Now that technology is advancing greatly from the twenty-first century, topics such as driverless cars are now becoming an option. While there may be positive aspects of having driverless cars, in personal preference the negative out-weigh the positive.

For starters in the beginning paragraph the author of this passage is trying to persuade people to imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore. The sentence is in a way contradicting because there most likely will not come a time when no one will buy a car, they will always be around, just more efiicient and improved. Secondly in paragraph two sentence three it states that the car still alerts the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. The point of having driverless cars is so that the "driver" does not have to do any work, so by the driver having to be alerted whenever a problem happens is not so efficient as it may seem.

In paragrpah four and five the author seems to talk a lot about how the car will need a lot of this and that; such as needing "a whole lot of sensors." By needing all these supplies like video cameras being mounted near the rearview mirror. Right there is an error, if at any given time an accident or something were to happen and the driver needed to take over, how would she or he be able drive and look at the mirror or cars in the way if there is a camera in their way? The author also claims that the most important bit of technology in the system if the spinning sensor, and how it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroudnings, and the combination is necessary for the driverless cars to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel. While this may sound "cool" the author and creators of driverless cars forgot to mention how much money it would cost to make a driverless car, let alone for one, but over millions of cars? It would just be more efficient to make regular cars as they are made now, and save money.

Some people may argue that using regular cars just wastes gas, and etc, but people have already made cars using electricity rather than oil. Again in paragraph five the author says that "Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own." Well if people allow cars to drive on their own and have all these sensors and wires that would "mimic" the skills of a human driver, won't disfunctions go wrong somewhere along the way? Even today with technology it can't always be trusted, because something can always go wrong, and if you have a family in a driverless car and something were to malfunction... Not a great situation to be apart of. Yes it would take a lot of trying and the end result could be amazing and superficial, but it's not worth it.

In paragraph six when it is stated that no way before 2000 would anyone be able to make something intersting, and devices such as sensors, computers, and maping weren't there. That is completely agreeable with, but is making driverless cars the most efficient way to use those resources that we do have? Yet again there would be so many malfunctions that would occurr. Paragraph seven it is said that the car can handle driving functions up to 25 mph. That's not very helpful or useful for people who need to get places. Many driving signs are over 25 mph. Not very efficient there.

If someone was in a driverless car he or she would not want to have to worry about anything. "This means the human driver MUST remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires." (paragraph 7) The whole point of being in a driverless car is to not have to worry about anything, and staying alert is the last thing someone would want to do. It is as if that person is driving a car, so he or she might as well be driving. One thing that is mentioned which has botha positive and negative outlook on it is how GM developed seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger. Thar is a positive, yet one option is to have flashing lights on the windshield. Wouldn't having distracting lights on a windshield distract other people who could be potentially driving? That could then cause an accident and more problems.

This article does present the positive and negative views. Paragraph eight specifically states "Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?" The point that has been trying to be made across the entire time. Safety is a big concern, which is agreed, but having displays that signal when the driver needs to drive is not that great.

The idea of having driverless cars is magnificent and might come true as time and technology advances even more, but it is believed that it is too soon to have driverless cars.