I'm interested in understanding why you would want every subdivision of "type of crash" to strictly improve, rather than being content that the combined crash rate goes down?

i.e. if Tesla causes 100 new crashes of type A but saves 200 of type B, isn't that a gain? Even if type A crashes are one which humans don't normally make.

A way in which I agree with you is if type B crashes are more avoidable by conscientious drivers, and you feel that your personal base rate of B is therefore already low, and that introducing new type A risk is actually NOT an all-in improvement for you.

There was a human driving the car.

That a Tesla crashes in ways a human wouldn't doesn't seem true. From what I've seen, even the most common accident type for a Tesla occurs at a lower rate than non-Tesla cars.

Do you have more info that's more specific about the types of crashes?

The problem here is a lot of the worst crashes are caused by humans behaving crazy and stupid. It's not a good criticism.

I guess people have no business being on the roads then, because all of the actual crashes in that video were vehicles driven by humans. If they had been following the rules of the road with proper spacing between vehicles, they wouldn't have gotten in this collision after all.

I think you're overestimating human drivers frankly. Collisions like this one happen between humans every day, multiple times per day across North America, you just don't hear about it because normal human error is at fault.