The Electrek article (https://electrek.co/2025/10/29/tesla-robotaxis-keep-crashing...) contains more information. It's 4 crashes in around 250,000 miles. But Tesla redacts most information in these reports unlike e.g. Waymo, so the information is limited. If Tesla wants people to trust them regarding safety, this is not the way to go.
Personally, I'd be interested in how often the safety drivers had to intervene. But I assume we'll never get that information.
> If Tesla wants people to trust them regarding safety, this is not the way to go.
Companies have discovered that trust does not matter. People forget in one or two weeks or so. You can do very bad things and most people will still trust you in the long run. Especially if your offer is a few dollars cheaper than the competition.
The extra sad part is that this will make roads unsafer for informed people too.
They just discovered that they can coast on the trust established by others. And over time, if institutions don’t rectify this, the public trust will be destroyed, and people will distrust by default.
If true thats seriously bad stat. You buy a car, if you drive even modestly, in 15-20 years you will end up in 3-5 accidents on average. Much worse than me with mildly less kms (0 bad accidents, 1 light, few times avoiding them via quick reactions in complex situations that most probably no current self-drive could handle well if at all, ie hearing car crashes behind the bend and breaking in advance, or few cars behind us and moving a bit further to avoid being also hit in bowling style).
10 years, 200k+ miles, I only been in one "accident" where I ran into a street sign. And I took my eye of the road, unlike Tesla, which have robotic camera watching the road at all time.
I don't think any meaningful comparison is possible here. The type of driving matters, you have to compare similar driving profiles. And in this case there are actually humans on board. So the real comparison would have to be how many accidents (with Tesla at fault) and how many safety driver interventions that otherwise would have likely resulted in an accident. And we don't have that information.
This really depends on the definition of a 'crash'. For example, fatal accident > insurance claim > minor incident.
If we use insurance claim as the definition then:
- The average driver files an insurance claim for a car crash about once every 17.9 years [1]
- The average driver drives 13,476 miles per year [2]
- This means one insurance claim per 241,220 miles driven by a human driver.
It's a mistake to compare with the _average_ human driver.
It's reasonable to assume that a seasoned taxi driver will be _better_ than the average human driver. Many serious accidents happen because the driver was inebriated or drowsy/falling asleep, which shouldn't be the case with taxi drivers.
For a proper comparison, we should look at the crash record for _taxi drivers_, not the general population.
Furthermore, if I'm getting an Uber/Lyft I'm likely to choose drivers with a 5-star rating or close to it. That basically filters out all poor drivers. Which means that not only should we compare robo-taxis with taxi drivers, but with the _top rated taxi drivers_.
with that said: unattended vehicles are required to report every single incident no matter how minor or who is at fault. adults might just shrug off a minor contact and get on with their day without reporting or claiming it.
Yeah this article was better – can we just change the link to that one?
It also mentioned that Tesla hasn't registered for a permit in CA, which would require disclosing a lot more (like what you're asking for). Which is telling.
> The suit stems from a public records request to the DMV from an unidentified individual or entity seeking access to Waymo’s driverless-deployment application
All while Waymo is expanding to more and more cities, including Detroit where it will deal with snow and ice. Waymo is years ahead of Tesla in the self-driving race. It's possible Tesla never succeeds in launching a truly self-driving car.
I think is really interesting how it's often suggested Waymo is at a disadvantage over Tesla due to its reliance on LIDAR and the costs associated with it. But the reality is that it's enabled Waymo to move faster and gain significant more operational experience than Tesla, and that's far more important than front loading with cost reductions in a service business.
Tesla have been operating as a product business, and cost reduction of that product was key to scale and profitability. I completely understand why they have focused on optical sensors for autopilot, lidar was always going to be impossibly expensive for a consumer product.
Waymo on the other hand have always been aiming to build a service business and that changes the model significantly, they need to get to market and gain operational experience. Doing that with more expensive equipment to move faster is exactly what was needed. They can worry about cost of building their cars later, much later.
Due to its choice to use LIDAR. Waymo has tested a working system using cameras only, but they choose to use LIDAR because it is safer and does not significantly change cost.
> Waymo on the other hand have always been aiming to build a service business
> Waymo on the other hand have always been aiming to build a service business and that changes the model significantly
This isn't the main factor. The main factor is Waymo only does this one thing. Tesla has been: building electric cars and forcing all car makers to do the same; building charging networks; funding and releasing free of charge battery tech research improvements; and doing self driving, and all of it while trying to make a profit to keep running. Waymo is funded by Google, which has infinitely deep ads-spying-on-you pockets. Which is just much, much easier.
The cost for Waymo is the whole car, so Waymo is in it at ~$100k per operational taxi. They are beholden to hardware manufacturers for their product.
Tesla is trying to get in at ~$20k per operational taxi, with everything made in house.
Assuming Tesla can figure out it's FSD (and convince people it's safe), they could dramatically undercut Waymo on price, while still being profitable. If a Waymo to the airport is $20, and Robotaxi is $5, Tesla will win, regardless of anything else (assuming equal safety).
The cost discussion on LIDAR always confused a layman like me. How much more expensive is it that it seemed like such a splurge? LIDAR seems to be the only thing that could make sense to me. The fact Tesla does it with only cameras (please correct me understanding if I'm wrong) never made sense to me. The benefits of LIDAR seem huge and I'd assume they'd just become more cost effective over time if the tech became more high in demand.
> lidar was always going to be impossibly expensive for a consumer product.
I just don't buy this at all
>"The new iPad Pro adds ... a breakthrough LiDAR Scanner that delivers cutting-edge depth-sensing capabilities, opening up more pro workflows and supporting pro photo and video apps." [1]
Yes of course the specs of LiDAR on a car are higher but if apple are putting it on iPads I just don't buy the theory that an affordable car-spec LiDAR is totally out of the realm of the possible. One of the things istr Elon Musk saying is that one of the reasons they got rid of the LiDAR is the problem of sensor fusion - what do you do when the LiDAR says one thing and the vision says something different.
Waymo can just add the cameras exactly the way Tesla has, and train based only on that information.
Now it has tons and tons of data, they could gradually remove the Lidar on cities that they've driven over and over again. IF driving without Lidar is worth it... maybe it isn't even worth it and we should pursue using Lidars in order to further reduce accidents.
Meanwhile people use Tesla sporadically in a few spots they consider safe, they will always have data that isn't useful at all, as it can already drive on those spots.
--
Another thing, we can definitely afford to have Lidars on every car, if that would make our cars safer.
Imagine if China does a huge supply chain of Lidars, I bet the cost would be very tiny. And this is supposing there aren't any more automation and productivity gains in the future, which is very unlikely.
Lidar production just doesn't have that big scale, because it's a very tiny market as of now. With scale, those prices would fall like batteries and other hardware have fallen with the years.
"Tesla will never release a truly self driving car" unless they significantly change direction.
It is possible to fool a camera with some specs of dust at close range. They have interior safety camera, and everyone I know put a cover on it all the time.
It would be sad if Tesla or some other entity doesn't compete in the space? I dont want a monolpoly or even a duopoly. Give me 4 or 5 players for true choice and competition.
Isn't the lesson from the success of TSLA, that you don't compete on price? That's what made Tesla the first successful EV. Because unlike the rest, they didn't try to compete on price and offer a mass market consumer vehicle. Instead they started with a roadster and then a luxury saloon both targeting the upper end of the market.
I don't see the point of a budget taxi car. After all even the human driven counterparts tend to be higher end luxury saloons or SUVs.
Calculate how much a car can drive (200-400k km), then the avg cost of a car (50k vs. 100k) and the avg taxi route (5-30km).
The car itself is a price point of 10 to 40 cent pro km which has impact on the journey for sure but a lot less that it might be the reason.
if you tell me, that i can take the saver car and pay 1 euro more with a 20 euro fair, I wouldn't care.
Nonetheless, economy of scale has happened already at lidar and continues to happen.
If tesla can't get it running properly in bad weather but waymo can, they can also compensate it just by driving at situations were tesla doesn't want to drive.
But hey its just brainstorming at this point as tesla is not close enough to waymo to compare it properly. And while waymo exists, plenty of other companies exist too doing this. Nvidia itself will keep building their car platform which will level the playfield even more.
Whatever market selfdriving cars are, it will be split between everyone and no tesla will not just 'win' this. It will be a race to the bottom for everyone reducing the revenue to a commodity.
I've been asking for independent analysis for years now. The data is there. Yet all the headlines are from people who have an obvious bias - this is the first where I've seen a headline where there is no evidence that the data has been looked at.
There are many ways to "lie with statistics". Comparing all drivers - including those who are driving in weather self driving cars are not allowed to see - for example. there are many others and I want some deep analysis to know how they are doing and so far I've not seen it.
The biggest clue is that Tesla still needs to have a human supervisor in the car. They aren't doing that for show, it's an active admission that the tech isn't there yet.
From this article, Tesla crashes 50% more often. But hard to compare when one has a human safety driver and the other does not.
> the report finds that Tesla Robotaxis crash approximately once every 62,500 miles. Waymo vehicles, which have been involved in 1,267 crashes since the service went live, crash approximately every 98,600 miles. And, again, Waymo does not have human safety monitors inside its vehicles, unlike Tesla's Robotaxis.
Above human rates for sure. In the 90s in my country, accident rate were 5 for a million kilometer (so 5 for 621371,192 miles), and the rate have come down since.
Basically they are crashing at the same rate as 18-25 years old in the 90s, in France. When we could still drink like 3 glasses and drive.
Driverless Teslas are the hit pieces. Hitting people. Ayooo.
Seriously though, Tesla has an extension history of irresponsibly selling "autopilot" which killed a ton of people. Because they don't take safety seriously. Waymo hasn't.
Accountability is a pretty big issue, I think. We've accepted, for better or worse, a certain level of human-caused crashes for 100 years or so. If machines take the wheel they have to be an order of magnitude (or more) better.
As a massive advocate of FSD (and someone who's currently running 14.1.4, their very latest FSD build) it is absolutely in no way ready for unsupervised FSD. It still makes silly mistakes, and the latest build is terrified of leaves and will swerve across lane dividers to desperately avoid a leaf blowing into it's path.
I love FSD, I use it for 99% of my driving, and when it's working right it's an incredibly technology that overall makes my driving safer, but there's absolutely areas of weakness that every FSD user knows it cannot be trusted in under any circumstances and you must closely supervise and be ready to take over at any time.
The root of Tesla's problems here is Musk's decision to drop LIDAR.
The reasoning, I think, was that humans can drive using sight and a little bit of sound, so an AI should be able to do this too.
Humans can do this because we have a very rich well-developed world model that allows us to fill in the gaps. We don't do it perfectly but we can do it decently well.
Modern AIs, or at least the ones small enough to be run on smaller machines that are economical to put in cars, don't have a rich world model like that. They're doing stimulus response backed by a database. That's going to break down at all kinds of edge cases.
The way to compensate for this is to give the car superhuman senses like LIDAR. The car is much dumber than a person but it can perceive its environment orders of magnitude better than a person, which compensates well enough that it has a chance of driving at least as well as a person.
I don't think it is only a matter of building a better world model. CCD sensors work very differently than human eyes and have problems such as over- and underexposure that preclude their use for safe driving in certain conditions. If you were to try driving a car with a VR headset fed from dual CCD sensors into a sunset as in https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-tesla-full-self-driv... you would get into trouble too.
> The reasoning, I think, was that humans can drive using sight and a little bit of sound, so an AI should be able to do this too.
If memory serves, a few years ago the official position, on a Karpathy presentation, was that if radar contradicted vision they would have to discard one, so they would stick to vision only.
I could never swallow that argument - seems obvious that a radar failsafe would keep you from making bad vision errors ...
Didn't this happen before with a safety monitor on their phone? I seem to remember another Robo taxi company and it hit someone who was crossing the street.
Readit News
Personally, I'd be interested in how often the safety drivers had to intervene. But I assume we'll never get that information.
Companies have discovered that trust does not matter. People forget in one or two weeks or so. You can do very bad things and most people will still trust you in the long run. Especially if your offer is a few dollars cheaper than the competition.
The extra sad part is that this will make roads unsafer for informed people too.
They just discovered that they can coast on the trust established by others. And over time, if institutions don’t rectify this, the public trust will be destroyed, and people will distrust by default.
Look up “How nations fail” by Daron Acemoglu.
That + Americans insane brand loyalty.
If we use insurance claim as the definition then: - The average driver files an insurance claim for a car crash about once every 17.9 years [1] - The average driver drives 13,476 miles per year [2] - This means one insurance claim per 241,220 miles driven by a human driver.
1. https://www.gtslawfirm.com/what-are-the-chances-of-getting-i... 2. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
It's reasonable to assume that a seasoned taxi driver will be _better_ than the average human driver. Many serious accidents happen because the driver was inebriated or drowsy/falling asleep, which shouldn't be the case with taxi drivers.
For a proper comparison, we should look at the crash record for _taxi drivers_, not the general population.
Furthermore, if I'm getting an Uber/Lyft I'm likely to choose drivers with a 5-star rating or close to it. That basically filters out all poor drivers. Which means that not only should we compare robo-taxis with taxi drivers, but with the _top rated taxi drivers_.
i would calculate it that way to compare it to the last stat i had on waymo which was +/- an accident every 98,000 in an unattended vehicle.
comparing that to a human driver using stats from [0] the “AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety”
page down for maintenance, but summarized at [1]:
ages 16-17: crash every 69,000mi
ages 18-19: crash every 136,986mi
ages 20-29: crash every 182,149mi
ages 30-79: crash < every 303,030mi
ages 80: crash every 231,481mi
[0]: https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuri...
[1]: https://www.friedmansimon.com/faqs/how-common-are-car-accide...
with that said: unattended vehicles are required to report every single incident no matter how minor or who is at fault. adults might just shrug off a minor contact and get on with their day without reporting or claiming it.
Most Austin human drivers don't crash 4 times in 250k miles.
It also mentioned that Tesla hasn't registered for a permit in CA, which would require disclosing a lot more (like what you're asking for). Which is telling.
Context, bro.
Tesla have been operating as a product business, and cost reduction of that product was key to scale and profitability. I completely understand why they have focused on optical sensors for autopilot, lidar was always going to be impossibly expensive for a consumer product.
Waymo on the other hand have always been aiming to build a service business and that changes the model significantly, they need to get to market and gain operational experience. Doing that with more expensive equipment to move faster is exactly what was needed. They can worry about cost of building their cars later, much later.
Everything is expensive without scale. But lidar will be very cost effective, when scaled to millions upon millions of cars annually.
And with scale, there are reasons to optimise, reduce cost, etc. Large volumes of sales draws more research. Research to reduce cost.
Self driving is a long game. Decades.
Due to its choice to use LIDAR. Waymo has tested a working system using cameras only, but they choose to use LIDAR because it is safer and does not significantly change cost.
> Waymo on the other hand have always been aiming to build a service business
Waymo's roadmap (from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXLgzP3gv2k):
1) Ride hailing 2) Local delivery 3) Long haul trucking 4) Personally owned cars
Is step 4 still considered a service? It will almost certainly require a subscription.
This isn't the main factor. The main factor is Waymo only does this one thing. Tesla has been: building electric cars and forcing all car makers to do the same; building charging networks; funding and releasing free of charge battery tech research improvements; and doing self driving, and all of it while trying to make a profit to keep running. Waymo is funded by Google, which has infinitely deep ads-spying-on-you pockets. Which is just much, much easier.
Tesla is trying to get in at ~$20k per operational taxi, with everything made in house.
Assuming Tesla can figure out it's FSD (and convince people it's safe), they could dramatically undercut Waymo on price, while still being profitable. If a Waymo to the airport is $20, and Robotaxi is $5, Tesla will win, regardless of anything else (assuming equal safety).
I'm _way_ out of my depth though.
They optimized for cost first and may never get it to work.
I just don't buy this at all
>"The new iPad Pro adds ... a breakthrough LiDAR Scanner that delivers cutting-edge depth-sensing capabilities, opening up more pro workflows and supporting pro photo and video apps." [1]
Yes of course the specs of LiDAR on a car are higher but if apple are putting it on iPads I just don't buy the theory that an affordable car-spec LiDAR is totally out of the realm of the possible. One of the things istr Elon Musk saying is that one of the reasons they got rid of the LiDAR is the problem of sensor fusion - what do you do when the LiDAR says one thing and the vision says something different.
[1] https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2020/03/apple-unveils-new-...
Waymo can just add the cameras exactly the way Tesla has, and train based only on that information.
Now it has tons and tons of data, they could gradually remove the Lidar on cities that they've driven over and over again. IF driving without Lidar is worth it... maybe it isn't even worth it and we should pursue using Lidars in order to further reduce accidents.
Meanwhile people use Tesla sporadically in a few spots they consider safe, they will always have data that isn't useful at all, as it can already drive on those spots.
--
Another thing, we can definitely afford to have Lidars on every car, if that would make our cars safer.
Imagine if China does a huge supply chain of Lidars, I bet the cost would be very tiny. And this is supposing there aren't any more automation and productivity gains in the future, which is very unlikely.
Lidar production just doesn't have that big scale, because it's a very tiny market as of now. With scale, those prices would fall like batteries and other hardware have fallen with the years.
TLDR: Tesla lost badly
Why does it then follow that Tesla will never release a truly self driving car? That makes no sense.
Is it somehow impossible for an achievement to be reached by more than one person/company?
Of course not. The hyperbole is not needed, and does nothing but remove credibility from your statement
It is possible to fool a camera with some specs of dust at close range. They have interior safety camera, and everyone I know put a cover on it all the time.
Never is a long time, but it's possible that Tesla adopts LIDAR before it gets camera-only to work.
There are all kind of historical technological dead-end examples (e.g. planes that flap their wings).
They have very large legal issues right now. Legal issues that are going to cost them tens of billions, depending on the legal proceedings.
It doesn't have to. The money's been made. The stock's been pumped. Mission accomplished.
As for calling it fraud, well the government's closed. The moose out front should have told 'ya.
That aside, the cost of a Waymo is estimated to be between $150 and $200k. A model 3 based Tesla robotaxi doesn’t cost less than $20k…
The car itself is a price point of 10 to 40 cent pro km which has impact on the journey for sure but a lot less that it might be the reason.
if you tell me, that i can take the saver car and pay 1 euro more with a 20 euro fair, I wouldn't care.
Nonetheless, economy of scale has happened already at lidar and continues to happen.
If tesla can't get it running properly in bad weather but waymo can, they can also compensate it just by driving at situations were tesla doesn't want to drive.
But hey its just brainstorming at this point as tesla is not close enough to waymo to compare it properly. And while waymo exists, plenty of other companies exist too doing this. Nvidia itself will keep building their car platform which will level the playfield even more.
Whatever market selfdriving cars are, it will be split between everyone and no tesla will not just 'win' this. It will be a race to the bottom for everyone reducing the revenue to a commodity.
Tesla is just on the wrong side of that bet.
Agreed. Waymo has a working self-driving vehicle that currently operates in many cities. Tesla has a buggy tech demo in a portion of Austin.
> the Tesla robotaxi vehicle is probably cost 10x less, at least.
Very unlikely. Waymo vehicles also carry twice as many people.
Deleted Comment
There are many ways to "lie with statistics". Comparing all drivers - including those who are driving in weather self driving cars are not allowed to see - for example. there are many others and I want some deep analysis to know how they are doing and so far I've not seen it.
Independent analysis would be great, but Tesla has been very withholding and even deceptive with its data.
Compare to https://waymo.com/safety/impact where anyone can download the data.
> the report finds that Tesla Robotaxis crash approximately once every 62,500 miles. Waymo vehicles, which have been involved in 1,267 crashes since the service went live, crash approximately every 98,600 miles. And, again, Waymo does not have human safety monitors inside its vehicles, unlike Tesla's Robotaxis.
https://mashable.com/article/tesla-robotaxis-with-human-safe...
Basically they are crashing at the same rate as 18-25 years old in the 90s, in France. When we could still drink like 3 glasses and drive.
Was it "un verre, ça va, deux verres, ça va, trois verres, bonjour les dégâts" ? Something like that.
Edit: looks like we didn't have "deux verres", maybe.
Seriously though, Tesla has an extension history of irresponsibly selling "autopilot" which killed a ton of people. Because they don't take safety seriously. Waymo hasn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_Autopilot_crashe...
But I suspect it isn't comprehensive. It's hard to get good data on this for a variety of reasons.
This is in the article right below a picture of the safety monitor in the passenger seat…
[1]https://electrek.co/2025/09/03/tesla-moves-robotaxi-safety-m...
I love FSD, I use it for 99% of my driving, and when it's working right it's an incredibly technology that overall makes my driving safer, but there's absolutely areas of weakness that every FSD user knows it cannot be trusted in under any circumstances and you must closely supervise and be ready to take over at any time.
The reasoning, I think, was that humans can drive using sight and a little bit of sound, so an AI should be able to do this too.
Humans can do this because we have a very rich well-developed world model that allows us to fill in the gaps. We don't do it perfectly but we can do it decently well.
Modern AIs, or at least the ones small enough to be run on smaller machines that are economical to put in cars, don't have a rich world model like that. They're doing stimulus response backed by a database. That's going to break down at all kinds of edge cases.
The way to compensate for this is to give the car superhuman senses like LIDAR. The car is much dumber than a person but it can perceive its environment orders of magnitude better than a person, which compensates well enough that it has a chance of driving at least as well as a person.
If memory serves, a few years ago the official position, on a Karpathy presentation, was that if radar contradicted vision they would have to discard one, so they would stick to vision only.
I could never swallow that argument - seems obvious that a radar failsafe would keep you from making bad vision errors ...
"Uber's self-driving operator charged over fatal crash" https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54175359