In paragraph 2 it was stated that Google cars aren't truly driverless. Also in paragraph 7 it was said that none of the cars developed so far are completly driverless and humans need to stay alert to take over the wheel. Finally in paragraph 9 it asks who would be responsible if technology fails. I'm against driverless cars.

Humans need to know how to drive a car for simple actions. In paragraph 2 it says divers sometimes need to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as roadwork or accidents.

Stated in paragraph 7 none of the cars developed so far are completly driverless and humans need to stay alert. Human need to know how to drive a car incase technology fails or an emergency. If a human doesn't know how to drive a car and relies on the car and you're in a dangerous situation, then the driver and passengers are most likely to be killed. A human needs to know how to navigate through work zones and around accidents. The Google Car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over.

Safety is the number one most important thing when being in a car. It's the drivers job to make sure everyone in the car and themself is safe. If someone is injured or technology fails, who is at fault- the driver or the manufactuer? Trafiic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times.

I'm against driverless cars because Google cars aren't truly driverless, humans need to stay alert to take over the wheel, and who would be responsible if technology fails.