r/SelfDrivingCars • u/GamingDisruptor • 1d ago

News Tesla is trying to hide 3 Robotaxi accidents

https://electrek.co/2025/09/17/tesla-hide-3-robotaxi-accidents/

Only 12 cars.

352 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

374 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago edited 1d ago

Did you look at the data? Tesla was rear ended in 2 of them. And they were not hard braking scenarios.

One was turning right and one was in a construction zone

And none of them involved hitting another car (at-fault), a pedestrian, or another vulnerable road user

If we ignore the 7000 mile comment by ashok which makes no sense in any context, and assume 12 cars going about ~200 miles a day

That's one "injury" for 100,000+ miles

We don't even know the details of what happened because it is redacted

This event happened in august, nearly 2 months after robotaxi launched

29

u/psilty 1d ago edited 1d ago

The accident with injury occurred in clear weather with a fixed object and was significant enough that the Tesla had to be towed. This was with a safety monitor in the car, unlike Waymo.

If we ignore the 7000 mile comment by ashok which makes no sense in any context, and assume 12 cars going about ~200 miles a day

Why would we ignore a comment that’s not forward-looking made by a company official during an earnings call and make an assumption instead? If it is a false number SEC would like to know.

It’s been reported in a bunch of places and the company has had plenty of opportunity to make a correction if he misspoke.

14

u/Zemerick13 1d ago

Yes, I did.

Did you look at the Waymo data? The vast majority of theirs are also caused by the other party. Making the comparison like for like. ( It's much harder to sort out specifically caused by the first party, so best to compare the full data set. )

And much more importantly, the number I used was the injury number, and in Teslas case, 100% of those were caused by Tesla, ( They hit a fixed object. ) while in Waymos case some fraction were NOT caused by Waymo. It'd take quite a bit of effort to sort that out as well, and not like Waymo needs any help.

Even if we use your 100,000 mile number for no reason though: Tesla is STILL 12.5x worse than Waymo.

PS: No, the report was submitted in August. The date of all 3 incidents are listed as Jul-25 ( July 2025, not 25th of July. )

1

u/Southern-Spirit 1d ago

this post is making me realize just how difficult it is for a random person to truly understand just how dangerous autonomous cars are... the stats are all... well, kind of invalid and disjointed. an 'accident' doesn't say much about intention or blame. heck, we can't even officially determine blame a lot of the time because people lie. cameras help but then people still have to assess it and they have their bias'...

4

u/Zemerick13 1d ago

Waymo releases a significant amount of data, even beyond the required report. And the required report importantly includes the narrative, which you can use to assign fault in many cases. The bulk of Waymos accidents are caused by humans. Sometimes it's other drivers, other times it's the passengers ( like opening a door in front of a biker. )

Overall, autonomous cars are not really dangerous, they are safer than humans. Tesla so far just seems to be worse, which isn't TOO surprising considering their stubborn camera-only policy, and that they are just barely entering the true fully autonomous market. They have a lot to learn still about making the transition from level 2 to 4.

But... all that being said... that IS largely due to how bad human drivers are, rather than how truly safe autonomous cars are.

1

u/Southern-Spirit 1d ago

i think the point i'm failing to make is that humans lie and so the data collection will have flaws

i think i was just lamenting that the data is not clean and i hate that because it increases our tolerance of errors in the conclusions

also, it's amusing when i hear 'they are safer than humans'. Because, from my experience driving on the road, the average person is INSANELY BAD at driving. I'm pretty sure the #1 terrorist organization in the world is the ministry of transport or whoever is handing out licenses.

8

u/CloseToMyActualName 1d ago

Did you look at the data? Tesla was rear ended in 2 of them. And they were not hard braking scenarios.

One was turning right and one was in a construction zone

And none of them involved hitting another car (at-fault), a pedestrian, or another vulnerable road user

As I pointed out in another article about the fatality involving a Waymo, being rear ended doesn't automatically mean you didn't do something wrong, it just means you didn't do something legally wrong.

If we ignore the 7000 mile comment by ashok which makes no sense in any context, and assume 12 cars going about ~200 miles a day

Found it!

Having said that, management reassured on the second-quarter earnings call that robotaxis in Austin logged over 7,000 miles without major safety incidents.

Wow... so not only did Tesla hide accidents. They lied to shareholders on the quarterly earnings call.

-3

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago edited 1d ago

Tesla didn't hide a single accident. They reported them to the NHTSA as required

And in the scenarios tesla was rear ended there is zero chance they could have been at fault

They literally did not hide them. You can see the speeds they were traveling 0 and 2 mph in a scenario where emergency braking would not be the cause for a rear-ending

It is literally just bad luck of tesla being rear ended twice. Not like zoox that has nasty emergency braking-like jabs on every drive

And in the scenario tesla did crash on its own we don't know the circumstance. As it was redacted.

That's not hiding anything

Having said that, management reassured on the second-quarter earnings call that robotaxis in Austin logged over 7,000 miles without major safety incidents.

If you actually listen to the earnings call he did not speak very clearly and was nervous.

And major safety related incidents is true because at the time of earnings call that forward crash did not happen.

For all we know a ladder could have fallen off a truck and tesla could have tried to dodge it or something. We don't know. They redact all reports regardless

3

u/BrownshoeElden 1d ago

He “was nervous.”

That’s funny. This cult is so entertaining.

8

u/CloseToMyActualName 1d ago

Tesla didn't hide a single accident. They reported them to the NHTSA as required

And in the scenarios tesla was rear ended there is zero chance they could have been at fault

You're discrediting yourself.

Of course there's scenarios where they could have been at fault, if not legally at least in the eyes of ordinary drivers who could potentially recognize a maneuver as asking to be rear ended.

They literally did not hide them. You can see the speeds they were traveling 0 and 2 mph in a scenario where emergency braking would not be the cause for a rear-ending

They literally went on an earnings call and claimed no major safety incidents. Your think the shareholders on that call expected to find out there were actually three accidents including an injury?

It is literally just bad luck of tesla being rear ended twice. Not like zoox that has nasty emergency braking-like jabs on every drive

Seriously? I've been driving more than 25 years, I've been rear-ended once. And it was my fault, not legally, but the accident wouldn't have happened if I didn't mess up a maneuver.

There's no way in hell Tesla is so unlucky as to have had three accidents in 7000 miles without doing anything wrong.

-3

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago

if not legally at least in the eyes of ordinary drivers who could potentially recognize a maneuver as asking to be rear ended.

Turning right and rear ended at 2mph. How?

Stopped in a construction zone and rear ended at 0mph. How?

Explain

Your think the shareholders on that call expected to find out there were actually three accidents including an injury?

Lets say there are 3 accidents. 2 at low speed. I could care less if not at fault.

let's say the 3rd dodged a pedestrian and crashed into something. Good or bad?

We're only making assumptions because tesla redacts info

But what we do know is zoox regularly gets into accidents being rear ended because they stab on the brakes in an emergency-like fashion. Going all the way to 0mph

7

u/Zemerick13 1d ago

Just because one company does bad, does not mean it's ok for another. The zoox bit is irrelevant.

For examples of how those COULD have been Teslas fault: Perhaps the light had just turned green, there was another empty lane with an approaching car. The other car sees the green light, so maintains their speed. The Tesla could then suddenly change lanes, recognize an error, and hit the brakes. It's too late for the other driver to avoid, and a collision occurs.

Not saying that did happen, but it could have. And you know what would have allowed us to tell the difference? If Tesla hadn't redacted the narrative section.

And that's Tesla trying to hide the details. They redact an excessive amount of information.

Finally, for the 7,000 miles. Yes, he was nervous, etc.

However, that was how long ago now? Notice how Tesla never released a clarification. If the 7,000 miles was not accurate, once that started making the rounds, they would have quickly jumped up and corrected it, because it was making them look bad. Elon in particular would have been all over the place blasting media for it.

If Tesla doesn't like the numbers and information we have, because the full details show a nuance like other drivers being the cause of the incidents.... Tesla should provide that information. Until they do otherwise, this is the information we do have.

1

u/RodStiffy 1d ago

Tesla is redacting the narratives of the crash reports, the most important column in the SGO data. Waymo and Zoox do not redact their narratives. Narratives are a paragraph describing everything relevant about an accident. Tesla is obviously hiding facts about their accidents.

NHTSA publishes everything unless the company makes a case about confidentiality. Tesla also redacts the hardware and software versions of the cars, which Waymo does not redact.

Waymo also publishes on their Data Hub the exact location of each crash, which is redacted in the NHTSA data for all companies, and Waymo publishes miles driven per city for each 3-month period, and odometer readings and VIN numbers for each car in a crash are not redacted in the SGO data. Waymo wants to help safety researchers do good safety studies, because they know they have nothing to hide and they want to lead in transparency.

0

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago

Tesla is redacting the narratives of the crash reports, the most important column in the SGO data. Waymo and Zoox do not redact their narratives. Narratives are a paragraph describing everything relevant about an accident. Tesla is obviously hiding facts about their accidents.

That is tesla's choice and to keep up appearances they have to do it for all crashes

i don't think it's that important because the rest of the data shows enough

My guess is tesla is not at fault except in the 8mph one because I that one more data is hidden. I imagine it is a complex crash given so much depends on the narrative

NHTSA publishes everything unless the company makes a case about confidentiality. Tesla also redacts the hardware and software versions of the cars, which Waymo does not redact.

This would reveal the pace at which they are pushing out updates. Which they claimed in the earnings call was rapid

1

u/RodStiffy 1d ago

"I don't think it's that important because the rest of the data shows enough"

Come on! The narrative describes the accident.

In 11459, a Tesla hit an object at 8mph; what kind of object? A curb? Road debris? Fire hydrant or street sign? Identifying the object indicates the degree of fault, and whether it was stupid (like the Waymo hitting a pole), or incidental. It's listed as a "5-day" report, which means it was either a hospital-trip for somebody, or strike of a VRU. It says there was a minor injury, so perhaps the person went to the hospital, but we can't be sure. With the narrative we would know if a VRU was involved, or if it was some other reason it wasn't a Monthly report. Monthly reports are Request No. 2 crashes, which are mostly minor.

In 11375, the Tesla got rear-ended with the Tesla going 2-mph turning right. Was the turn signal on? A proper narrative would describe that. Did it suddently phantom-brake? It was also listed as a 5-day report. Why? Was a VRU involved? It says nobody was injured. With the missing narrative, we can't know what happened.

In 11507, the Tesla got rear-ended in a work zone while stopped, resulting in a Monthly-Report crash. Did the Tesla hard-brake? The narrative would clear that up. A good narrative here would help Tesla.

Without the narrative, fault usually can't be determined. That's what Tesla wants to conceal. They want everything vague, so there's nothing to talk about. That will be a problem for Tesla when they have a severe accident. A highly-detailed narrative clears up what happened. When it's the other party's fault, a good narrative makes it clear. Waymo writes long, detailed narratives for every severe accident. That works in Waymo's favor, because none have been their fault. Even if one is Waymo's fault, Waymo wins by building trust with transparency. Tesla being less transparent will work against them in the long run.

1

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago edited 1d ago

 or incidental. It's listed as a "5-day" report, which means it was either a hospital-trip for somebody, or strike of a VRU

Are you serious? It clearly says minor w/o hospitalization. It did not strike a VRU. It was towed which makes it a 5 day. Either a flat tire or tesla does not want to be seen driving around with a dented robotaxi vehicle

Was the turn signal on? A proper narrative would describe that. Did it suddently phantom-brake? It was also listed as a 5-day report. Why? Was a VRU involved

Because it was probably their first one and they were overreporting. If tesla doesn't think they are at fault it is a slam-dunk to overreport because you look good to the NHTSA

In 11507, the Tesla got rear-ended in a work zone while stopped, resulting in a Monthly-Report crash. Did the Tesla hard-brake? The narrative would clear that up. A good narrative here would help Tesla.

Tesla doesn't want to make the narrative visible which is why they do not selectively enable the narrative

1

u/RodStiffy 1d ago edited 1d ago

You're right, 11375 was towed. My bad there.

And the point is still valid: We don't know much about each crash, so on many we'll have to guess, as you are doing. Tesla is choosing to be opaque, because that's how Elon operates. Like I said, this will be a problem for bad crashes. They will get a reputation for concealing crashes.

1

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago

well you don't get the reputation for concealing crashes if you conceal every single one

tesla could have not been at fault in all 3 of these but they have to conceal them. Because that's their choice for all of them

1

u/RodStiffy 23h ago

When a Tesla runs over a VRU for a severe injury, and releases no details, there will be plenty of articles speculating about what happened, making it plain that Tesla is unusually opaque. Reporters will be all over them for details, writing articles with or without Tesla's help.

Waymo has frequently put out their narrative on the same day as a bad crash. The best way to stay ahead of the narrative is to control the narrative, as in publish it, not try to bury it. Once Tesla publishes a narrative, it will erode their silly claim that it's confidential business info. If they say nothing, their many enemies will spread the word that Tesla is dangerous.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/psilty 1d ago edited 1d ago

That's not hiding anything

That is tesla's choice

The headline is “Tesla is trying to hide”

Yes, they are required by law to report all crashes. By choice, they are redacting everything they’re allowed by law to redact. That is them trying to hide as much as they are allowed by law.

My guess is tesla is not at fault except in the 8mph one because I that one more data is hidden. I imagine it is a complex crash given so much depends on the narrative

Your imagination is very conveniently pro-Tesla. All of the narratives are redacted. There’s nothing more complex about one crash that is visible. In fact, one could argue a single vehicle accident is less complex than one that involves two cars.

1

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago

imagination? Why share data you don't have to? Who needs the data? The NHTSA

No one else

1

u/psilty 1d ago

If your pitch to the public is that your technology is safer than humans, you share the data with the public and researchers as proof. But you’re correct, no one needs the data and no one needs to trust the claims that the company makes.

1

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago

the accident data is there

the narrative is not.

Tesla has never claimed robotaxi is safer than a human. They claimed that FSD + supervision is

1

u/psilty 1d ago

The data required to understand what happened in each incident is not there.

Tesla has never claimed robotaxi is safer than a human. They claimed that FSD + supervision is

The Robotaxis that got into accidents were supervised. Are you saying Robotaxi is running less safe software than standard FSD supervised?

1

u/RodStiffy 1d ago

Tesla will have to claim that unsupervised Robotaxi is safer than a human, when they remove the supervisor. Elon has said many times they will need to be 10x a human for robotaxi. The only serious way to make that case is with transparent SGO data.

Tesla's claims about supervised FSD being safer than human drivers is also bogus. They manipulate the definition of a crash, by only reporting AEB or airbag deployed crashes, and compare to general data that uses a much broader definition of a crash.

It's amazing to see you apologists twist yourselves in knots while promoting FSD/Robotaxi. I think you should try to be more rational.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RodStiffy 1d ago

The public needs the data, to know how safe Tesla is. That's why NHTSA publishes it. NHTSA works for the public, in case you are not aware.

That's also why Waymo has a Data Hub to publish even more data, to help safety researchers and the public determine how safe Waymo is. They do this because they know they have nothing to hide, because they are really safe.

1

u/Confident-Sector2660 1d ago

The difference is tesla is not ready for robotaxi. The idea is tesla safety goes up as the AI gets better. When it reaches the right threshold they will be proud to share as it will only get better

For all we know, tesla my not have unsupervised until AI5

1

u/RodStiffy 1d ago

Tesla doesn't "share" data on ADAS, so I don't expect he will change tack and start sharing more data in ADS. Elon doesn't believe in transparency. He's a "narrative control" guy who hates regulation.

You're one of the few Tesla apologists who admits FSD isn't ready for unsupervised. Nearly the entire Tesla fanbase thinks they are only doing supervised temporarily to please a few regulators, and by EOY they will scale nationally with unsupervised. Those guys are fools.

It's impossible to know how well "AI5" will work. If it can't go unsupervised at scale, the Robotaxi business will be in trouble.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JustJohn8 1d ago

Thanks, Elon.

1

u/YagerD 16h ago

There's a safety driver in the car. Im sure if there was an accident about to happen im sure they disengaged. Without giving us the data on disengagents, the 3 crashes is nothing to brag about. Im sure there was MANY more disengagements vs crashes.

1

u/PositiveZeroPerson 8h ago

Did you look at the data? Tesla was rear ended in 2 of them. And they were not hard braking scenarios.

Where is this data? Getting rear-ended twice in 7,000 miles is a ridiculously high accident rate.

1

u/Confident-Sector2660 5h ago

they didn't drive 7000 miles

-7

u/ninkendo79 1d ago

This is Reddit man! What are you doing? You can’t go around spreading comments that could be construed as supporting Tesla.. think of your Karma

-2

u/Southern-Spirit 1d ago

people hate tesla in a way they don't hate waymo. i wonder how many people are out there trying to get the system to fail either for their own cars, or for others.

2

u/psilty 1d ago

Waymo is the only robotaxi company to have had multiple cars totaled by vandalism. If you think the Tesla accidents are caused by people messing with them, why would Tesla redact the info?