In the article "Driverless Care Are Coming" the author presents to the reader a set of positive and negatibe aspects of driveless cars. The driveless cars are cars that do not need a huamn to drive/control the wheel while on the road. These cars are able to drive for you, and give you a better way of getting places safer and more effective. There are problems as well with the cars; shown in the paragrapghs below, you will see why driverless cars are not the future of cars.

"Driverless Cars Are Coming" made many great points on why driverless cars are a good for the people in the world, but they also stated some very good points on why it would not be. For example, in the article it says the cars are very expensive due to the work that would have to be done to the roads and the cars themselves for them to work corectly. In paragraph four it states "For starters, they needed a while lot of sensors." meaning that the car itself would need more added to make sure it was effective which technically cost more money. Not only is money an issue but the fact that driverless cars will taking the skill of driving away from people. As you get older you start to learn how to drive and get to learn all of the rules of the road, but with a driverless car you will most likely not have to learn how to drive. Not knowing how to drive leads to not learning the rules of the road which will lead to more accidents and lawsuits.

Drivelss cars are the future of cars. Yes, maybe, but as said in the article they still have not found a fully effective driveless car the does not need the help of a human when it comes close to danger or something unfamiliar. As said in paragraph seven "In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driveless." this shows that even with more developed technology they still have not made a fully effective driverless car. The whole point of a driverless car is so the person behind the wheel techinically does not have to drive. Another example is that the drivers must stay alert whcih makes the car even less of a big deal because as said before, the car is not technically driverless. If they want these cars to be the future they need to develope a truly effective car, not just a semi-effecive car.

Another reason why the driverless car is not a car that should be made is because with a driverless car there is no one technically to blame for an acident because the car was not driven by anyone but itself. In paragraph nine the article says "If technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver of the manufacturer?" this shows the car is only made to drive not to protect what is beyond. The manufacturer should be more invested on how to change the fact that it will not be one- hundred percent and change how safe the car actually is. An example that brought attention was in paragraph ten when the author of the article said "Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percebt of the time" still shows how the car is not truly a driverless car which means that the car name itself is false advertising. That wilol also lead to lawsuits becasue it is not what the consumer/buyer was looking for when they heard the name "driverless car".

The article "Driverless Cars Are Coming" made many great points on why or why not a driverless car is a good car. Reading the article there were many points that stood out about why the car would not be a good car, than to why it would be a good car. To sum up the driverless car is a car that still is not always effective which can bring harm to the people inside of the car and the people beyond the car. Driverless cars are taking away the fact that as a person driving is a skill you must learn, not just get it handed to you because you have a "driverless" car. To conclude the driverless car is not a good car and more people should not support the idea.