Based on the many differences of positive and negative comments towards the use of driverless cars, I wish to pick neither side in the disscusion.

I believe there are many reasons that driverless cars should take over the roads, but a handfull of reasons that driverless cars on our roads today would lead to dissaster.

To start off, there was a point made in paragraph one, where the author tells us that new smart cars or driverless cars would use half of the gas as todays taxis.

With this, there could be many things that move in a positive direction.

For example, if cars are running on half of the ammount of fuel that todays taxis use, then there is no doubt about the air polution in our cities and other countries being limmitted.

For years people have been trying to find ways to limit the air polution around us for future generations.

They want their kids to grow up in a health environment.

Here is one way to accomplish those disires.

However, if people want to start driving driverless cars, then the roads could become a lot more dangerous.

Yes there may be a decrease in the possibility for human error, but do people really trust computers, that break, to do a better job at a human job, than a human?

One of the big "no's" in using driverless cars is the cost.

As mentioned in paragraph three, the first step was seeing if modifying the roads would be a better option.

In my opinion, altering the roads to be formed into some kind of track would be the right way to go.

There is less of an opourtunity for collisions to happen if cars are on a track that has a certain path.

However, this is not an option because of the money.

It was said that "These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical."

Also, if smart-cars were to be made a universal product allowed on the roads, how much would they cost?

Who is to say they arent just as outrageously priced as the roads.

The author mentions almost everything about these driverless cars in his paper, except the cost of them.

With my experience I am driven to believe that the reasoning for this is the cars are so expensive that nobody would buy them anyways.

You could read the whole paper and then see the price and you wouldn't care if the cars drove themselves because you wouldn't be able to afford it anyways.

"Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?"

This sentence from paragraph eight is the basis for all driverless cars.

Supposedly, the car, when needing to get through tough places or navigate around construction, will alert the driver either by a vibrating seat or simply a voice command.

Sure this could be great!

You could let your car drive you around while you sit in the seat and text your friend or eat some food, but when doing so you are still putting yourself under a hunge risk.

If your car needs you to take over and your hands are covered in katchup and mustard from a hot dog you just ate and youre on youre phone and not paying attention, you are going to have a hard time reacting.

Where as if you were just driving the car, youre reaction time will be very fast and you will know what is oing on before it happens.

If youre in a driverless car and it swerves, you may grab the wheel, but have no idea where you are on the road or anything because you were too buys eating your hotdog and texting.

I believe that there are both good things and bad things that could come from having driverless cars.

For every good aspect of them, there is one equally as bad.