Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Driverless cars are becoming a reality, rather than a dream. Google has been using them to create their 3-D maps around the globe, and now they are allowed in certain states of the U.S. Most have a very low collision rate, and could be handy in many situations. But even though they are an invention and are useful in some ways, there are too many legal things that could go wrong for them to be worthwhile. If a car crashes, is it the owner's fault or the car manufacturer? Will it make people rely even more on computers? Driverless cars, although a very useful invention for some purposes, will not catch on because of the legal issues that would follow, depenicey on computers that could fault to error, and the rewriting of driving laws and an education to even learn how to work with the autonomonus vehicle.

When you get into an accident with your car, usually it can fall under two catagories: your fault with driving, or the conditions of the outside and the built of the car. For a drastic example, if somebody was not paying attention to the road, rather a phone, and winds up headfirst into a tree, that does not require the car manufacturer to intervene because it was the driver's fault. Opposing, if there is a recall in the anti-lock break system and it causes a person to crash, that is more at fault with the car company, as their breaks were not up to standards and safety regulations. But with the idea of driverless cars becoming a reality, the line between the person and the manufacturer is blurred. If the car was driving itself and for some reason gets into an accident, is it the owner's fault, even if they couldn't control it? Or is the car manufacturer's fault, even if they had installed a sensor so that the person could take over? This arguement could lead to a lot of trials and conflicts over the legality of the car, and compared with other events happening, it would become more of a problem rather than a positive, causing legal battles and controversy over the car.

With the generation coming in of kids who have lived through the start of modern technology and social media, the baby-boomers and so on have a lot to say about the issue of modern technology. Many say it is a waste of time, and is teaching the new generations to be lazier, while it doesn't rather apply to social media and the interenet, as it has made a wonderful contribution to the global network, it can be argued that a driverless car while the driver sits and waits is rather lazy. But the bigger issue is the dependency on the computer; computers get hacked, glitchy, and tricky as it is, and it is rather unsettling to think the computer running your car, which holds your life, can screw up and change your life entirely. It is more settling if there were the mentioned lights and buzzers to let us know what is going on. "GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger... Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays." (7). Even though those forementioned signals are being in place, what if they are not working as well? Even though that might be a small chance of it happening, it is always a risk. To rely on a computer with your own life in the situation that you could use an actual car is quite unsettling, and even if it is safe at first, can always lead to accidents and glitches.

With the rise of the autonomous car, many precautions and risks are in place.

The chance of a legal battle with a car manufauctuer, and the idea of the computer glitching at the wheel are just two details about why the idea of an autonomous car would be more of a negative than a positive. The invention and ideas behind it are very well-supported and used well today, the reality is that it won't catch on to become mainstream. There are too many what-if's that if brought up, would make the general market iffy on letting go of the wheel.

Score: 5