There are plenty of plausible explanations for those statistics where the comparison isn't a good one. The 479K figure given appears to be an average over the e

There are plenty of plausible explanations for those statistics where the comparison isn't a good one. The 479K figure given appears to be an average over the entire population of vehicles and drivers. But what is the performance like for other drivers of expensive cars? Teslas aren't cheap, so it's a reasonable hypothesis that their drivers might be more likely to take care of them than the owners of a 20-year-old hand-me-down that is nearing the end of its useful lifetime anyway. What is the performance like for drivers in other cars that have relatively good driver aid technologies? This might be correlated with more expensive cars, but more basic models typically gain a lot of the safety tech as well after a while. What is the performance like for other drivers of the same ages and experience levels as Tesla drivers? Given the cost of the vehicle, Tesla drivers might tend to be older and more experienced than average, and both of those factors are known to be strongly correlated with safer driving. Or maybe Tesla's own statistics are based on such a small population that they might not be representative anyway? Or maybe Tesla's "registration" of accidents is flawed, and lots of minor incidents go unreported in Tesla's stats but some of them would be counted by NHTSA? Or maybe Tesla's touchscreen controls are simply so complicated or annoying that many drivers avoid using them as much as possible? As I said, there are many plausible explanations that would make that "amazing real world safety data" look a lot less impressive. It's impossible to evaluate that record intelligently based on just the data you quoted.