Driverless Cars Are Coming

"Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore?" "Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets pf driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system." Would you be for or against the idea of " Driveless Cars"

I am against "Driveless Cars." The reason I am against "Driveless Cars" is first, the amount of money you would have to spend to get a "Driveless Car". Second, the person wanting a "Driveless Car" will still have to do the amount of work you would do driving a regualar car. Thrid, if an accident occours , as if the technogly fails you would get blammed for the accident not the manufacturer because you caused it. The reason I am against "Driveless Cars"is because first, the amount of money you would have to spend to get a "Driveless Car." Second, the person wanting a "Drivless Car" will still have to do the amount of work you would do driving a regular car. Third, if an accident occours, as if the technogly fails you would get blammed for the accident not the manufactuerer because you caused it not the.

The first reason I am against "Driving Cars" is because the amount of money you would have to spend to get a "Drivless Car." If you think about it, the "Driveless Car" includes a "sensors, computers, maps, video cameras, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor." The amount of money for all those qualties listed above will be extremley expensive. You would have to pay more because of all the techinuqes, and of all the objects they conclude, then buying a regular basic car. Youre spedning more money then what you think you are. The company buliding these "Driveless Cars" are spending about "two hundred million dolars." You're going to have to give in, in some of that money that the company is spending to make "Driveless Cars". This is my first reason on why I am against "Driveless Cars."

The second reason I am against "Driveless Cars" is because the person wanting a "Driveless Car" will still have to do the amount of work you would do drving a regular car. In paragraph seven the author states that " This means the human driver must remain alret and be ready to take over when the situation requires." The situation would requrie - steering, acelerating, and braking themselve. Also you would still need a driver. wouldn"t you get bored? You may be prepare to take over if something occoured. You would still have to flash your lights if you wanted to turn. This is my second reason on why I am agianst "Drivless Cars."

The thrid reason I am against "Driveless Cars" is if an acciden occours, as if the technogly fails you would get blammed for thre accident no the manufacturer because you caused it not them. In paragraph eight the author states"Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers,passangers, and pedestrains safe, and lawmakers know that saftey is best acheved with alret drivers." Most states its illeal to test drive "computer-driver cars." If the "Drivless Cars" stoped working at an instant or if the technogly messed up and you hit someone it would be your fault. The reason it would be yoir fault is because you caused it, you hit whatver you hit. Not the manufacturer. So then again you would be paying more money to repair what you hit.

This concludes my argument for or aginast the develoment of "Driveless Cars" I am against "Driveless Cars" because first, the amount of money you would spend to get a "Driveless Cars" Second, the person wanting a "Driveless Car" will be still be doing the amount of work driving a reguar car. My thrid reason, is if an accident occours, as if the technolgy fails it would be your fault not the manufacturer because you caused it not the maufacturer. These are the reason on why I am against "Driving Cars." Now " Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore?"