Dallas County Sees Sharp Increase in Crashes Involving Autonomous Vehicle Technology, TxDOT Data Shows

Autonomous and driver-assistance technology is no longer a future concern for Texas drivers. These systems are already on our roads, including throughout Dallas County. As more vehicles include automated features, crash data is beginning to show how quickly this issue is growing.

According to TxDOT CRIS Query data, there were 1,084 crashes in Dallas County involving autonomous vehicle technology in 2025, up from 351 crashes in 2024. That is a significant increase and a serious warning sign for drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and families across North Texas.

Importantly, the automation system was not necessarily engaged in every one of these crashes. Some crashes may involve vehicles equipped with autonomous or driver-assistance technology, while others may involve situations where automation was not active, was unknown, or was reported under a lower level of driver-assistance technology.

The TxDOT data identifies several reported automation categories in Dallas County crashes, including:

• Driver Assistance: 495 crashes

• Partial Automation: 144 crashes

• Conditional Automation: 16 crashes

• Full Automation: 5 crashes

Of the 5 crashes coded as involving Full Automation, 3 involved Tesla vehicles. Those Tesla vehicles included 2 Tesla Model 3s and 1 Tesla Model Y. This does not necessarily mean those vehicles were operating without human involvement at the time of the wreck. But it does show why crash data involving automated-vehicle technology must be reviewed carefully. The crash-report label, the vehicle’s actual system status, the driver’s conduct, and the vehicle’s electronic records may all matter in determining what happened.

Even when automation is not fully engaged, the increase in reported crashes raises serious questions about how these systems are being used, how drivers understand them, and whether vehicle manufacturers, technology companies, fleet operators, and other responsible parties are doing enough to protect the public.

What Do Driver Assistance, Partial Automation, Conditional Automation, and Full Automation Mean?

One of the most important points for Dallas County drivers is that “autonomous vehicle” can mean different things in crash data. A crash involving driver-assistance technology is not necessarily the same thing as a crash involving a fully self-driving vehicle.

Under TxDOT’s terminology, these categories are tied to different levels of automation:

Driver Assistance generally refers to Level 1 automation. At this level, the vehicle can assist with either steering or acceleration and deceleration, but the human driver remains responsible for the rest of the driving task.

Partial Automation generally refers to Level 2 automation. At this level, the vehicle can assist with both steering and acceleration and deceleration, but the human driver must still remain involved and responsible for the remaining driving tasks.

Conditional Automation generally refers to Level 3 automation. At this level, the automated system can perform all dynamic driving tasks under certain conditions, but the human driver is still expected to remain engaged and ready to take control when needed.

Full Automation generally refers to Level 5 automation. At this level, the automated system can perform all dynamic driving tasks under all conditions without the need for human intervention.

This distinction matters. Driver-assistance systems may include features such as lane keeping, adaptive cruise control, automated braking, blind spot monitoring, parking assistance, or similar technology. Those systems can be helpful, but they are not the same as a fully autonomous vehicle.

The problem is that advanced vehicle technology can create confusion. Drivers may overestimate what a system can do. A system may fail to recognize a hazard. A human operator may not be ready to intervene. Or a company may deploy, market, or maintain technology in a way that puts the public at risk.

Autonomous Vehicle Technology Can Create a False Sense of Security

Autonomous and driver-assistance technology may be marketed as advanced, intelligent, or safety-focused. But these systems can also create a false sense of security for drivers.

A driver may believe the vehicle can handle more than it actually can. A driver may become less attentive. A driver may look away from the road, fail to monitor traffic conditions, or delay taking control because the vehicle appeared to be handling the situation. When that happens, even a few seconds can make the difference between avoiding a crash and causing a devastating collision.

This is especially concerning when the technology is described in ways that ordinary drivers may misunderstand. A feature that assists with steering, braking, lane position, or speed control does not necessarily make a vehicle self-driving. If a driver treats a driver-assistance system like a fully autonomous system, innocent people can be hurt.

When a crash occurs, the investigation should examine not only what the driver did, but also whether the technology contributed to distraction, complacency, delayed reaction time, or overreliance.

These Are Not Simple Car Accident Cases

A crash involving autonomous or driver-assistance technology can be far more complicated than a typical collision. In many car wrecks, the investigation focuses on driver behavior: speeding, distraction, intoxication, failure to yield, unsafe lane changes, or following too closely.

But when automated technology is involved, the investigation may need to go much deeper.

Important questions may include:

• Was the vehicle operating with driver assistance, partial automation, conditional automation, or full automation at the time of the crash?

• Was the system actually engaged when the wreck occurred?

• Did the automated system detect other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, traffic signals, lane markings, or road hazards?

• Did the vehicle’s sensors, cameras, radar, lidar, or software malfunction?

• Did the human driver understand the system’s limits?

• Was the driver warned to take control, and if so, was there enough time to react?

• Did the technology create a false sense of security or encourage the driver to stop paying attention?

• Were there known issues with the vehicle’s software, hardware, maintenance, or testing procedures?

• Did the company preserve crash data, video, sensor logs, and internal reports?

These cases may involve evidence that most crash victims never see unless an attorney moves quickly to preserve it.

Why Evidence Preservation Matters After an Autonomous or Driver-Assistance Crash

Crashes involving automated vehicle technology often depend on electronic evidence. That evidence may include onboard video, event data recorder information, system logs, GPS data, braking and steering inputs, software decision-making data, maintenance records, testing records, and communications between companies involved in operating, maintaining, or managing the vehicle.

This evidence can be critical in determining what happened and who may be responsible.

Unfortunately, electronic data can be overwritten, deleted, modified, or lost. That is why prompt investigation is so important. After a serious crash involving autonomous or driver-assistance technology, injured victims and families should not rely on the vehicle company, insurance carrier, or corporate representative to explain what happened without an independent investigation.

Autonomous Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes Raise Additional Safety Concerns

The TxDOT CRIS Query data also identified 7 crashes in 2025 involving autonomous commercial motor vehicles. According to the data, the reported automation levels for those commercial vehicle crashes were:

• No Automation: 4 crashes

• Automation Level Unknown: 1 crash

• Driver Assistance: 2 crashes

This breakdown matters. Even when a commercial motor vehicle is labeled as autonomous or equipped with automated technology, that does not necessarily mean the system was operating in autonomous mode at the time of the crash. Some vehicles may have no automation engaged, some may involve unknown automation status, and others may involve lower-level driver-assistance features.

But the presence of autonomous or driver-assistance technology can still create serious safety concerns. These systems may give drivers a false sense of security. A driver may become less attentive, overtrust the technology, misunderstand what the system can and cannot do, or fail to take control quickly when a hazard appears.

That risk can be especially dangerous with commercial motor vehicles. Large trucks and commercial vehicles are heavier, harder to stop, and more likely to cause catastrophic injuries when something goes wrong. If a driver, motor carrier, manufacturer, fleet operator, or technology company relies too heavily on automation or fails to train drivers on the system’s limits, the consequences can be devastating.

After a crash involving an autonomous or driver-assistance commercial motor vehicle, investigators should examine not only the driver’s actions, but also the vehicle’s automation status, onboard data, dash camera footage, electronic control modules, maintenance history, driver training records, company safety policies, and whether the technology contributed to driver complacency or delayed reaction time.

Who Can Be Responsible for a Crash Involving Automated Vehicle Technology?

Depending on the facts, multiple parties may share responsibility for a crash involving autonomous or driver-assistance technology, including:

• The human driver

• The autonomous vehicle company

• The vehicle manufacturer

• A software or technology company

• A sensor, camera, radar, or component manufacturer

• A fleet operator

• A motor carrier

• A maintenance company

• A human safety driver or vehicle operator

• Another negligent driver involved in the crash

Determining fault may require a detailed investigation into the crash scene, vehicle data, software performance, driver conduct, corporate policies, prior incidents, training procedures, and whether the company followed reasonable safety practices.

In some cases, the issue may be driver negligence. In others, the issue may involve defective technology, inadequate warnings, poor training, negligent maintenance, unsafe deployment, or misleading marketing. Serious crashes require serious investigation.

Dallas County Drivers Deserve Answers

The increase from 351 crashes in 2024 to 1,084 crashes in Dallas County involving autonomous vehicle technology is significant. Even though full automation was reported in only a small number of these wrecks, the broader rise in crashes involving driver-assistance and automated systems should concern everyone on the road.

Technology companies and vehicle manufacturers should not be allowed to shift responsibility onto crash victims when their systems are confusing, defective, poorly monitored, poorly explained, or marketed in a way that causes drivers to trust them too much. At the same time, drivers using these systems must remain attentive and follow the law.

When people are hurt, the focus should be on uncovering the truth.

For crash victims, the consequences can be devastating. A collision involving autonomous or driver-assistance technology can cause serious injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, broken bones, internal injuries, burns, amputations, and wrongful death. Families may be left dealing with medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, permanent impairment, grief, and uncertainty about what really happened.

Injured in a Dallas County Crash Involving Autonomous or Driver-Assistance Technology?

If you or a loved one was injured in a crash involving autonomous vehicle technology, driver assistance, partial automation, conditional automation, full automation, or an autonomous commercial motor vehicle in Dallas County, it is important to act quickly. These cases may require immediate steps to preserve vehicle data, camera footage, software logs, maintenance records, driver records, company safety policies, and other evidence before it disappears.

The Wooley Law Firm investigates serious crashes and fights to hold negligent drivers, companies, manufacturers, technology providers, motor carriers, and other responsible parties accountable.

If you were injured in a Dallas County crash involving autonomous or driver-assistance technology, you may have the right to seek justice and pursue compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, mental anguish, impairment, and other damages.

Call (214) 699-6524 for a free consultation. You don’t pay unless we win.