Ross Gerber renews Tesla criticism of Full Self-Driving after claims it “almost” caused a crash near emergency vehicles

Investor Ross Gerber renewed his public criticism of Tesla Inc.’s Full Self-Driving system, arguing that the technology still has major problems despite years of updates and Tesla marketing that positions FSD as an advanced driver-assistance feature heading toward autonomy.

In comments reported by Yahoo Finance on Aug. 4, Gerber said Tesla’s FSD “almost” caused an accident while his vehicle was passing emergency vehicles. He characterized the episode as evidence that the system “still has major issues,” adding that the technology needs improvements relative to competing systems.

Gerber’s remarks align with an ongoing debate around FSD’s real-world reliability and how well it handles complex traffic scenarios. While Tesla sells FSD as an option tied to its Autopilot platform, critics have repeatedly argued that the system can behave unpredictably in edge cases, including situations involving emergency response vehicles and non-standard roadway conditions.

The comments also reflect a broader investor concern, particularly among retail and hedge-fund skeptics, that Tesla’s approach to autonomy has outpaced independent verification of performance. Gerber’s framing suggests he believes the gap between Tesla’s claims and day-to-day behavior remains significant.

For Tesla, FSD is not just a product feature but a central pillar of its long-term narrative. The company’s strategy has been to expand the role of driver-assistance automation through software updates, with FSD positioned as a step toward more capable autonomy that can eventually reduce driver workload and, in Tesla’s view, create new revenue opportunities.

Specialized in-vehicle automation systems like FSD are typically designed to manage tasks such as lane guidance, speed control, and vehicle response to traffic participants. However, how those systems perform under unusual conditions, including emergency vehicles or complex interactions, becomes a key test of maturity and safety design.

It is not clear from the reported item what specific version of FSD Gerber was using at the time of the incident, whether any warning alerts were generated, or whether human oversight corrected the situation in time. Tesla also did not respond in the report with details about the event, and the broader factual record around the specific circumstances was not provided.

What to watch next is whether Tesla addresses the underlying scenario publicly, for example by pointing to improvements in recent software releases or by outlining how its systems should handle emergency-vehicle interactions. Investors and customers will likely continue to focus on real-world safety performance and the gap between demonstrations, marketing, and logged behavior on public roads.