Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Driverless cars would not be a good envision for the future. Disposing of normal cars to create autonomous cars would be putting our faith in technology with no human control. Driverless cars promote unfocused and unaware driving. Also, they effect the economy by putting the country in more debt and causing conflict between people.

There are not any guarantees for the safety of humans for all ages, even animals, if laws are made. How do you put a law on technology? The technology is programmed to do what it is told, but that can easily go badly. We have all seen the movies where humans build robots and the robots end up having a mind of its own. Is that not a possibility for these "driverless cars"? This leads to driverless cars putting a negative impact on the economy. They will provide more cons than pros by adding un-needed debt.Think about the cost to have them all over the country when there are already regular cars. Sergey Brin "forsees" that the driverless cars would use half the fuel of today's taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. What proof, facts, data, and studies are there that can ensure this happens? "Driverless" cars are not that "driverless" if they still need a human in the drivers seat for emergencies. Sensors, monitors, and vibrating seats are not the solution to ensure this country's safety.

In conclusion, "driverless" cars are not a good envision for the future for many reasons. The article states that "even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault ----the driver or the manufacturer?" Efficiency and half the use of fuel does not solve all of the problems ahead. Work and research based on assumptions are simply not enough.

Score: 3