In the article, "Driverless Cars Are Coming," there are several given arguments to support whether the development on these cars are positive or negative. In my opinion, I think that the development of this futuristic concept is more negative and outweighs much of the positives.

Beginning with paragraph two, it states that Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific directions since 2009. I have one question regaurding that statement and that is, if these cars have been around for seven years already, why are they not the main source of transportation yet? The only answer to that is that these cars are not the most efficient way of transportation. In paragraph three, the author states that the "smart-road system", the only way for these driverless cars to travel, would require massive upgrades to existing roads. If we are being practical, it would not be possible for every road to be rebuilt so that it is sustainable for these driverless cars to operate on. In addition to that, how would we travel in the meantime while the roads are being rebuilt? It is simply not practical to do that with our busy societies today.

In paragraph four, it states that manufacturers soon realized that the development of smarter roads weren't going to be possible, so they turned to smarter cars. Although this is a little more realistic, there are still several flaws in this idea. Technology is not always a reliable source, and that is exactly what these manufactureres are doing-trusting technology. They're trusting these sensors in the cars to drive and operate smoothly without any human assistance. No matter how high-tech these cars are, there is always a chance of risk. You might argue that humans driving have just as high of a risk, but if you look at paragraph seven, it mentions that although these cars do not need human assistance, the driverless cars can not detect crashes or road construction like humans can. They have installed a warning system that lets humans know when they need to take over, which means that the humans must stay alert of the driving at all times. I think that this defeats the purpose of having a "driverless car" if you have to be prepared to take over once your vehical is headed towards something unfamiliar. In paragraph seven, it also mentions that the cars will have cameras built in to watch the driver to make sure that they are paying attention to the road at all times. Yes, this is safer, but again, it defeats the purpose of having a car that doesn't require a driver.

With that said, in paragraph eight, the author says that sitting in a driverless car, not having anything to do, could get boring so they are planning on programming entertainment sources in the car. In my opinion, I think that if the driver is supposed to be paying attention to the road, then the sources of entertainment in the car could potentially be a distraction to the driver and take their attention away from the road.

Although there are a few positives to these "driverless cars", such as saving fuel, the negatives outweigh the postivies. I believe that our society is safer and better off with normal functioning vehicals than getting into a car that comes with more possible risks.