I don't think it is a great idea to create driverlesses cars. There is no point in it you should be able to drive yourself where ever you need to go. When you still have a driverless car you should still be focused on the road anyways. If we go to driverlesses cars the article states will have to change some laws up too.

One reason we shouldn't have driverless cars is because we still need a driver in the car. In the article states that "human drivers must remanin alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires." If a driver still has to be prepared to drive we shouldn't have driverlesses cars because we still have to drive the car anyways, so there really wouldn't be a big change.

Another reason we shouldn't have driverless cars is becasue we still need to be in contro l of our vechicals. The article says "if the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer?" This shows to use that we really shouldn't rely on this technology. If something happens we won't know what to blame it on and it just becomes a bigger deal.

Finally, these cars are going to be expensive that not very many people are going to be able to afford them. In the text it includes that a radar devices on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. If we need this devices to go in the cars the car is going to be very pricy were mostly no one will even have a driverless car.

In conclusion, we should just stick to the regualr cars we have now. They run really good and take us where we need to be. To have driveless cars its going to cost us a ton of money, and we won't be able to rely on it very well. An addition to that were still going to have to have a driver in the car so there's not very a good point to invest in these cars.