Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Who doesn't like the idea of sitting back, sipping on your coffee while reading the paper as your car whisk you to your destination? Sadly, as wonderful as it may sound, that is not the case with "Driverless Cars." Driverless cars are not really a grand idea as they may seem because even though they say that they are driverless and are suppose to be safe, you must always be alert when driving them, there is a chance that the car maybe unsafe, and without a doubt, they are more than likely going to be expensive.

These suppose driveless cars are said to only handle driving functions at speeds up to twenty-five mph, but it carries sensors that make sure that the driver keeps hold of the wheel. And although the car is designed to be able to steer, accelerate, and brake for themselves, it is designed to notify the driver when it requires human skills on a road ahead. Which then require the driver of this "driverless car" to be alert at all times and be ready to take the wheel at any moment. This makes the term driverless car pointless.

Having to always be alert while being in a driverless car isn't the worst thing in the world and it isn't the only thing that people have to worry about. In many states they have banned the use of computer driven cars because they believe that humans are the only safe drivers. Although in many cases this may not be true, a human driver seems more truthworthy than a computer that may or may not short circut at any moment. Humans seem to be more reliable but if people ever see to change their minds and laws change, it will still come down to one question as stated in the text, "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault - the driver or the manufacturer?

Other than these cars being unsafe, what most people seem to not realize is that these cars are going to probably cost them an arm and a leg. Seeing as how these smarter cars are suppose to be smarter and more high tech. Which leads to the next question, what makes a "smarter car" smarter? Well according to the passage Google had modified a car to use position estimating sensors on a left rear whieel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a gps receiver, an intertial motion sensor, and a dubbed LIDAR, not including the things inside the car. This all sounds like materials that cost quite a bit of cash and as time progresses and technology improves, so will the sensors and as things get better, the preformence will go up but so will the value, making the car more expensive to make.

Ultimately, these smarter, driverless cars, don't seem so smart or so driverless because they still require a driver to be alert, they don't seem so safe, and they will probably cost a ton of money. So they require a drivers assistance everytime it can't do anything on its own, making the name driverless car pointless. Another human being would seem more trutworthy behind the wheel than a computer. Then lastly they probbaly cost more than a colege students yearly tuition. Need there be more said about why driverless cars are just a bad idea?

Score: 4