Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The idea of a driverless car isn't safe to me. Sergey says that driverless cars are coming in the near future, but the cars aren't even one hundred percent

driverless. The car is still required to have a driver take control if a dangerous accident was happening or if you had to pull out of a drive way. Why can't this "Driverless car" handle dangerous situations and pulling out of a drive way without human precaution? Driverless cars aren't cable of doing human things because it doesn't have a mindset of a human on the road.

Sergey explains in paragraph 5 that the driverless cars have sensors, but even sensors don't always work. If the sensor was to stop working and the car wasn't be able to alert itself an accident can happen. None of the cars developed are completely capable of being driverless without a driver in the car and paying attention, so why name them driverless cars? If the car requires a driver to still be alert at all times and be ready to take over the wheel, shouldn't the driver just drive their own car themselves? It's no point of a driverless car if it still needs a humans caution while it's driving. People who hear about a ''driverless car" would idmmediatley assume they don't have to drive or pay attention at all to the road and the car will do all the road work for them.

I don't agree with the driverless car invention because just how humans can have accicents when driving while having knowledge about driving on the road so can a car that is knowledged on driving by technology, humans crash and computers crash. This driverless car isn't even proven to be reliably safe. Humans are more capable of driving because humans are meant to drive. You can't have a car without a driver. Why teach a car to drive and have the ability to alert themselves if a accident occured like a human when thiers billions of people that can just drive on thier own?

A driverless car isn't needed.

Score: 3