According to Elon Musk, FSD is safer than humans, but Tesla disagrees!
Elon Musk's recent statements regarding the safety of autonomous driving reignite the debate surrounding the systems developed by Tesla. According to the CEO, the Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology will eventually reduce road accident fatalities by up to 90%, which translates to about one million deaths globally each year. This claim implies a safety improvement of 10 times compared to human driving.
Currently, this is clearly just a prediction and not a verifiable statistic. However, even the available data to date presents some inconsistencies or, at the very least, a rather modest level of reliability.
Tesla self-driving saves a lot of lives – the statistics are unequivocal. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect, of course. Even when we improve safety 10X, saving 90% of the million lives lost in auto accidents every year, Tesla will still get sued for the 10% who did die. The 90%…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 6, 2026
Tesla, in fact, exclusively disseminates its quarterly Vehicle Safety Report, which compares the miles driven with Autopilot or FSD active against the U.S. national average. This method of comparison has been criticized for years by independent researchers for various methodological inconsistencies.
One of the main issues concerns the type of road. The Autopilot and FSD systems are predominantly used on highways, a context that is statistically safer compared to urban or rural roads. Comparing this with aggregated data, which also includes more hazardous environments, leads to distorted results.
A second element regards the age of the vehicles. Tesla cars are generally newer compared to the total U.S. fleet, equipped with advanced safety features like automatic braking and lane keeping assistance, now available on almost all recently manufactured vehicles. This factor alone significantly reduces the accident risk, independent of autonomous driving.
Some experts also consider the driver profile as a relevant factor. Tesla customers tend to be in a wealthier socioeconomic class, with a lower incidence of accidents compared to the general average. This element also contributes to making the comparison less reliable.
Finally, the very definition of an incident changes. Tesla only considers events that trigger airbags or pyrotechnic systems, while official statistics also include minor collisions reported to authorities. This factor inevitably leads to a huge discrepancy between the recorded data.
In light of these variables, several independent analyses indicate that the safety advantage of Tesla's autonomous driving is not proven. Furthermore, the company does not publish detailed data on system disengagements, the types of incidents, or miles driven in specific contexts.
The comparison with other industry operators highlights further differences. Some competing companies provide validated analyses and direct comparisons with human drivers under equivalent conditions, as well as accessible data for independent insurance studies.
At the same time, attention is growing on the lawsuits related to accidents. Musk argues that such legal proceedings are an inevitable consequence of technological progress, as absolute safety would be mathematically unattainable. According to the CEO, some accidents would simply be unavoidable. However, many ongoing legal actions do not fall into this category, but rather involve cases where driver assistance systems would have actively contributed to the event.
Musk’s statements become even more implausible when looking at the data from the completely autonomous driving system based on FSD. The famous Robotaxis, currently being tested in Austin, have shown an accident rate 10 times higher than that of humans, as indicated by data directly shared by Tesla.
Meanwhile, 2026 has opened with negative signals for Tesla, which is experiencing a decline of about 20% in its stock since the beginning of the year. This is undoubtedly weighed down by operational data that fell short of expectations and a downward revision of financial estimates by analysts.
Several factors have contributed to this scenario. In the United States, the federal tax credit of $7,500 for electric vehicles has been removed, a measure that had supported demand in Tesla's most lucrative market. On the international front, the Chinese competition continues to reduce margins and erode market share, with increasing pressure particularly in Asia.
The reputational impact of the brand is also significant, an element that analysts find difficult to quantify, but which is clearly reflected in demand, especially in Europe.