Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
I disagree with the development of driverless cars because I think it's safer for a human to drive instead of technology. Humans are more aware of their surroundings and technology can only sense it's surroundings. If the technology is good and has been tested multiple times I still wouldn't want to be in one because something could always go wrong. The technology could get a virus and mess up or it could do something the person doesn't want it to do.

Manufactures had to use a lot of senser so that the car could move by itself. The Toyota Pruis uses all kinds of different sensors to make the car have the same skills as a human driver. But what if the sensors stop working? Then what will happen? If there was a accident nobody would know if it was the cars fault or the humans fault, it could be both. If it was the cars fault for causing an accident I wouldn't want have another driverless car and it would be a lot safer for everybody to have human drivers. Manufactures are trying to make sitting in the car more fun by putting entertainment devices in the car while the driverless car is driving. I think that is going to be a huge distraction in the car for the humans. They say if the humans wants to drive then the entertainment will automatically shut off. But what if it doesn't shut off? If the entertainment doesn't shut off then the human driver will be distracted by it and it could cause an accident.

I think it would be better and safer for every car to have a human driver because you can't alway trust technology. So many things go wrong with technology nowaday's and people don't see that as a big deal, but they will see it as a big deal when they trust technology to drive them around and they get into an accident. I wouldn't want technology driving me around because technology isn't always perfect and it just can't be trusted driving people places on the road.

Score: 3