I am against the idea of drverless cars. Technology is making our nation lazy. We have computers that think for us, radios that can read for us, calculators that count for us, and now we are creating cars that drive for us. It's unacceptable how we as a nation depend so heavily on technology to do everything for us. If technology is taking over everything, I would atleast love to keep my ability to drive. Driverless cars isn't such a brilliant idea anyway. Before we really begin to consider using this new advancement in transportation we should think of the best ways to insure safety. For instance with driverless cars how can we be sure that the person in control of the car won't feel the need to text and drive; if there is a malfunction in the car and the driver isn't eligible to respond in time to avoid an accident it can lead to many deaths or injuries. In driverless cars I'm guessing they would run on electricity, if the car short circuits and catches fire with a passenger inside, how can the manufacturer create a way for the passenger to exit the car before it exploids. The article stated that driverless cars are not completely driverless, they still need assistance from a human to take control during traffic issues such as an accident. The article also stated that safety is best achieved with alert drivers, making a car that drives for the driver makes it more of a challege for the driver to find a reason to stay alert. I believe the idea should hold off until we have a way to make sure there aren't any real concerns of safety. At the rate that technology is advancing I am more than positive that we will have driverless cars before the turn of the century. But I feel as though we are trying to walk before we crawl, we are missing important steps that will make sure driverless cars are necessary. There are still laws that need to be passed, and how do we know that driverless cars won't in some way negatively affect the regular cars that people who can't afford driverless cars.