Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Driverless cars used to be just a dream. Now that we have the technology to make "driverless cars" there seem to be more and more of a concern as to how these cars could be completely driverless. I am against driverless cars because the cars aren't completely driverless, there will have to be new laws made for these vehicles, and there would be confusion for who to blame.

In the article, the author gave examples as to how the cars were given features that'd make them seem driverless. There were, of course, radar features and motion sensors, but at the end of the day the author of the artilce said, "..None of the cars developed so far are completely driverless." Now of course they can still do the things needed to drive i. e. steer, speed up, and break, but there are still special sensors made to make sure that the driver still has their hands on the wheel. The author of the article then says, "This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires." Meaning that the driver must be focused at all times.

Other than the fact that the cars aren't completely driverless, there would have to be new laws added for this new technology. In the ninth paragraph the author says, "Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe...traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times." This means that the laws now do not include anything regarding driverless cars, basically making them illegal to put on the road. Now they will have to go through a long process of making laws for these new types of cars.

Not only is there a problem with the cars not being completely driverless and that there would have to be new laws made for them, but who would be to blame if there is an accident? In the ninth paragraph of the article, it says, "...even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault--the driver or the manufacturer?" There would be too much confusion for the lawmakers and everyone else if there was an accident because although the manufacturers made the car, there was still a driver in the driver's seat, so who is to blame? This would cause a lot of conflict in court cases if there were accidents and someone was to be sued.

To conclude this essay, I am against driverless cars because the cars aren't completely driverless, there will have to be new laws made for these vehicles, and there would be confusion for who to blame. The idea of driverless cars is a great idea, indeed, but there would be just too much confusion and conflict regarding these.

Score: 4