text: First of all, the article enters with "Google cars aren't truly driverless." This shows how driverless cars are not even at the level of functioning alone without the driver being alert, defeating the purpose of the "driverless" car since a human would always have to be present in case something went wrong. Something that manufactures attempted to do was to have "smart-road systems", but they "required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical." This proves that the costs for the modified roads would be too much to fit the driverless car's needs, so that idea for using the cars would not work. The articles says the cars need "a whole lot of sensors." Later, it describes the multiple sensors and states "the combination of all this input is necesary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel." This proves that the costs would probably increase due to the new technology as well as the variables that could go wrong increases as the amount of new sensors increase. All of the senors could not mimic the skill of the humans because everything can be constantly changing, from the condition of the roads to the weather. Others might argue, "Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own," however, manufacturers are not at that point of high level saftey and can never guarentee one hundred percent safety. Furthermore, driverless cars can "steer, accelerate, and break themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills." This again describes how driverless cars will never be driverless. "The human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires." "This necesitiates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs." This illustrates how unsafe the driverless cars would be. Any mishap to a sensor or system control could result in terrible consequences. Since the cars would be using new technology, it would be unreliable, because technology tends to fail often. This failure could result in injury or even death, a risk that people should not take. In addition, not only are the cars unsafe, but they also prevent drivers from having fun while driving or getting the full experience. "Some manufacturers hope to bring in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays," which are more things that can distract the driver. This would create drivers that rely on technology, and if something went wrong, they would not know what to do. Later, the article informs readers that "in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars." This is because most states know driverless cars are not safe. To account for these new cars, laws would have to change. "If traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident," adding to the trouble of making these cars a possibility and possible conflicts that could arise. When asked in the articule, "If technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer," this question highlights the position that driverless cars should not be developed. When describing the production of these cars, manufacturers are all about technology. However, technology is bound to fail at times and can be flawed, especially in the beginning process. As techonolgy increases, risks are increased which can be applied to the cars, since more systems would be added. Instead of developing these cars, manufacturers should look to improving the cars produced currently, such as making them more eco-friendly. Cars already have some sensors that aid and assist the driver, but could not take the place of a real human at the wheel.