text: Having driverless cars would be a bad idea, for one it would take the place of a taxi driver which would take away jobs. Googles cofounder Sergey Brin says "...a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transportation taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of todays taxis and offer far more flexibility that a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world." Another reason I wouldnt condone in the submitting of driverless cars would be to save the generation after me. Letting fresh young adults use driverless cars wouldnt teach them how to drive. Which means they wouldnt know what to do in case of an emergency. Yes there would be a manual that you'd have to read. But when it comes to fixing technology and mechanics, humans need a hands on experience which would help them in case they dont know what to do if the car becomes driverless. Finally, what would happen in a storm if the connection didnt go through or the companys system crashed? Would that mean the car isnt driverless? "...For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive rardr sensors, a GPS receiver,a nd an inertial motion sensor." With all of this technology needed to properly produce a smart/ driverless car, would it be necessary? having this much technology, there would be too many technical difficulties. Which would lead into the owners of the car paying for more that what was even expected.