My position on driverless cars are positive because it can help people who have disability and it can save time. They will use half the fuel and are more flexable. But they sometimes aren't fully driverless because it will still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as finding a way through roadwork or accidents. In 2013, the Toyota Prius had sensors, a video camera, GPS reciver, and a intertial motion sensor. All of this combined is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel. Antilock brakes and driver assistance were impossible because at the time they did not have the right tecnology and the project costed two hundred million dollars, it wasn't something you can buy at Radio Shack. Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? There should be a new fun way, like in-car enterainment and informatation systems that use head-up displays. They can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over---something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. The in-car system is a safety feature and safety is a big concern. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will been needed in order to cover lability in the case of an accident. If the tecnology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault?--the driver or the manufacturer? Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be sovled. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day.