How would you feel if you pulled up to a stoplight, and the person next to you was in the front seat, but wasn't driving? It would seem odd at first, but unfortuantely, there is a very good chance that that is the way things could be in the near future. Personally, I do not think that driverless cars should be invented. However, there are people that think that being able to go somewhere in a car without having to actually drive it would be a great idea. Driverless cars are not a good idea, because the cars may be more expensive since they are driverless, there could be malfunctions since the car would be made of new technology, and the people in the car would have to know when to be paying attention, in case of an emergency.

The first negative effect of having driverless cars, is the fact that the cars would probably be more expensive. Since the technology to make the cars would be expensive, the cars might be expensive themselves. If the cars are too expensive, no one would want to buy them unless they had a lot of money. Also, if not enough people are buying the cars, they might have to get discontinued eventually. If the cars had to get discontinued, everyone who already had one of those cars would be in hot water, becuase car repair people would not be able to fix their cars. This now leads me into my second reason why driverless cars should not be made.

What if the car has malfunctions? If there isn't an actual person driving the car, they won't be able to control the speed. The person will just have to trust the car to drive itself, and hope that it doesn't mess up, and accidently over accelerate and cause an accident. If the car did mess up while driving and caused an accident, someone would have to figure out whose fault it is. The article "Driverless Cars are Coming," made a good point by mentioning that if there is an accidnet, whose fault would it be - the driver or the company who made the car? There would defintiely be a big legal case to arise considering that the "driver" isn't technically driving the car.

The final reason that driverless cars should not be made, is because people would have to be able to learn to control the car. However, a positive thing about having driverless cars is that people would not need to take drivers ed anymore, but with a driverless car, you would still have to learn the ways of road. You would still need to be paying attention on the road. Just because your car would be driverless, doesn't mean that everyone's car would be driverless. For instance, if a wreck occured and you weren't paying attention in your driverless car, you wouldn't know whose fault it was, or if there was a way you could have stopped the wreck from happening. Going back to the text, the article mentions in paragraph seven that "This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires."

To conclude, driverless cars should not be created. Driverless cars is a situation where the bad outweighs the good. There might be some positives to having a driverless car, but driverless cars seems to risky. With accidents happening, because people are not paying attention to their driverless car is not something I want to be involved in. Driverless cars are not the best idea, because they could possibly be more expensive than our regular cars, they could possibly have malfunctions to put the "driver" and others at risk, and the "driver" may not have to take drivers ed, but they would have to learn how to work their new car, which means that they would need to be paying attention. A driverless car is not something that I would invest in, but I could see them becoming popular in the near future.