Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Driverless cars are inevitably coming, no matter when or how, and we as citizens can't affect that, because the government and the car manufacturers are the ones who make the ultimate decision. But if I did have a say in the discussion, I would not be an advocate for the driverless car. I would be against it for several reasons, such as public safety, or the economy and environment itself.

Driverless cars present a major safety hazard to those who are manually driving cars on the road. Usually, humans do not have the reaction time that machines do. That causes a problem that could lead to serious injury or death. It also presents a big issue to those using the driverless car, because if the car malfunctions, the only outcome possible at that point is a car wreck or an accident, which could also cause serious injury, or death. Manually driven cars are safer because the reaction time of a human after a mistake is still faster than the self-reparing of a malfunction, if that's even at all possible.

Driverless cars could also not as popular as everyone thinks they will be because of the cost of production to make them. That, in turn, makes the selling price higher so that car companies can make a profit. So this may not even be a major factor on the roads at all for quite some time. With all the technology used in cars, such as Google's modified version of a Toyota Prius, it could cause a problem for service and mechanics to work on the car without a college degree, and that would absolutely limit the number of mechanics in the field today. They would need a degree in mechanical engineering, as well as Digital Electronics, which isn't typical for a mechanic. A driverless car could affect the ecomomy and population in good ways too, but the bad reasons seem to overtake the good reasons.

Driverless cars also present a challenge for the government, because they would have to make new laws regarding injury clauses. Also, who the blame is put on, the driver, or the manufacturer, is a legal issue the government would have to recognize. As said in paragraph 9, "Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be neede 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?" Even though manufacturers are working on a solution, the general public doesn't know when it will come, or what solution they will come to. And the public shouldn't be willing to test these cars with lives on the line!

The reasons why driverless cars cause issues are overwhelming. The cars aren't going to be trained properly until at least 2020, and the public has been talking about them forever, so obviously it's a point of conflict throughout the community. I am against driverless cars because I feel it is safer, economically friendly, and government-friendly if we use manually driven cars, and stick to what America is used to.

Score: 4