I've heard this argument many times, and I respectfully disagree.
Scenario
Driver hits something he shouldn't have (property, a biker, a child chasing a soccer ball, whatever) and it's in court. Plaintiff posits that the driver is at fault. The driver says he didn't see it/him/her. The plaintiff says that blind spot monitoring and parking sensors would have caught it, and trots in a dozen experts from various automobile companies to testify explicitly that those technologies should have prevented the contact based on studies, measurements, etc. Plaintiff then confirms that driver's vehicle has both features. And then the dialog...
- "So you just ignored the warnings, or they didn't work?"
- "They didn't work."
- "Remembering you're under oath, why didn't they work?"
- "I had them turned off."
No matter how attentive or aware you think you are, you would be foolish and potentially negligent to turn them off without good reason. Pride is not a good reason.
Similarly, it's foolish for Tesla not to seriously consider including such features -- and doing so says nothing about the skills of the drivers.
Agreed. I don't believe they give a false sense of security. I'd suggest that if they catch something you don't, then it's time to start paying more attention, or perhaps take that car handling class you've been putting off taking.