SuperTutor
$15/per page/Negotiable
Ashley Rewitzer
Prof. Cal Goossen
ENGL 1210, V0850
25 June 2017
Driverless Cars: An Unwelcome Advantage
In their essay “Why We Should Welcome Driverless Cars,” Matthew Claudel and Carlo
Ratti argue that self-driving cars should “replace the cars we drive today” (1). They believe that
driverless cars will offer a “hands-free driving experience” whose emergence will “reduce
pollution, traffic, travel time, land use, travel costs, and traffic fatalities” (1). My essay will argue
against this position. Although, I agree with Claudel and Ratti that technology will continue to
advance and that nothing will stand in its way, the following paragraphs will explain why
driverless cars are more damaging to our economy and environment.
Claudel and Ratti argue that, “Their emergence points to an urban transformation that
will reduce pollution, traffic, travel time, land use, travel costs, and traffic fatalities” (1). Claudel
and Ratti claim that driverless cars will be able “to take every passenger to his or her destination
at the time they need to be there, with 80 percent fewer cars” (5). “Because autonomous vehicles
don’t get lost, they create less congestion and shorten travel time,” they claim, “self-driving cars
would also make for much safer road” (7). “Such reductions in car numbers would also
dramatically lower the cost (and related energy consumption) of building and maintaining the
roads,” Claudel and Ratti claim (6). Claudel and Ratti argue that fewer cars would free land
space and lower pollution (5,6). Finally, Self-driving cars would allow a hands-free driving
experience that allows more time for texting and reading, Claudel and Ratti state (1,3). Although the driverless car would be able to take every passenger to their destination at
the time they need to be there; an 80 percent decrease in cars is unlikely if many don’t want or
are unable to afford the vehicle. An 80 percent decrease in cars on the road can only occur if
everybody opts-in to buying a driverless car. Unfortunately, many would be unable to afford such
a luxury. The cost needed to implement this new technology would cost more than the average
American earns. The engineering, power, software, and sensors will cost up to or more than
$100,000; while the average income of an American is around $55,000. There are also many who
enjoy driving. These people are less likely to buy into this technology, preferring to keep their
own vehicles. With so many individuals opting out of the experience, the number of vehicles on
the road will continue to still be high.
Although less congestion, shorter travel time, and safer roads would be great; there is no
guarantee that there wouldn’t be technical issues with the driverless car that would cause the
same issues. As mentioned previously, if people don’t opt-in to the service there will still be
issues with congestion, time, and safety. Many would be nervous about giving up complete
control to a computer that can malfunction and seriously injure them. Technology is slowly
taking over; but can you trust the system with your life? The cars are not able to run at a high
level of safety in all weather conditions. Heavy rain can cause serious damage to laser sensors
found on the car. Issues such as technological malfunctions can cause serious injuries and
possibly death. There could also be problems when it comes to traffic signals or road blocks. The
technology would be unable to interpret human traffic signals, such as a police officer directing
traffic. It is also uncertain if the car would be able to sense upcoming roadblocks or local driving
laws that are unique to that area. What happens when the GPS malfunctions? As we all know, GPS systems are not always accurate. There are times when it will inform you to turn down a
one-way road or it is unable to find your destination. This could seriously affect your travel time.
Since many would opt-out of buying a driverless car, an 80 percent reduction will not
occur and the costs in building and maintaining roads would remain the same. The cost for road
maintenance can only decrease if everybody buys a driverless car. As mentions previously, this is
highly unlikely due to affordability. This means that states would still have to pay for road
maintenance. States would actually have to spend more money on roads due to driverless cars. If
some individuals do buy a driverless car, roads would have to be updated to accommodate them.
Roads are built for human drivers; therefore, driverless cars would be more likely to malfunction
on roads today. The government would be forced to rebuild roads to accommodate those few
driverless cars on the road. That money could be used for many other issues occurring in the
state. Since the number of cars will not decrease, we would still be required to build and
maintain roads.
Since many families would be unable to afford or even want a driverless car, land space
and pollution would still be a major issue. Passenger cars and trucks are the main sources of
pollution, but vehicle emission standards have reduced this by 90 percent. Fuel efficient vehicles
and electric cars have also decreased pollution. Since it is doubtful that everybody will opt-in on
driverless cars, it would be safe to assume that pollution would continue to be an issue.
Driverless cars would still be required to park while they wait for their passengers. This means
that parking structures and space for parking lots would still be needed. Since driverless cars will
most likely be electric, states would have to build suitable parking areas that can charge the
vehicles. This could become costly, assuming there are enough people driving these vehicles. Although driverless cars would free up time for reading and texting, passengers would
still have to pay attention to their surroundings; as we all know, technology isn’t perfect. Owners
of self-driving vehicle would have to be well-educated about the technology of the vehicle. If
they don’t know what to do in the event of a system malfunction, it could cause serious damage.
Passengers would also have to pay attention to their surroundings to ensure that the vehicle is
driving effectively. If someone is reading or texting when the car malfunctions or doesn’t stop for
a stop sign, the passenger would have little time to react. Many would no longer be equipped or
taught how to operate a vehicle after relying on technology for so long. This would cause many
issues if something goes wrong. The passenger would not be able to take control back and
prevent further damage. Owning a driverless car would still require you to pay attention and
possibly take control; meaning it would still be difficult to read or text while riding in the
vehicle.
In conclusion, driverless cars would not guarantee a decrease in cars, pollution, time, or
cost. Americans would be unable to afford these vehicles and many who enjoy driving would not
buy one. There could still be serious injuries or deaths due to accidents caused by malfunctions.
Air pollution would continue to be an issue if people opt-out of the system, and land space would
still be required for parking lots and structures. Passengers would also still be required to pay
attention to their surroundings, meaning that there would still be little time for texting and
driving. Driverless cars do not guarantee a better driving experience. Instead, they offer more
stress to the passenger who would be better off driving themselves.
Attachments: