There's also an interesting secondary observation.

"Drivers who missed every instance of the bear spent more time looking at various parts of the car's dashboard than any other group."

I hypothesize that, while some of that was surely trying to navigate a radio or air-conditioning setup they were unfamiliar with, much was likely spent monitoring the speed of the vehicle.

An simple HUD illumination reflection on the wind shield for the speed might help as a safety measure. Or possibly changing laws and enforcement so that police were focused on non-revenue generating actives and mostly about curbing any behavior that harms the safety of a steady and orderly traffic flow.

Right, the general conclusion of this study is positive for driver assistance, albeit with a small sample size, but the headline crowbars a negative interpretation into it.

And this is on the front page of HN because that headline reinforces the common worldview here: that partial self-driving is more dangerous than none at all, and full autonomy is further away than manufacturers like to suggest.

If the result that experience with L2 seems to improve situational awareness is robust, then that raises the question of why that is so. Has experience taught them that they need to pay attention, in a way that is more effective than merely being told they need to? Are drivers new to L2 overconfident in its abilities, or perhaps merely unsettled by the unfamiliarity of the situation?

Note that the article also mentions that other studies have found increasing complacency with experience.

> Does it make them more likely to note and deal with unexpected risks or not? The article guesses the answer though the actual paper may not have.

Given that noticing a problem is a prerequisite of dealing with it, this is not an unreasonable supposition, though one should also wonder if their reaction times are slower. Note that even if that is so, noticing more things, or noticing them sooner, could more than compensate for this.

Similar semantics with aircraft and autopilot systems. It reduces operator workloads but you train or disable it and hand fly the aircraft for fun and to refresh your experience periodically.

Someone who uses this technology because they dislike driving will always pose a danger. Those who enjoy driving will be more diligent.

I think people who seek enjoyment in driving will actually pose a greater danger. If you need to get your enjoyment out of the driving itself you will start to exhibit more dangerous behaviour, accelerating faster, driving higher speeds, overtaking more. Nothing is more boring for me as a driver than staying between 2 white dotted lines on a 4 lane highway going 20 km/h under the speedlimit trailing a truck or other traffic, so I either start overtaking frequently or I get bored and distracted because of to little stimulus. But with ADAS I don't care, I just relax and let it do most of the work while I take in the scenery or an audiobook.

One common thread among Tesla owners; TM3 owner here; is that while the car will do the driving and such a good number of owners are actively looking for edge cases. Seems everyone wants to be a tester. Plus I figure the majority of Tesla owners are a bit more jaded than many expect. Many of us have had our cars for nearly three years and all we really have seen is party tricks.

In my experience the software developer in me looks at every odd action or lack thereof in the frame of, why this and not that and how do I think it should have performed.

Now there is a big claim out there we will all be able to opt into the new FSD beta and I truly want to give it a whirl.

Right the headline implies that ADAS is worse for awareness than no ADAS, but that's not what was tested.