Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
When trying to mass produce smart, driverless cars you need stupid people that hate the world to make up some stupid reason as to why you can't possibly have overly used, technological cars.

My position on driverless cars is I think they are making you seem as though you are not knowlegable enough to drive like a normal human being. "Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter carsbut how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors." They are telling us that we clearly can't make smart roads. Is there actually such thing as a smart road without the use of modern technology to make the roads smart? No. Why are they saying that roads aren't smart? It's not like we can make concrete have a sustainable life to get it an education and to become smarter.

However, on how technlogically advanced we are getting we might just have some cars that can drive themselves. That would be pretty awesome in my opinion, but that is also telling us that we need to have fewer brain cells on how to operate a car. "Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times." his is telling us that at least one human needs to be in the car at all times to insure that the car doesn't do something stupid. When humans don't need to drive I could see a lot more accidents happening than when we were actually driving and had the knowlege on how to drive and be safe on the roads.

In conclusion the big car companies are still going to try to be the first ones to make a self driving car. When they do make the first car I want to see the car not get in a wreck within the first month of a teen driving it to change my opinion if they get in more wrecks or not.

Score: 2