Please rate my essay. Thanks!

Subject:
The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures that protect the driver, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver's heart. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument....

Essay:

The argument claims that people in Tarquinia drive too dangerously based on the figures that this city has a higher traffic rate accidents per person than its neighbors. Considering this fact, driver-side seatbelts, airbags and other safety measures that protect the driver should be abolished. Moreover, to motivate drivers to be more careful new cars should be installed with a spike of the steering column pointed at the driver’s heart.
Stated in this way the argument reveals an example of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. In addition, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated.
The conclusion of the argument relies on a statement that is clearly not acceptable. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that because Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person when compered with the rate of its neighbors, it must be the fault of the behavior of drivers. Indeed, they should be very imprudent too create such a gap compared to Tarquinia’s neighbors’ drivers. This statement is a stretch because it takes for granted that traffic conditions are the same in each city. For example, Tarquinia may have some dangerous roads that don’t have other cities. Clearly, it is not just the attitude of drivers that is involved in the process of car accidents.
The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that traffic conditions are similar in each city that is compared.

Second, the argument claims that, considering this attitude, driver-side seatbelt and other safety equipment should be removed from cars in order to motivate people to drive more carefully. Moreover, new cars should be equipped with a real weapon that pointed on the direction of the driver’s heart with the intention to warn drivers to be vigilant. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between removing safety materials or even worst putting a knife to threaten drivers and a fewer traffic accident.
To illustrate, when driver-side seatbelt didn’t exist the accident were not fewer but more fatal for people involved in it. While it is important to act in Tarquinia so fewer traffic accidents will happen, it is important to put more effort on the safety of drivers.
If the argument had provided evidence that drivers don’t act carefully because of airbags and others safety materials then the argument would have been more convincing.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about the neighbors of Tarquinia’s on safety on road.
In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the figures of rate of traffic accidents correlated with safety materials inside the vehicle.
Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.