Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
If you could have a driverless car would you take the chance? Driverless cars should not be developed. I think this because of the cars not actually being driverless, companies not knowing how to make it enticing, and laws preventing it. If you saw a driverless car on the road, would you feel safe? Would you know if the human inside is or isn't driving?

Driverless cars aren't actually driverless. While they can do many raod behaviors without the help of a driver, they actually are not driverless. When they encounter something such as a traffic jam, or the ever so challenging driveway, they must alert the driver to take over. It even states in the paragraph that, "Google cars aren't truly driverless." This is argued however, as it does state in the passage that advancements are being made. These advancements are predicted to creat a real driverless car by 2020. This can also be a problem however, as many companies claiming to have made these cars are wanting to release them before this time, showing that this prediction doesn't matter to them. They could care less if the car is actually driverless, they just want money. If you encountered a driverless car while driving, would you trust that that car is safe?

Manufacturers don't know how to make this technology enticing. After all, what fun is there in being in a driverless car. Many people nowadays have their cars for the purpose of driving them, not riding. They enjoy driving, and get the biggest, fastest, or toughest car they can. This is from a love of cars. Introducing driverless cars would ruin this love and passion for cars. You wouldn't see anymore interesting races, as they would be driven by cars that were automated, and already knew which car would win, they just were running a program to make it interesting. This can be argued, however, as supporters of this say that cars that need drivers would never be removed, and races will stay the same as it always has been. They allso can argue, from the passage, that,"Some manufacturers hope to do that (make driverless cars fun) by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays." When you think of a driverless car, do you think of a powerful engine roaring to life, a slick racecar speeding down a track, or do you just see something like an electric car, small motor, and not exciting?

Laws prevent these cars from even being researched. The passage even states that,"in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars." manufacturers only hope is that they, "believe that more states (other thatn California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Colombia) will follow (allowing cars to be tested) as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. However, even if this doesn't happen, there is another problem. The passage states, "even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident." This shows that the legal and manufacturing worlds are completely unprepared for driverless cars. If you were to want to buy a driverless car, how much would you think about the laws covering it? Would they be in your favor if anything happens, or would they be complicated enough that the manufacturer themselves can just blow you off?

Driverless cars should not be developed. I believe this because, the cars aren't actually driverless, the manufacturers don't know how to make them enticing, and laws prevent them from even happening. When you really think about driverless cars and their existance, doesn't it seem like common sense to not have have something that can cause such troubles for our world?

Score: 5