Imagine this scenario: a person is faced with the future--new developments that may lead into the next era of technology. The question now is, should that person deny it or gladly accept it? If that person were me, I'd take it, as there is no point in staying the past and be outdated, and this is exactly how I see driverless cars. The problem now becomes, however, whether this technology is "the future" or not. In this essay I will discuss why cars are the future and thus, why I support them by covering the topics of efficency, error, and why some critics' are misguided in companion with "Driverless Cars Are Coming".

To start, energy is being consumed in our world at a rapid rate, and much of it comes from sources that are nonrenewable once depleted like the oil used in many cars. Many have seen the solution to switch to alternative energy sources that ARE renewable; however, this does not actually address the bulk of the problem. The problem is actually efficency. To demonstrate this, for power to reach a house from a faraway power plant, much more electricity is generated than needed as to make sure it can travel the long distance in cables without losing so much charge that the current becomes weak and useless, and a logical fix for such a problem would be to simply figure out a way to move the power source closer as to achieve higher efficencies. This same logic applies to cars in traffic, which use a lot of fuel to do essentially nothing. When I saw in the article "Driveless Cars Are Coming" that Google cofound Sergey Brin--who must be very intelligent as he IS the cofounder of Google, a very widely known and used company--said that these cars would use half the fuel of today's taxis AND offer far more flexibility than a bus, my only logical reaction was that this is a wonderful technology.

Transitioning to errors, a common theme of accident tragedies is the one where a person is texting and driving leading to distractions that cause the accident. This is not the only cause of accidents, though, as humans are not made to be perfect, small errors also cause accidents, but despite the wide range of things that may cause an accident, driverless cars can cover a person for that as well. My first piece of evidence for this is that driverless cars are machines, and despite having a notoriously bad reputation for failing at times due to some error during the design process, machines do not tire and do not grumble about watching their surroundings; they also need not be perfect, only better than a person to become favorable as a driver. My second piece of evidence comes from, once again, "Driverless Cars Are Coming" when it was stated that "enetertainment and information systems that use heads up displays [...] can be turne doff instantly when the driver needs to take over [in the case that the car senses that its own computing devices are not enough to handle a situation]". This system appealed to me a lot due to how intuitive it is; if a person shouldn't be using something, it turns off, no questions asked. All of these factors further lead me to believe that cars are "the way of the future".

Finally, despite all of these factors there are both criptics and critics for driverless cars. Some reasons usually brought up that haven't been addressed yet are the issues of laziness with the animated movie WALL-E coming to mind and perhaps the hacking of the systems that run these driverless cars, which is equally terrifying. The second concern being the easier and simpler of the two to address, hacking is commonly a misunderstood phenonenon. The aboslute requirement for all hacking is access to the device that someone wishes to hack usually through some internet connection on the device linked to other functions. This is easily remedied through the use of local software on the driverless car, cutting it off from the internet as well as making the entertainment and information systems independent of the driving system. Getting back to the first issue about laziness, people are still sitting down whether in a driverless car or a conventional car and that these cars will likely be extremely expensive with all the added sensors for the foreseeable future, encouraging walking as an alternative to money as well as creating a walking trend so that when these technologies are cheaper, laziness would not become a problem.

To wrap it up, I support and adore the idea of driverless cars as they are a way to support using energy more efficently rather than going out of the way to make new sources of energy; they are a way to reduce the unnecessary ending of lives as well as unecessary drama from automobile accidents (especially for me since I'm a very accident prone person); and last but not least, they are a way to promote regular walking and get automobile internet security right. After looking through all of this, I can say for certain that driverless cars will certainly be a huge advantage to our society if only we'd give them a chance because after all, everything deserves a chance and a second for making up for its mistakes.