other cars.
Hummer was sold in Europe. Tell me again how stupidly large and heavy cars can't possibly be certified for European sales.
Also, in the EU, no car manufacturer self-certifies. In Germany for example it's the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (similar to the American DOT) that certifies vehicles to be street-legal.
I don't believe you need to be recertified per se. As far as I know, you need a medical exam but that aside it's an administrative procedure.
Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road.
Safety Regulation is there to make sure those constraints are given a high priority in the design of equipment so it doesn't kill you, your passengers or the people around you.
It does if it is important for customer. And even if it doesn't - it doesn't mean they will make it dangerous for pedestrians. Furthermore, regulations come from what market innovates. An imperfect analogy on why regulations don't always bring best results: having side mirrors is incredibly important safety regulation. That is of course until you can introduce better safety by not having them, but regulation prevents you from doing so (cameras)
If a car costs $1,000 less but would catch fire in an instant when turned on its roof, people would opt for the money, I guarantee you that, because when was the last time you car was upside down?
From 2000 to 2010 Toyota used cheap materials in their cars that made cars accelerate and crash. It's estimated that 89 people died due to this in the US alone.
Your blind believe in "the market" is simply wrong. Without regulatory oversight, this might never have come to light and you would still see Toyotas running into barriers or Fords burning after an accident. Just you wouldn't actually know about it because it's relatively rare.