What 10 owners told NHTSA about the 2026 Tesla Model 3 Bev

Incident involving my 2026 Tesla Model 3 equipped with HW4 hardware and the latest FSD (Supervised) software. During a garage reverse maneuver performed under FSD supervision, the vehicle had sufficient time to assess the surrounding environment before initiating the maneuver. There were no pedestrians or moving obstacles nearby. An adjacent parked vehicle was present next to the intended reversing path. During the maneuver, the vehicle made initial contact with the adjacent vehicle. At no point did the vehicle provide any collision warning, alert, or indication that a collision had occurred. After the initial contact, the vehicle continued moving and a second impact occurred shortly afterward, resulting in additional damage. Immediately after the second impact, the driver intervened and took control of the vehicle to stop the maneuver, before further damage is caused. My main concerns are: 1. Why did FSD fail to identify the adjacent vehicle before the maneuver? 2. Why was no collision warning provided before or after the initial contact? 3. Why did the vehicle continue the reversing maneuver after the first impact instead of stopping till driver intervention? 4. What if is pediatrician who qualify ADA, children, elder was in the position of the adjacent vehicle, this failed sensing would cause imparable result. I would appreciate a technical review of this event and a detailed explanation of Tesla’s findings.

NHTSA ODI 11749677

While the vehicle was parked outdoors and the powered rear trunk lid was fully open, I leaned/bent forward into the trunk to retrieve an item. The edge of the trunk lid near the taillight assembly made contact with my scalp, causing a laceration. The wound bled significantly。The trunk lid’s fully-open position, combined with the geometry/edge of the liftgate near the taillight, creates a head-strike hazard for an average-height adult bending into the cargo area. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate whether the powered trunk lid’s open-position geometry presents an unreasonable risk of head injury to vehicle occupants/owners during normal use.

NHTSA ODI 11745391

We bought the new 2026 Tesla Model 3 and picked it up on 5/3/2026. The next date 5/4/2026, I was trying to drive it to work. I got in the car and used the Tesla’s Full Self-Driving function and let it drive the car by itself. It started moving forward and tried to make a U turn. Since there was not enough space for it to make a U turn because there was a car parked on the sidewalk, so it stopped for a moment. But unfortunately, it continued to move forward and hit the car parked on the sidewalk. It supposedly backed up a little after the stop, but it didn’t detect the car parked on the sidewalk and still moved forward and hit the parked car. The Tesla's FSD is malfunctioning and caused my accident because there was such a big car in front and it didn't detect it and still hit it.

NHTSA ODI 11741020

The vehicle's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system was actively controlling the vehicle while executing a reverse maneuver into a residential garage — a routine the system had successfully performed on multiple prior occasions. During this session, the FSD system misjudged the maneuver and the vehicle struck the wall of the garage, causing damage. The failed component is the FSD software/sensor system. The vehicle is available for inspection upon request. Safety was put at risk because the system was in full control of vehicle movement in a confined space. The unexpected behavior did not provide sufficient time for the supervising driver to intervene before impact. No warning lamps or messages appeared prior to the failure. The system gave no indication it would behave differently from previous successful executions of the same maneuver. The incident has not yet been confirmed by a dealer or inspected by the manufacturer, though a vehicle incident data report has been requested from Tesla.

NHTSA ODI 11733346

I was involved in a rear-end collision while stopped at an intersection. The impact was significant. During the crash, the front airbags did not deploy. More importantly, the seat belts in both front seats (driver and front passenger) failed to function as expected. Instead of tightening during impact, the seat belts appeared to loosen, allowing excessive forward movement of the occupants. As a result, I was thrown forward and struck the steering wheel. The lack of seat belt pretensioning raises serious concerns about a potential failure of the vehicle’s restraint system. This incident suggests that the seat belt pretensioners and/or related crash detection systems may not have activated properly under a significant collision event. I am concerned that this represents a safety defect that could increase the risk of injury in a crash. I request that this incident be investigated as a possible failure of the restraint system, including seat belt pretensioners and crash sensing mechanisms.

NHTSA ODI 11732730

On February 5, 2026, at 12:21 PM PST, my 2026 Tesla Model 3 (Hardware 4) collided with a 5-inch wooden pillar while using the Autopark feature. The system failed to provide any audio chimes or visual warnings prior to the impact. I officially requested the driving logs from Tesla to investigate the cause of this failure, but Tesla refused to provide any logs or data. Furthermore, Tesla Service Center technicians insisted there were no hardware defects, effectively confirming that the collision was caused by a software/algorithmic failure of the Tesla Vision system to detect a stationary vertical object. Despite Tesla’s claim that the vehicle is "operating as designed," the system's inability to recognize common infrastructure and its failure to warn the driver constitutes a severe safety risk. This defect must be investigated to ensure the safety of the Hardware 4 autonomous platform, as the lack of proximity alerts could lead to far more serious accidents involving pedestrians or other obstacles.

NHTSA ODI 11730303

The vehicle's FSD system malfunctioned and initiated an unintended reverse toward a closing garage door. To prevent a total-loss event (the door crushing the glass roof and trunk), I was forced to perform an emergency manual takeover. Due to the vehicle's position caused by the malfunction, I had to maneuver through a confined space, resulting in the side-scrape. I am filing this as a malfunction claim because the damage was a direct consequence of the car's autonomous failure

NHTSA ODI 11711494