Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," it talks about the development of cars that can drive themselves. The article talks about hoe companies are working on cars who can completely drive on their own with no human assistance. I am against the development of these cars. I am against it because how can you have a car that needs no human assitance, I think it would be a safety issue, and laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe.

How can you have a car that needs no human assistance at all? Even the smart cars that we have today still need human assistance. Firstly, the cars tha we have today still have to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills. The smart cars can't not navigate through traffic such as, work zones and accidents. Secondly, in the article it says, " Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?" I agree with that, who would? The whole point of having a driverless car is to not have to drive and manufacturers are no where clsoe to that kind of car. Lastly, the cars that we have developed now can only accelerate, steer, and brake themselves. The cars now have ways to notify the human when the road ahead requires human skills. The manufacturers are not close to developing a car that can drive itself because as of right now all of them stil need a lot of human assistance. They can't really do much by themselves.

I think that driverless cars would be a big safety issue. I do not think that a computer is as alret as a human. In the article it talks baout how driverless cars are a big safty concern. Firstly, what would happen if there was an accident and the computer was the one driving? Would it be thr drivers fault or the computers? Secondly, if something ever went wrong and there was an accident and someone was hurt who is at fault? is the driver or the manufacturer at fault? Lastly, what if the computer is controlling the car and it doesn't see something because it isn't as alert as a human? If the computer hit soemthing would the human's insurance cover it? This is why i think driverless cars would be a safety issue.

Laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe. Firstly, in the article it says that lawmakers have agreed that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. This means that they think safety is achieved when human drivers are the ones driving and not a computer. Secondly, some states are already against driverless cars and no one has even onvented one yet. In California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia it is illegal to even test drive computer driven cars. Lastly, in the article it says that presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. This means that the laws are based on human drivers are more alert and safer than a computer.

This shows why I am against the development of driverless cars. Driverless cars need human assistance, they are a safety issue, and laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers and pedestrians safe.

Score: 4