Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
"Are driverless cars coming?" I'm against driverless cars because of saftey, cost, and law.

To begin, i'm against the driverless car because of the saftey issues. In the article it says that "if the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-the driver or the manufacture". Also in the article it points out, driverless cars have light signals to indicate traffic jams and other saftey issues.(What if a person is on a phone or is not paying attention and a car comes out in front of them and the signals dont show in time and someone is hurt).Another saftey problem is the antilock breaks. As you can see their are many things that can go wrong with this car showing that it's not yet saftey to be on the road.

Secondly, the driverless car is a long way from being perfect because of the cost. The cars need smart roads to function. So the cost will fly up because of the updates to support the car. An supporting detail from the article is, "These smart roads systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical." People that is less fortunate that wants to by the "eco saving" car would have to pay a enormous amount of money to get this brain car. Another detail from the passage is, Without the option of smarter roads, manufactures turned to smarter cars..." If the manufactures didn't upgrade the roads they had to upgrade the car but it's still a major amount of money going in these cars. So this means what they paid to upgrade the car is going to double when someone wnats to buy it. The expens of this so called smart car is not worth buying.

Next, laws are prohibiting the use of smartcars in some staes. Some laws for the smart car staes that, "...a human driver in control at all time". This law shows that even if the driverless car is developed complety it must have someone controling it, not it controling the driver. This shows that some states believe this law is good because they think a human driver is more safe then being driven around by a robot car. A supporting detail is, " states will follw as soon as the cars are proven reliably safe". This quote shows that the states that have these laws don't trust the driverless car ideal yet. As you can see some laws will never trust the smart car because of the problems and safetey issues it might cause.

Laslty, I was against the driverless car because of safety, cost, and laws. Why would someone get a car coslty car that thats not yet proven to be ready to hurt themsleves? Or are people today just getting lazy?

Score: 4