Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Are cars necessary in today's society? Of course they are necessary. Now, are driverless cars necessary? I would argue that they are not. Cars have been around for about a hundred years, and not once has society put its foot down and demanded a car that drives itself. The driverless cars this article discusses are not actually driverless, they are not legal, and there is no telling what future problems may arise.

Shouldn't a truly driverless car not require a human at all? I personally believe a driverless car should be able to navigate itself without human interferance. If it requires a human, then what is the point of calling it driverless? In fact, all the driverless cars being created right now are designed to notify the driver when it approaches a work zone or accident. So, in case the need to have a human take over arises, an individual would have to be sitting in the drivers seat, paying absolute attention to the road, and await the moment the car will allow the individual to take over. Wouldn't that take away the nejoyment of owning a driverless car? I believe it is even more of a hassle than driving ever would be. A person would have to fight boredom and remain alert while doing nothing other than sitting in the driver seat. To all driverless car companies: driving is paying attention to the road, but the driver is actually engaged, making driving more interesting.

Not only are driverless cars not fully developed, but they are not even legal. Most states do not allow driverless cars. In fact, most states do not even allow driverlesss cars to be tested on their roads. The article only mentions four places that allow driverless cars, and they only allow limited use. If these cars are not even allowed by most states to out on the road for testing, imagine how long it would take to pass laws to get these cars approved.

A myriad of problems could arise pertaining to driverless cars. The article mentioned a very real problem in driverless cars: if something goes awry and someone in injured, who is at fault? These cases would resort in major courtroom battles between average people and multi-million dollar companies. Another potential problem with driverless cars is the change off between driver and robot. If the car signals the driver and the driver does not respond, then what would the car do? A multitude of problems could appear, and all automakers can do is hope they will be abloe to find solutions to these probelms. To quote the article, "Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved." Not only are the companies unsure of what issues will surface, but they are not completely sure they will be able to find solutions.

Driving has been central to the American way of life for a large span of time, and if manually driving cars has been working, why change it? Driverless cars have been beiong tested since the 50's, so there clearly is no rush in getting these cars on the street. Also, once these cars are available to the public they will most likely only be accesable to the rich. In time the driverless cars would be more affordable, but the original prices would be high. Driverless cars are getting attention, but as soon as the public knows they will only be for wealthy hands for a bit of time, the excitment will die down.

The system works, and it works well, so why change it? Driverless cars may sound high-end and futurisitc, but our cars now do the job well. Plus, there are hazads and roadblocks the driverless cars will have to overcome first. Should we really make state legislatures waste time debating the use of a driverless car that is not completely driverless? Driverless cars have benefits, but they are not street legal. I see no point in spending money for a car that cannot be driven in most streets and is not able to operate without a human there to takeover incase something goes wrong.

Score: 5