In today's world, technology continues to advance constantly as human inventiveness increases. Many previously unimaginable ideas such as drones and hoverboards have became realities. Another one of thes enthralling ideas is the proposal of a driverless car. These cars are thought to end the need for huamns to ever touch a steering wheel. However, driverless cars are proving to be an unwarranted creation with remaining human requirements and legal ramifications.

While driverless cars promise to remove the need for human driving, the flaws in their programming still require humans directing the car. One would expect a driverless car to have developed computers that can sense how to deal with accidents and zones of construction. The ability to deal with common issues in the motorized world would be assumed a definite in a computerized car. However, the "driverless" cars still require humans to deal with construction, accidents, and sudden lane shifts. Promises of "driverless" are negated by the requirement of human knowledge to adjust the car to the relatively trivial obstacles of motor vehicle operation. Because humans are still needed in driverless cars, the need and desire for the technology of the future is negated by the inability to deal with the present world.

Driverless cars also present obstructions in the legal system of today's government. A strong majority of the United States of America have laws put in place that restrict the developement and production of computerized automobiles. By owning a driverless car, the owner of the car can find trouble with local officials in the area. These driverless cars also present a dilema with the legal procedures of automobile accidents. If a driverless car were to malfunction and cease power, then an accident would certainly occur. When these accidents involving driverless cars do happen, the dilema of blame will face those involved. Was the accident caused by a faulty driverless car that still requires humans? Was it caused by a human owner who failed to observe the mechanical soundness of the driverless car? The liability can not truly be placed on one source or another, for judgement is impaired by the different signals the car is receiving. A human or a computer chip causing the car accident is not what matters in this dilema. What does matter is preventing this dilema by exterminating the existence of driverless cars in the first place.

When Henry Ford first brought modernized automobiles to American markets, there was no thought of how far these cars will evolve. However, a precedent of human control over the automobiles was set by the introduction of the first Model T. As a society we find ourselves in a world Ford could have never imagined. Cars have become much safer and more technical than Ford ever could have dreamt. However, a crucial intersection has now been reached in the history of the automobile. As a society we must ask ourselves the critical questions: Are driverless cars that can't drive themselves really worth it? Are all of the possible safety and legal ramifications worth no longer having control over the automobile? For the generations to come, society must make a stand now against these "driverless" cars which fail their name and pose legal and safety risks that Ford never intended to be an issue.