Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Why do we need Driverless cars? Some belive that by having driverless cars that we will save more gas than an adverage taxi. I beleive that we shouldnt have driverless cars. By having driverless cars the world will become lazy and will take less responsiblity for their actions. Driverless cars arent fully driverless. With all this technology and labor, this product is very expensive.

In the passage, paragraph 2 it states "Google cars arent turly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents." This saying that driverless car arent what they say they are. The purpose of a driverless car is for the driver to not have to manually drive at any circumstances. Although the passage does state in paragraph 7, "in fact, none of the cars developed so far are completly driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves but all are disigned to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills," This being said why produce driverless cars if they arent going to be fully driverless.

In paragraph 7 it states "The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel." Stating that their needs to be a driver in the car to make sure the car is safe when driving through work zones. Also, what happens if the car is on the highway with the speed limit of 65 mph and the car can only drive at 25 mph driverless; what would be the purpose of this car for people who travel by vehical? As told in paragraph 9, "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 someone is injured, who is at fault-the driver or the manufacturer?" Who will be at fault, the driverless car should be "driverless" and if technology fails causeing an injury to a person the manufacturer should be at fault for not making sure the car is fully driverless like ones paid for.

"These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical." Proving that driverless cars are to expensive to produce. Where would the citizens purchase a driverless car, more likely who would buy a driverless car with the economy these days. Most people in the middle class dont make enough money to buy a new car as it is; to expect them to buy a car that is driverless which most likely has the cost of double the cars now, is impractical. The technology used to manufactor the sensors and maps for the cars to follow is too expensive, the money being used to produce driverless cars could be used on students and college or for a cure of cancer not on useless driverless cars.

With all these points being said, I believe that driverless cars should continue to be developed. With all the money being spent on a car thats supposably "driverless" could be spent on research for cures. Driverless cars can only drive up to 25 mph with human hands on the sterring wheel meaning that the car is an in-town type of car; meaning travelers wont find use in this car. These cars arent fully driverless, The point of a driverless car is to not have a human drive at all. "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault? the manufacturer is at fault.

Score: 5