Driveress cars have developed a lot in advancing to their purpose, but it doesnt actually replace the driver. Many cars have been developed and tested to see if driverless cars reduce the amount of accidents. Accidents will always be something that will have to be considered. I do not support driverless cars because there will be argumental faultry when it comes to an accident, drivers actually have to be more dependent on the car, and the price of the car would not be accessible at first.

Who is really to blame for accidents that happen by driverless cars? Manufacturers certainly do not want to be blamed for something they did not do, but they did make the car. The driver does not want to be blamed for an accident that the "driver"less car did. If driverless cars are to actually happen, there will be a lot more lawsuits coming to the manufacturer becauase they did not actually follow through with the meaning of driverless cars. That is to be said that the manufacturer has to tell the buyer of the car all of the components that actually need to be taken into place to resist from getting into an accident. Therefore, if the driver actually has to do work to resist a "driverless" car from getting into an accident, then what is the point of buying a car that you will have to watch over and make sure no accidents actually occur?

Drivers now are actually driving the cars, meaning they are in control. When the driver is in control, they only have to watch over thereselves andthe driving of others. Defensive driving has been the tactic for many years to resist accidents. What would it be for driverless cars? To resist any accident you actually need to make sure your car is doing the right thing. The driver knows exactly how to drive and the calls to make when certain situations come into place, but the car does not really know much other than the computer telling it what to do when those situations come into action. Even in some situations, the car still needs help to carry out actions that need to take place. Driverless cars will not be driverless if the driver still needs to take actions for the car. People would not want their car to stop in the middle of a highway because their car does not know how to respond when another car is trying to merge into the same lane. There will always be flaws in the making for driverless cars. People now do not trust much on technology to take over their lives. Families are probably not going to buy these cars from the lack of reliability they have on computers and trusting a car with their family. Therefore, it should not be called driverless cars in the driver still needs to look after themselves and the car. People would rather just buy a normal car for which they can be in control and know they will not be getting into an accident.

Accidents are expensive, lawsuits are expensive, driverless cars will be expensive. With all the technology a driverless car would have, the price will go up. The technology is pricey itself, practically the whole car is made up of sensors and computers. Who is the driverless car targetting? The whole aspect of driverless cars is expensive. First off, these cars are not coming lower than hundred thousand dollars. Second of all, families normally target cars sixty thousand dollars and lower.

Third of all, everyday cars are making advancements meaning the prices of cars are not getting lower. It makes it hard for a family of four or five to try to buy a car with many advancements. It seems that the target group for driverless cars are mostly the upper class. Everday, prices go up or down, but driveless cars seems like another toy for the rich to have.

In conclusion, driverless cars does not seem like a good idea. Drivers are always going to be arguing with manufacturers, they are not given a leisure time, and they might not be able to afford them. Sometimes humans need to take matter into their own hands and not rely on technology for the rest of their lives. Driverless cars just seems to be one of them.