Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
I am against the developement of "Driverless Cars." Although a driverless car may sound cool, or may change the world someday, there are some negatives that go along with the production of the car. Driverless cars would be an expensive thing to prouduce. It would cause human driveres to not pay attention as much as they need to, and traffic laws would need a lot of updating.

The car would not be completely driverless, in the text it reads "Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over..." With that being said, a driverless car wouldn't be the correct name for it. Another reason the production of these cars would not be a great idea, is the money. For the car to respond to the things it needs it would require massive upgrades to existing roads, which is not practical. Along with the road needing upgrades, the car would too. The car would need a whole lot of sensors, in the text it states, "The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel." As if the human body is the best driver in the world, I feel as putting most of the control in the car would not be a great idea. To get cars up to the proper state they need to be would cost a lot of money.

In a driverless car the "driver" would still need to be alert when "driving the car." The thought of having a driverless car would make people think they can text, eat, play games, and drink while driving. Yes you say, "While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver," how reliable would those cameras be, they could easily go out, break, or mess with other signals.

The law is what is stopping these cars from being out on the road. Traffic laws are written in the assumption that a human driver has control at all times, not when there is an accident, construction, or busy traffic. Traffic laws can change frequently, but if these driverless cars were to become a thing, traffic laws would need changed abudantly. New laws would need to be set in place for liability in the case of an accident. How would you solve that? Who is at fault? The driver has control when it needs to, but the car is doing most of the work. The statement about the displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over, what if the driver can't get the displays to turn off.

In conclusion, the production of "Driverless Cars" should not continue. It will cost a whole lot of money to get existing roads up to pass an inspection. Along with the fact that the human behind the wheel in case need be could fall asleep, drinking, or texting and not paying attention could cause more accidents then needed. And finally take into matter all the changes traffic laws would have to make or change. It would be better to let humans driver themselves to where they need to be instead of some computer genorated car get me to my destination.

Score: 4