Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Driverless cars have been a theory for a while, but have never been brought to a reality. You can argue that they can be a valueable asset like the driving itself part but it would be way to expensive. Or the new fetures that are being added to newer car models. The fun in the traditional way of drving could be lost with all the new tech people are trying to develope for this new feture.

The ability for a car to drive itself has always been; so far nothing but a theory. But now people are actually trying to make this into a reality with starting from basic perks. The original theory was to build "smart roads" which used a so called simple algarithem of magnets with alternate polarities. This was suppose to be intended for the car to interpret like a binary code as stated in paragraph 3, but later it proved to be to expensive so they turned to a "smart car". Plus the cars needed to be equiped with state of the art sensor tech. that quite frankly wasnt available at the time the thought was originated.

On the other hand cars are being now equiped with the best sensor technology we have so far. For instance BMW announced the development of the "Traffic Jam Assistant". which it was a start to the self drivin car theory but still a ways to go. GM has also developed their own assistent system such as seat vibration when a vehical is in danger of backing into an object. They have also considered placing camaras to watch for unfocused drivers. Telsa has projected a 2016 release of a car that can drive on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan are planning to have cars like that release sometime in 2020.

Now i might sound alittle bias but the fun of traditional driving is a possibility of being lost in the new technological advancements. Most people, car lovers ect. could argue that this new self driving feature could only be a hassle. As stated in paragraph 8 "wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive". From my point of view I agree but lets just state the obvious, there has to be a consideration for the law. Would smart cars be able to drive without going on sidewalks, would they be able to recognize traffic lights or even traffic itself ? The question still remains on if an accident were to happen, who's fault would it be ? Would it be the driver's fault or the manufacturer ?

A lot is still un answered with the theory of the smart car like how people would enjoy it. Or the bigger question how much would it cost. But there are upsides to this such as possibly safer driving, less accidents, and even a better parallel parking.

Score: 4