I am agaisnt the devlopment of these cars. What would be the point of having a driveless car thats not really driveless. I am agaisnt the devlopment of these cars because it would be very expanisve to fix, does most thngs a human can do and driving problems may occur.

First, if the car was to break down and the sensors were messsed up it would be very expanisive to fix. According to the article, "Totyota Prius uses position estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS reciever and an interial motion sensor'. If you were to get into a bad car crash and wrecked the car and wanted to get it fixed it will be super expansive. Mainly because all though sensors are high tech and advanced. So basically your fixing the car and paying for all the technology it needs which is going to be alot of money.

Secondly, the "driveless" car does mainly what humans can do theirselves. In the article it says after all the listed sensors, " The combination of all this input is neccessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel". It also says later in the article, "They can steer, accelertae, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents". If this "driverless" car can do what humans can do themselves then what is the point of making the car. Ecspically not if the car isnt really driving. Someone would pay all this money to do something they could have done themselves.

Lastly, with this "driverless" car driving problems may occur. technology does crash and does disfuction and may move faster than us. In the article it says, "even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault the driver or manufactuer?" The article makes a valid point. If those cars a developed those type of questions will need to be answered and conflict will occur. Technology can cause an accidnet just as easily as a human can but if that happens who is at fault? How would the situation be handled?

In conclusion, I am agaisnt the developmnent of "driveless" cars. For the three reasons listed and more. "Driveless" cars are expanisive to fix, does most things a human can do and can cause more problems.