Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
A future when no one has to drive sounds almost to good to be true. Cars that can drive you where you want to go and then move on to the next passenger would save time and resources. But can they eliminate the human driver without causing unforeseen problems? Although driverless cars may be helpful far off in the future, the cars do not have the interpretation skills or laws they need to be safe and effective.

As nonrenewable resourses diminish and people become busier, the market for new driverless cars will expand pushing the automotive industry to come up with driverless cars. Cars that can pick up passengers and take them where they need to go will help use less fossil fuels. After dropping off their passengers, they can pick up new passengers decreasing the time they are traveling without anyone in them like taxis and would, according to Sergey Brin, "use half the fuel of today's taxis" (1). Also, for busy people they would decrease driving time allowing for the passengers to work or relax during their trip. With all these benifits, people wonder why we do not have driverless cars already.

Even with the positive possibilities of driverless cars, they should not be put into mass use because they lack the interpretation skills needed to drive on the roads which could cause wrecks and lead to miscommunication with others on the road. All of the sensors crammed into these cars do a great job collecting information for the car, but the car can not interpret its surrounding the way a human can. If the car ever runs into something it has not been programmed to react to it will either stop causing a major backup or go right into the hazzard, creating a wreck that other cars may run into. Humans, on the other hand, can react to the things they have never seen before and do what is nessisary to avoid a wreck while keeping traffic flowing. In a future with driverless cars, if there are still cars with human drivers, how will they communicate. Even while using the rules of the road, what if someone ways on another person and the driverless car thinks it can go. Misscommunication could be deadly, which makes one wonder about what laws would be in place for diverless cars.

The laws for driverless cars are not to the point they would need to be for these cars to run freely on the streets. The courts would be a mess of owners and manufacturers placing fault on each other. As the author points out, if there is an accident, "who is at fault" (9). If you get rear ended by a driverless car, do you collect the money from the manufacturer or the owner of the car? These laws would have to cover both driverless cars hitting driverles cars and regular cars. The time to make all these laws will take quite awhile and then have to be edited as situation arise that had never been considered before. In addition the laws to create one massive driverless car fleet for everyone to use would take years of planning. Can you use a car to get to florida? What if you need to haul animals somewhere or spill a drink in the driverless car? All these answers will have to come before a fleet of driverless cars.

While driverless cars could be benificial, they have a long way to come in interpretive technology and laws before they can come onto the streets. In the future as driverless cars get more technology and laws made for them, they may be useful, but right now they are only a thing of the future.

Score: 5