Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The use of driverless cars is something very controversial in todays times. Years ago there wasn't enough technological advances to have cars that can be driven by a computer. I believe that the use of computer driven cars is a bad thing. When one of these cars are on the road there is a chance that there could be a wreck but if that did happen who would be at fault? A person could have been driving and caused a wreck but they could say the computer was at fault. This would let people get by easier when they cause car accidents. There could be obstacles that the car misses when driven by the computer. The computer may not have seen a car in front of it and kept driving. There would be no way of knowing what happened and who would be at fault. Most states dont have laws concerning the cars and some dont even allow you to test drive them.

"In most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars." This means that states have made it illegal to even test the cars. This shows that they would be dangerous because if there are laws against it there is no way that they are safe. Yes there is no way of telling if normal cars are comepletly safe but, there is no one but the human driver at fault in a normal car. The owners of niormal cars can't say that a computer was driving the car at the time because if wouldn't be possible.

"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 some one is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer?" This means that the cars, if legalized would have to have another law just for them to say hwo would be at fault if an accident happened and someone was injured. It could be the manufacturer or the driver but there would be no completely positive reason for one or the other to be at fault.

If there ever was an accident and somebody was killed by the car. For any other person there would be an investigation. Say the human in the car was drunk. The person could say the computer was driving at the time and there would be no way of knowing if the person was telling the truth or not. What if the law said the manufacturer was at fault? They could have let someone who was guilty of a crime go and charged the company that made the car. How would that be fair to the family that lost someone? It wouldn't be that is why the driverless cars are a bad idea.

There are many reasons for one to say they would be good, but do the good outweigh the bad? If there is a reasonable doubt that the cars would be unsafe, or that they are illegal in most states, they should not be allowed out on the roads because nobody knows what could happen until it does happen. There would be laws for this specific type of vehicle but how accurate would the punishments be if something bad happened because of the car. It wouldn't be equal to that of a driver of a normal car because the smart cars have two options for who to blame. There would never be any way to be sure that the person blamed was the one at fault. That is why the new smart cars being invented should not be allowed on the streets, they are just not safe enough yet.

Score: 4