Driverless cars are starting to make it into the world. These cars have chips and different items that allow the car to drive alone, but will tell the the driver that he/she needs to take over the wheel when the car can not make it through a sitution. These cars are a bad idea for the world and can be very dangerous. The cars have a self driving system and tell the driver to take the wheel when needed, but what if the driver has fallen asleep or has had something happen to them, they will not be able to take control of the car. Therefore, self driving cars are a bad idea for the world.

Driverless cars do not allow the world to be driverless. People will still have to drive the cars when something happens that the car can not handle. The article states, "Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash," but what if that next mile something in the car goes wrong and the car crashes. Google explains how their cars are not completey driverless. The cars will alert the driver to take over when the car can not handle the sitution that they are in. So, what is the big difference between someone driving the cars full time or having a car that drives itself unless something happens?

There is no difference when it comes to picking the right choice. The driveless car is a fault and can not keep people safer on the roads. People could eaisly get unfocused and not pay attention to the warning sign that the car gives to take over. If the car tells the driver so many times to take over the driver could get use to the signal and not pay attention when the signal goes off. For these cars to work they way they have to work "they [need] a whole lot of sensors." What would happen of the builder of the car forgets to put a sensor in, or one of the sensors does not get programed the right way? Then when the car is driving something happens because a sensor was not placed or had a default. Then who will the blame be placed on? The driverless car or the actual driver who was told by a sign that they needed to take over, but the sign never came because a sensor was missing. The world would most likely believe that the driver was not paying attention and that it is their fault.

Now the car does have some really nice features, but can these features live up to the name? The cars have "sensors [that] can cause the car to apply breaks on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine," that is a nice feature but again what if the sensor quits working. The whole idea of a driverless car is a good idea until a person finds out that they must trust sensors to alert them when they need to take over. In the article it talks about how there could be a object of some sort that keeps the driver awake and alert incase they have to take over. What if the driver gets so into the object that is supposed to keep them alert that they do not feel or see the signal. Another thing that could go wrong is if the driver thinks that they will not have to drive the car they may turn around to take of kids in the back and not see the sensor or feel it. Then you have a bad crash that puts not only a single person in trouble but several people.

The whole idea of driverless cars is a good idea, but with good ideas there are things that can go wrong that people have to think about. A driverless car is a serious thing to think about before they get soild to the public. The people who create the cars need to be able to promsie that the cars are one-hundred percent safe to the public and that they are trust-worthy. The people who make the cars can not promise that one-hundred percent becuase they can only make the cars to their best and after it is the a dealer shop they can not take back what happens. These cars could make a lot more crashes happen and that could lead to a rise of death rates. These cars are not super trust-worthy, therefore, they should not be put out of the market for people to buy.