Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Even though, driverless cars are a big part in technolgy evolving, and a major dream for the future, I can further elaborate my argument through quotes, word choice and proven data.

I do not think that driverless cars should be on the road after reading this article. I am 100% against "driverless" cars. Although it does give drivers a break and gets people where they have to go, these cars are not truly driverless. The cars still require for the human to stay awake and alert in case of an emergency. There are emergencies EVERYDAY. If a car is not able to maneuver around traffic on it's own, then it does not need to be called a driverless car. A driver is still needed, and if a driver weren't I would disagree more because letting a car have full control is ludicrous. I don't think that there can be a good solution to this problem. Though problem/solution writing mode is appropriate in this case I do feel as if there is no solution but to end driverless cars. There are more problems that can occur just because we don't want to drive anymore.

Driverless cars also need smart roads. The article says "These smart road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical." The statement is saying that these roads helped the cars run better but due to money it couldn't replace regular roads. I think that is a big strike. That would be like using Apple headphones with an Android phone. Although they would still work and you could hear the music, it won't be as loud, it will have a higher chance at breaking and it's quality is poorer. This shows lack of realism, if the smart roads work well then it should be mandatory to put the two together. Realistically, roads have been around for a long time and you can't put new technology on that and expect great results. Or even hope it works out, then thats being a surrealist.

Lastly, laws would have to be changed. Which would mean if there are accidents depending on the case either the car company or the driver would be liable. But these cars are supposed to be driverless. So why is the human involved? The article states " Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times". Meaning that the definition of a safe car would change. Which would compliacte things because it some states you wont be able to do this beacuse it is illegal. So if laws are changed after a long period of time, people would relocate just to use these cars, Politically, this would be a big deal. This is the safety of citizens on the roads and they aren't even driving. There is already enough going on with drunk driving and texting while driving so what if a driver is preoccupied to this exact thing in the driverless car? This will cause many questions to pop up and will not be a quick and easy process. This can relate to Bloom's Taxonomy analyazing and evaluating. The government will have to evaualte the situation and the data in order to be fully informed. Then, analyze the situation and form a strong opinion to discuss thouroughly to come to a conclusion.

In conclusion, driverless cars do no need to be on the road. In my opinion, they are not correctly named, and the bad outweigh the good. Although it was a good idea, I dont feel like it has worked up to it's full potential with all the flaws. In the end, these cars need to go back to the drawing board or just need to be given up on.

Score: 4