Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
In today's society technology is becoming much more advanced. Pretty soon, people won't ever need to touch a steering wheel again. However, does this seem like a good idea? We people are prone to distraction and companies aren't even sure who would be at fault if an accident were to occur. Would one want to pay his own medical bills when someone else should've paid for it instead?

We people, being human, have the tendency to become very distracted, some more than others. The driverless car is 90% autonomous, meaning that 90% of the time it can drive on it's own. The other 10% is manual, meaning that people need to be in control of the car. During that 90%, people would become so distracted. The article states, "Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over--something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone." Just because there is entertainment does not mean that people would use it. Some would prefer to stay on their phone or take a good long nap. Warning signs in the car that tell people when to drive might also be ignored as well. If someone falls asleep and is a deep sleeper, he might not wake up to a vibrating chair or flashing lights. Someone too involved in his phone might also not realize that he is needed to take control of the car if his mind is too focused on his device. Sometimes people become too involved in their own little world, and this would not be good when they are needed to drive.

The question being considered right now is, "who would be at fault if the technology failed and someone was injured?". It could go both ways. If the driver wasn't paying attention, then he would be responible for his own injuries. If that person had been alert and paying attention and the car malfunctioned, then the manufacturer would be at fault. There is no way to know though if the driver is actually paying attention. Since there's no way to see, if a driver had been alert they could easily be accused of not paying attention because there is no way for anyone to know but the driver. He would be paying his medical bills instead of the manufacturer. It is not fair towards people if they are accused for an incicident, but it is not their fault. If too many accidents occurred, companies would start to get sued and so would people as well. It wouldn't be too great for someone to get sued for an accident if it is not even his fault.

Although there are flaws, there are also advancements being made to fix those flaws. Manufacturers are trying to install cameras in the cars to make sure people are paying attentinon and not just dozing off. Also, it's not like the car has to be on autopilot the whole time. People can choose when they want to drive most of the time. If they don't want to drive but are needed to then they have no choice. These are all true, but that doesn't change the fact that people could still be blamed for accidents that are caused by car malfunctions and not themselves. It also doesn't change out natural instincts to text while we are needed to drive or to answer a call or jam out to the radio. Even when the car needs us to drive, we are still going to reach for our phones when it buzzes or turn up the radio, both of these being huge distractions for us.

The technological advances being made do not change our natural human instincts of distraction, or the fact that we could be blamed for something that was not even our fault. The driverless car may seem like a cool new way of living, but that does not mean it's danger free or 100% guaranteed to work all the time. It still has its own flaws just as we do, and sometimes technology can't fix that.

Score: 5