Tesla‘s ambitious push into the autonomous vehicle market is hitting a significant roadblock. Newly released crash data reveals the company’s self-driving cars are colliding with objects, people, and other vehicles at an alarming frequency compared to traditional drivers.
Federal records paint a concerning picture of Tesla’s early robotaxi deployment in Austin, Texas. Between July and November 2025, the company reported nine separate crashes involving its autonomous fleet to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under mandatory disclosure requirements. The incidents ranged from encounters with cyclists and animals to collisions with stationary objects and other vehicles, with at least one case resulting in injury.
When measured against Tesla’s own operational data from its fourth quarter 2025 earnings report, the numbers become even more troubling. The company disclosed that its robotaxi fleet had accumulated approximately 500,000 miles by November 2025. Combined with the crash figures, this works out to roughly one collision for every 55,000 miles traveled.
That rate stands in stark contrast to typical human driving performance. According to standard transportation statistics, drivers in the United States average about one police-reported accident per 500,000 miles.
Even when accounting for minor incidents that never get reported to authorities, human drivers still experience approximately one crash per 200,000 miles. By either measure, Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are performing substantially worse than the drivers they’re meant to replace.
What makes these figures particularly noteworthy is that Tesla’s robotaxis aren’t operating without human oversight. Each vehicle carries a safety operator whose specific responsibility is to monitor the system and take control before dangerous situations develop. Despite this layer of protection, the collision rate remains elevated well beyond what would be expected from human-piloted vehicles.
This contrasts sharply with competitors in the autonomous vehicle space. Companies like Waymo have deployed fully driverless cars without any human onboard and have documented stronger safety performance across tens of millions of miles on public roads.
Beyond the raw numbers, Tesla’s approach to transparency is raising questions among industry observers and safety advocates. Every crash narrative the company has submitted to federal regulators has been heavily redacted, making it nearly impossible for the public to understand the circumstances surrounding each incident or evaluate whether the technology or human judgment was at issue.
Other autonomous vehicle operators have taken a different approach. Waymo, for instance, regularly publishes comprehensive explanations of collisions involving its vehicles. A recent incident in Santa Monica demonstrates this philosophy in action.
When a Waymo vehicle came into contact with a child in a school zone, the company released a thorough account showing that the child had run into traffic from behind an obstruction. The autonomous system applied brakes immediately, substantially reducing the contact speed, and the child walked away without harm. The company even noted that its internal analysis suggested a human driver might have reacted more slowly under the same circumstances.
Tesla has provided no comparable level of detail about any of its incidents, leaving critical questions unanswered about system performance, decision-making processes, and whether improvements are being implemented based on lessons learned.
The implications extend beyond Tesla’s reputation. The autonomous vehicle industry as a whole depends on building public trust through demonstrated safety improvements and honest communication about both successes and setbacks. When a high-profile company deploys technology that appears to underperform human drivers while simultaneously withholding information about what’s actually happening on the road, it risks creating skepticism that affects the entire sector.
Some evidence suggests Tesla’s performance may be improving incrementally over time, with slightly fewer incidents reported in more recent months. However, the overall pattern remains concerning for a technology that aspires to operate without any human supervision at all.
For Tesla to establish credibility in the robotaxi market, the company faces a dual challenge. First, it must demonstrate meaningful safety improvements that bring its collision rate down to levels comparable with or better than human drivers. Second, it needs to embrace the kind of transparency that allows independent verification of progress and builds public confidence in the technology.
At present, the available evidence suggests Tesla is struggling on both fronts.
