Driverless cars should not be developed into an actual invention. For their are many negative reasons why they shouldnt be. A driverless car is a pointless waste of time.

For a driverless car to be driver less it must not have a driver. Well according to paragraph 7 it states," In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themeselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents, this must mean the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requres." Why develope driverless cars that still need driver? Secondly, in paragraph for the list the gear mounted on the car. " Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-

estimiating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview miror, four auto motive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technolopgy in this syster is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR." A regular car requires simple parts at times such as a spark plug or a new battery perhaps some oil. If every car was to be replaced by driverless cars, who would have to pay for replacement parts the owner or the manufactuer. I guarantee you none of those parts are remotely cheap. Currently out of the various models of driverless cars one with potential was started by engineers at Berkeley, but their model requires roads to be updated as well with magnets to alternate polarity. That would be alright but it would be an unpractical amount of money that taxes wouldn't help pay for much.

So in conclusion, due to the fact of the lawful consequences in case of an accident, high cost replacement parts and the unpractical amount of money for the updating of roads for driverless cars doesnt seem all the much worth it in the long run. Plus is it really safe to let computers drive a potentially deadly vehicle.    