Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Driverless cars are not fully driverless, the car would be spying on people, and more laws would have to be made, therefore I am against the "driverless" cars. This world is already currapted with technology and do we really need more? Somethings, like cars, do not need to be touched with more tecnology. It's better if we just let some things be, like how they are. Also, they would need to come up with a new way of intertain the driver.

Driverless cars are not fully driverless. The humans in the car still need to remain alert of whats going on around them. They still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues. All of the "driverless" cars are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and accidents. None of the cars developed so far are fully driverless.

The "driverless" cars need a whole bunch of sensors. Such as a special touch sensors to make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. They need cameras on them to project things in 3D form. Also, manufactures are considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver. That is a vailation of privacy. So therefore, the car is spying on you while you drive.

For these new "driverless" cars new laws woould have to be made. There are already so many laws for alot of things. Who wants more laws? Traffic laws are already written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. If traffic laws change, still new laws will be needed in order to cover lability in case of an sccident. If technology fails and someone is injured, no one would no if it was the manufacturer or if it was the driver.

Score: 3