The idea of a driverless car has always been the goal set for future technology. This is seen in the constant stream of futuristic movies or shows. However, those only convey the positive and idealistic aspects of such vehicles. The ignorance of the negative information associated with them causes a personal disbelief in the cars. Driverless cars should not be developed due to the overwhelming evidence including that development/testing is against the law in the majority of the world due to the idea of possible malfunctions or irresponsible road behavior from the passengers.

A vast majority of people agree that testing should not occur due to possible danger. The article "Driverless Cars Are Coming" speaks about how traffic laws are currently written to include human control of the vehicle in Paragraph 9. Furthermore, it talks about how limited the allowance of testing is. With a large scale rejection of such ideas it is wise to consider the fact that there is not just assumptions made by everyone. The article blatantly puts down the states who did not follow suit in allowing the tests. There was not any consideration of the majority possibly deciding this based on solid fact and the issues not yet addressed by the companies manufacturing the vehicles. So, the legality of the driverless cars is merely one point amongst a plethora of other issues.

One contribution to the rejection of testing is the possible malfunctions that could happen. All throughout the article the accidents in the future were expected. which is why the companies wish for the human assistance to be alert to "take over". However, when observing that statement closely the accident would be caused by the car itself due to the fact that it drove in such way. The weather could be an out of control factor involved and if the car does not drive in a way that considers that, then the fault is on the car. The same can be said for a car collision. If all of the vehicles in the world are driven by themselves, then it would be the cars that caused the collision. Paragraph 7 touches on the liability issues of situations similar to those mentioned. The issues surrounding the driverless cars are preventable by not producing them at all. That way there is no room for error when it comes to the safety of those on the road.

The manufacturers of the vehicle contradict themselves when it comes to the passengers involved. Paragraph 8 discusses making the driving fun by entertaining them. Whereas Paragraph 7 is about the driver taking over and the different functions to make them aware. The key to having the person aware of the dangerous situation is to not have them distracted in the first place. Plus that prevents any accidents if flaws in the warning system should occur. The reason there is a long lasting trust in human judgement on the road is that the people have a chance to take action quick enough. If they were not previously paying attention due to the driverless car then that chance is wasted by them attempting to figure out what the situation is in the first place. Eliminate the possibilty of that irresponsible lack of attention by having the person drive to begin with.

Driverless cars would allow too many flaws in the system and legality issues that prevent them for obtaining the title of a safter option. The manufacturers are attempting to make a car that is easier and requires less effort, but in doing so there is a plethora of issues that accompany it. The question of who is legally to blame for issues would waste time and money. During the process of development, the producers are accepting accidents as a given fact instead of trying to produce a flawless car. They are also focusing on the idea of a "entertaining car" instead of one that keeps the passengers alert for possible accidents. Therefore, there are too many arguments for safety against the vehicles to even consider mass producing them. The driverless cars are much safer on the big screen than in reality.