Tesla's Full Self-Driving: Impressive, but Still Behind Waymo and Cruise in Safety and Precision

Tesla’s "Full Self-Driving" (FSD) technology is rapidly evolving, showcasing impressive capabilities. With each software iteration, it can perform more advanced driving maneuvers, but despite the excitement surrounding these developments, Tesla's FSD continues to lag in critical areas compared to competitors like Waymo and Cruise. Independent tests reveal significant shortcomings in both safety and reliability, suggesting that Tesla’s FSD may still have a long way to go before it can truly rival more mature autonomous systems.

The FSD Promise vs. Reality
Tesla markets its FSD software as a cutting-edge system designed to handle almost all driving scenarios autonomously. Recent builds, such as FSD 12.5.1 and 12.5.3, exhibit impressive behaviors like smoothly navigating through complex urban environments, yielding to pedestrians, and maneuvering through narrow spaces between parked cars. However, the growing sophistication of FSD doesn’t entirely match up to Tesla’s broader promises.
AMCI Testing, an independent automotive testing organization, conducted rigorous trials of FSD across various environments including city streets, rural highways, mountain roads, and interstates in Southern California. Despite some impressive driving behaviors, the system exhibited concerning flaws that required human intervention at an alarming frequency—more than 75 times over the course of 1,000 miles, equating to one intervention every 13 miles.
One glaring example of the system’s limitations was its tendency to misjudge traffic signals, including driving through a red light. In more harrowing instances, FSD veered into oncoming lanes on curvy roads with other vehicles approaching. Such unpredictable behavior underscores why safety concerns persist, even as FSD displays moments of brilliance.

The Problem of Complacency
Tesla's FSD is marketed with an air of autonomy that can lull drivers into a false sense of security. The system’s impressive ability to execute human-like responses—such as negotiating blind curves on rural roads or adjusting for pedestrians at crosswalks—can make it easy for users to trust the system too much, too soon. According to AMCI’s director, Guy Mangiamele, this is where the real danger lies.
Mangiamele pointed out that FSD's seeming infallibility within the first few minutes of operation can easily breed dangerous complacency. “When drivers are operating with FSD engaged, driving with their hands in their laps or away from the steering wheel is incredibly dangerous,” Mangiamele said. In fact, Tesla’s system requires constant human supervision, and when it miscalculates, the reaction time needed for a human driver to step in can be perilously short. Even trained drivers in a test environment struggled to react to some of FSD’s errors quickly enough.

Tesla’s AI: The Black Box Challenge
One of the core differences between Tesla and competitors like Waymo and Cruise is in their approach to building self-driving systems. Tesla’s FSD is based almost entirely on a camera-driven neural network, which relies on machine learning to make decisions in real time. This "black box" system learns from vast amounts of data but lacks the transparency to explain its decisions or predict failures consistently.
As a result, when FSD makes a mistake, it’s often difficult to pinpoint the exact cause. In AMCI’s tests, this unpredictability was a recurring theme. For example, FSD’s behavior during lane changes toward freeway exits was problematic, with the system often initiating lane changes dangerously late—just a tenth of a mile before the exit.
The root of these issues could stem from multiple factors, including a lack of computing power, insufficient buffering in complex situations, or simply inadequate base programming. “These failures are the most insidious,” noted Mangiamele. “While Tesla's reliance on machine learning allows FSD to handle an extraordinary variety of situations, it also makes it harder to identify and rectify specific weaknesses.”

Sponsored Business Content

Waymo and Cruise: The Gap in Safety and Precision
When comparing Tesla’s FSD to competitors like Waymo and Cruise, the technical gap becomes clearer. Both Waymo and Cruise use a combination of sensors, including LiDAR, radar, and high-definition mapping, along with cameras to create a more comprehensive view of the surrounding environment. This multi-sensor approach reduces uncertainty and allows for more precise decision-making, particularly in complex urban settings.
Waymo, for example, has already deployed fully driverless cars in select areas, operating without human intervention in thousands of miles of testing. Cruise, another leader in the space, has also achieved high levels of autonomy, offering fully driverless rides in major cities like San Francisco. These companies have focused heavily on ensuring the reliability and predictability of their systems, which is evident in the lower rates of human intervention during their trials.
Tesla’s camera-only approach, while innovative, struggles to match the robustness of these multi-sensor systems. The lack of LiDAR and reliance on neural networks introduce unpredictability in scenarios where precise, real-time decision-making is essential. As a result, Tesla’s FSD currently lacks the consistency and redundancy required to ensure the level of safety that Waymo and Cruise have achieved.

The Road Ahead for Tesla’s FSD
Tesla’s FSD continues to improve with each iteration, and the system’s ability to execute complex maneuvers is undeniably impressive. But the frequent need for human intervention—especially in critical, split-second situations—shows that the technology is not yet ready for full autonomy.
As Tesla moves forward, addressing the unpredictability in its AI-driven decision-making and improving the consistency of FSD’s responses will be key to closing the gap with competitors like Waymo and Cruise. For now, the system remains a powerful driving aid, but one that requires vigilant human oversight.
In the broader context of the autonomous vehicle race, Tesla’s ambition to lead with a camera-based system sets it apart, but the technical distance between FSD and more mature, sensor-driven systems remains significant. For Tesla to catch up, it may need to reconsider some of the foundational aspects of its approach to self-driving technology, particularly when it comes to safety and predictability in high-stakes environments.
Ultimately, while Tesla’s FSD may have captivated public attention, the gap in precision and reliability between it and competitors is a reminder that true autonomy is still a work in progress. Until Tesla can ensure safer and more predictable performance, its "Full Self-Driving" label remains aspirational rather than fully realized.