Although the idea of Driverless Cars is very intriging and innovative, I see more negative than positive aspects in this article. I do agree that "such cars would fundamentally change the world", but not for the same reasons as stated. The article does pose a few good questions. In the inevitable event of an accident by a technology fail who would be at fault? The driver or the manufacturer? These are all things that could simply be avoided by Driverless Cars not coming to market.

Not only is this whole concept outragously dangerous, but the question of liability also has to come into play. In the event of an accident where technology fails and someone is injured someone would have to figure out who is at fault, the driver or the manufacturer. You could say that it was the drivers choice to get in the car and let it drive itself, but the manufacturers were at the origin of the problem. These are all things innocent people would not have to go through. In paragraph 9 of the article it says, "Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars." If it is illegal in most states to even test computer-driven cars, how would it be smart to drive them?

In my opinion, saying that these Driverless Cars are dangerous is a huge understatement. These could potencially cost hundreds or even thousands of lives if relesed to market for purchase. Why even try something this risky when the repercussions could be so big?