Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Can you imagine a place where you no longer have to drive and computers do it for you? As of now, that is not possible but who is to say that cannot be achieved. Driverless cars a thing for the future. Cars that no longer require a driver would be such a pivotal achievement for transportation. But, do we really need a computer to drive for us? Do we really want our safety to be held by computers? The answer is no. My position on driveless cars is that they are far-fetched and not practical. They aren't practical because they aren't truly driverless, they don't fit within current laws, and they really aren't safer. I wouldn't want me safety in the hands of a machine. Driverless cars are a cool concept, but really aren't practical.

Driverless cars are not practical because they aren't really driverless. You would still have to sit in the driver seat and pay attention to the road. You still need to be alert and be prepared to take over at any given point. So what's the point of driverless cars? As the article says, "Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?", the answer is you wouldn't. If the technology of the car isn't ground-breaking and you still would have to drive, there is no reason to have a driverless car. Driverless cars still needing drivers is one reason that they are not practical.

Driverless cars aren't really fitting with the current driving laws. Most laws emphasizes the safety of drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. Laws are based on a human driver controlling the vechicle at all times. What would you do if a computer is in control of your car? With the current laws, a very serious questions arises. If you were to get into a wreck, who would be liable? The "driver" or the manufacturer of the car? As of the laws right now, driverless cars aren't really fit for a person to own one. There is too many questions of safety and the liability of the cars and cars around. That is why driverless cars don't fit in with the current laws and aren't really practical at this day and age.

People that are in support of the driverless cars claim that computer hardware and software make driving safer than having a real human driver. These technologies steer, accelerate, and brake themselves. Driverless cars are safer is not necessarily safer, as they still need real humans to take over in times of need. Also, as time progresses technology has a tendency to lag behind. This can cause major hardware and software malfunctions that can actually make these types of cars more dangerous. Driverless cars aren't really safer because they still need an alert driver and that fact that technology can fail.

Driverless cars are a thing for the future if they can be fully developed and made truly driverless. What is the point of driverless cars that still need drivers? What about the fact that these types of cars don't fit within current traffic laws? Are they really safer? The answers point away from driverless cars. They require drivers, they don't fit within laws, and they aren't actually safer. These reasons point to why driverless cars aren't practical and they are not a thing for the current day and age.

Score: 4