Driverless Car Rules for Safety

The editorial board of the New York Times, in the editorial; Ushering in a Safe, Driverless Future, argues that mandatory rules for driverless cars are essential to the advancement of this technology. The New York Time’s purpose is to explain how driverless vehicles may seem unsafe, but in reality are just a technological tool to help prevent future car accidents. This op-ed is aimed at the driver’s of America in order to show them that the driverless cars are not unsafe.

The author shows their point of view in a very clear argument by using logos, pathos, and ethos to bring the pros and cons to the table.

In the opening paragraph, logos is distinctly used by showing a real event that has happened recently as a means of evidence. The author points out right away that the driverless cars have been an issue in the past and that there is a very serious concern when it comes to the topic.

Most people have heard about this event where there was a fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S in May. A fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S in May received significant attention. This brings your attention to the dangers of having a car that drives itself.

The author then turns the paragraph around to say “But if regulators and carmakers get it right, driverless cars have the potential to save tens of thousands of lives every year.” This very powerful sentence uses pathos to suggest that despite one’s fears, if they can get this right, there will be lives saved.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified

Proficient in: Cars

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Many people will automatically connect to this statement because “According to car accident statistics, every 12 minutes in the U.S. a person will die in a vehicle crash”. The problem itself is going to affect a wide range of people who will then understand the need for the technology after reading this editorial. The next paragraph goes on to bring ethos and logos into the argument. First they bring a quote from our current president providing credibility to the paper. While not everyone may agree with the President or his views, this shows credibility because he is an extremely important figure in the world.

The editorial goes on to say “More than 35,000 people died in car crashes last year, up 7.7 percent from 2014, according to the Department of Transportation”. which shows an actual statistic therefore creating logos. Most people will trust this opinion more if they see how many people have actually died in within only the last year. The quote also shows the increase since 2014, 7.7 percent which is actually a lot over one year. Both of these rhetorical devices combined will persuade an audience to believe what the author is discussing in their paper.

The rest of the editorial end with the real world examples of this technology. The New York Times talks about Tesla, Mercedes-Benz and General Motors, and even Ford as credible experimenters with this technology to even further the appeal to ethos. These companies have even said that they will have a people in the car during tests in order to ensure safety in case anything in the car malfunctions.

The paper also explains that the car’s intentions are not to let the driver of the car be completely sidetracked from the road. They want the drivers alert and attentive as well in case of any malfunctions. The rules they have in place also try to ensure that the technology itself does not become hackable and that the overall experience with the driverless car promotes safe driving.

All in all the argument of this co-op piece by the New York Times is incredibly persuasive in the subject of driverless cars. The many uses of pathos, ethos, and logos repeatingly have an outstanding rhetorical effect. The paper convinces you that despite past occurrences with the driverless vehicle, it is safe and will save lives. The New York Times explains that there will be even more safety regulations put on the experiments and the cars themselves to where accidents like the fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S in May.

Through logos the editorial presents facts and displays evidence from both viewpoints to show that safer driving is needed and that the driverless vehicles can provide just that. Ethos is provided by the mentionings of the president and multiple major car companies in order to build a sense of trust and credibility. Lastly, the editorial shows pathos by showing a crushing number of deaths due to car wrecks making the reader feel the need to have a driverless car to ensure one’s safety.

The editorial board of the New York Times utilizes the editorial Ushering in a Safe, Driverless Future to argue that mandatory rules for driverless cars are necessary to continue the process of advancement of the technology of driverless vehicles. The New York Time’s uses rhetorical appeal to display the purpose of how driverless vehicles may seem unsafe, but in reality are just a technological tool to help prevent future car accidents.

This op-ed that is aimed at the majority of driver’s of America and victims of car accidents in order to show them that the driverless cars are not unsafe. The author successfully presents their point of view in a very detailed argument by using logos, pathos, and ethos to bring persuade the readers that driverless cars are going to be essential to a safe and reckless future around motor vehicle transportation.