Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
In "Driverless Cars Are Coming," the author gives examples of both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. The article has more convincing exaples of negative aspects of "driverless cars". "Driverless cars" are something that should only be seen in movies.

"Driverless" cars can only drive under certain conditions, so why pay extra money for a car that can only do basic things when you can do them and more yourself. According to the article,"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. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents."

Why would anyone want to go 25 mph in a 30, 35 or even a 45. People already complain about how slow traffic is. ow about getting to work in 10 minutes with out traffic in a "driverless car", when it only takes 5 minutes with traffic in a regular car. The "driverless cars" are not really driverless all they can do is steer, accelerate, and brake, but the driver still has to do every thing else. Is the "driverless car" really worth wasting money that was earned by working hard? Americans are already struggling to find money, are they now just going to be broke because everyone wants a "driverless car".

We have laws for a reason, why would we change them just because someone watched back to the future where they had flying cars? The car manufacturers believe that states are going to overide the laws just because California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have passed a new law were "driverless cars" are only limited. Laws are put in to place for a reason, this particular law was put into place because no one really knows if "driverless cars" are safe. The text states, "Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that saftey is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times."

There are so many unanswered questions about "driverless cars". Do we really want to put something out in the streets that we hardly know anything about? Most people are scared when they do not know the basics of something.

According to the text,"If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-the driver or the manufacturer." Most people would not buy it if they can buy it get injured in an accident and it be their fault because the car is not safe.

Although the article has more evidence leading to why we should not have driverless cars, some might argue that it is fun to adventure. The "driverless car" would be a easy way out if you do not like driving, and can put enough faith into something you harldy know about. Some might argue that change is good, but change can sometimes be bad.

"Driverless cars" are something that people should not have. Why waste money on something that no one knows if it works or not? Is taking a risk better than being able to assure the safey of everyone? Car manufacturers should get all of the questions answered before they start selling "driverless cars". "Driverless cars" are something that should only be seen in movies.

Score: 4