Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Driverless cars can have many different positive and negative aspects about it. Yet people only tend to look at the positive. A person's brain tends to "shut-off" after being told the good things that can come of something new, that they don't really hear the bad of the product. Salesmen use this same technique. Sure having a driverless car can have some purcks, it is still just a acciedent on wheels.

What is really the point of owning or even making a car that doesn't allow the driver to even drive? Especually when there are so many things that would have to change in order to make room for the new vehicle. The law was originally made and planned out for cars that are originally driven by humans, but once you get a car that can drive itself, then those laws will have to change. In paragraph 9 it clearly states that "even if traffic laws change, new laws will need in order to cover liability in the case of an accident". It proves that the laws would have to change, not only for traffic safety, but also what would and should happen in case one of those driveless cars were to malifunction and cause a serious accident. Even then who would be at fault? "If the technology fails and someone is injured, then who is at fault?" The manufacturer could be the at fault if it had to do with the malifuntion of the car's interior of the engine. Or it could be the driver's fault if he or she didn't properly check their car's buttons.

Yet the car would still be able to control itself so that the driver is allowed to do many other things. In the case , to say, that the driver has been drinking that night and is in no way in shape to drive for a certain amount to drive. The car can "handle driving functions of at speeds of 25 mph... they can steer, accelerate, and even break themselves" (paragraph 7). This just shows the car's many capabilities of what it can do. Also the car has a feature that can allow the driver to turn of the autopilot and allow the driver to take control in case it is needed. Since "the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern" (paragrph 8). This goes to prove that drivwers are safer in this type of car.

As safe as the car may seen, It can be a real challenge to not only operate it, but also it can just be a rea challenge in itself. Dr. Werner Huber, who is a BMW project manager, admits that "the psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge we have to interpret the driving fun in a new way" (paragraph 8). Even a BMW manager admits it's a challenge to handle such a car. Plus should the resoncibility of controlling a vehicle really be taken away from the people? Those who are learning or know how to drive should know that they should never have the privilage to be on the cell phone. People need to learn that their actions-such as drinking and driving or texting-do have concequences that they should learn from. In paragraph 8 it states how "something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone". Well that is something that no one should be doing in the first place. No wonder it wasn't available to drivers before.

Driveless cars should not be driven at all do to the fact that there are just to many risks that are being taken when such a car is being driven on the road. It just creates immature and irresponsible people and is too much of a hassle to deal with. Even for the Government. That is the reason why some states in the U.S. are making it illegal to even test the computer driven cars.

Score: 4