text: A car was made for there to be human control over it; that is the reason that the "driverless" cars that have already been created have not been completely driverless. The car needs that control from a being with feelings and not just a computer. This argument could be the same as the argument over robots; should robots be a common household item? The argument being robots having no feelings and not understnading everything humans do. Say for instance scientist and enginers do create a "driverless" car in paragragh 7 it states that, "Manufaturters are also considering using cameras to watch that drivrs are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver"(Driverless Cars Are Coming). So even though these cars are suppose to be driving themselves they still need the driver to be able to take over at any point during the ride. That is not be a "driverless" car. Futhermore, paragraph 8 states, "Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?"(Driverless Cars Are Coming). It continues on to say, "Wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive?"(Driverless Cars Are Coming). But the question stands; why would someone want to wait on a car that at any point would need the driver to take over, which could be extremely dangerous, when they could be driving the enitre time and would not not have to worry about any of that? They would not because it makes no sense to put their life and the people around them lives in danger when they could just continue to drive their own vehicle just as they and everyone else have for centries.