Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Some people may believe that a driverless car would be the best invention since sliced bread. Others may argue that it would be the worst occurence to happen to man. There are always two sides to each argument. The pros and cons. They are always there continuing to make an argument interesting and decisions harder. The pros may not outweigh the cons, and the cons don't always so-so the pros. At the end of the day it is your decision. Are driverless cars better? More efficient? Or are they simply a dream of the future?

Since the first car ever came out, people have been wondering and wanting to make a car that could drive itself. Almost have a mind of its own. Google has created a car that can drive by itself. Kind of. The car is mainly and mostly independent, but when it comes to doing really hard work, like manouvering around accidents or rather bad traffic issues, the cars instantaneously become like normal cars again. They are once again dependent on being controled by the driver. That isn't very convenient. If one is going to make a driverless car, then why would it need help navigating through certain issues? And if it were driverless, than why is there someone sitting behind the wheel? It almost makes people useless for these cars. And lazy.

In the later 1950's the brilliant engineers of Berkeley had made a car that had certain magnetic fields in it that would sense postive and negative changes in a certain kind of ground that they also created. The car and road fairly well together, much to the suprise of the engineers. So they had figured out a wonderful way to create a smarter, driverless car, but repairing roads is already very expensive, and these cars needed an entirely new and different road system to be put in. That would then increase the cost of taxes, thus resulting in angry people. Is it really worth it to put in a new road, pretty much everywhere, raise tax expenses, just to be even lazier? No it isn't. It wouldn't make much sense if that actually happened.

Even with brilliantly smart engineers creating and designing new ways to create smarter, driverless cars, there are laws in all states that don't allow the testing needed to prove whether or not these cars are beneficial. There are exceptions, however. States such as California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia, do have the limited use and testing of partial driverless cars. These laws were put into place for a reason. To protect the people testing the cars, and everyone else. For example, the car is driving down the road, when suddenly all systems are failing. You, as the driver, must regain control, but with systems shutting down and failing, you cannot. The car crashes thus resulting in your injury. Who is to blame? The person behind that wheel? The company? Manufacturer? Or the car itself? There is an easy way to prevent this. Stop trying to make driverless cars.

In conclusion, driverless cars may not be the best way to go. They may seem like the greatest invention ever, but refer to reasons above. Is it necessary to compromise safety, economy, and tax payers dollars, just to be 'cool' or lazy? It is not. Not at all. The process is expensive, and in the end, could result in more crashes, injuries, and even deaths, if the car doesn't function properly. It is a big risk to take, yes, but it is not worth it.

Score: 4