Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The development for these cars would not be worth it. When Sergey Brin envisioned the driverless car, transportation around the world would change dramatically, if the driverless cars even work. The development for these cars are terrible for the world. Some reasons that the driverless car would not be worth the money to make include safety, why need a driver and a fault for the accidents.

The text states, "Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive?" This text states that drivers would not want to just sit in the driver's seat while the car is driving for them. This also states that the driverless car can not be safe without a driver at hand.

Another reason why driverless cars would not be good would be, "Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times." This text concludes that driverless cars are not safe at all because it needs a human driver at all times. This also states that safety is a big concern for these driverless cars and in most states, test driving computer-driven cars is illegal.

Another reason why driverless cars are terrible would be, "They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating though work zones and around accidents." This text reveals that the driverless cars can be useful until it is not. What is the whole purpose of a driverless car if the car still needs a human to drive? The driverless car is pointless when the car is called a "driverless" car yet it can not do things by itself and needs a human who can just drive the car themselves.

Finally, the last reason for driverless cars being a bad idea would be, "Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault--the driver or the manufacturer?" This text shows that even if the world changes to driverless cars, new laws would have to be produced. It also shows questions regarding when and if the driverless car gets into an accident, who is to blame: the person in the car, the car or the people who make the car?

Reasons against the development of these cars are what are the use of driver's license if people will not get to drive, the safety issues of the driverless cars and having to be in the car to only watch the road. No one is going to need to get driver's license if the driverless cars are coming because the people will not need to know how to drive. The safety issues of the driverless cars are questionable because the humans in the car can not control what happens with the car. People will not enjoy sitting in the car to watch out for roadblocks on the road because the people would get tired of it.

The driverless cars would cause tons of problems. When the driverless car gets into an accident, who is to blame for it? These reasons should make people believe that they should not be the person to blame because it was not their fault. The human driver did not create a faulty product. The conclusion is driverless cars are a waste of money since it will still need a human to help drive.

Score: 4