The second question we need to ask is whether the decisions presented in experimental ethical hypotheticals are even possible. (Spoiler alert: I dont believe they are.) To begin, these hypotheticals assume that there would ever be a situation in which we, as human drivers, would be forced to decide between such mutually horrendous alternatives. The fact of the matter is, even if such a situation did arise, we would not have the time to decide anything.
The most convincing reason for this conclusion lies not under the hood of a computer, but on the wheels of the car itself: The brakes. The simple fact is that if we have enough time to weigh a complex moral dilemma requiring such considerations as utilitarian cost-benefit analysis, competing interests of the ego and justice, the Golden Rule and, ultimately life and death, and then to act affirmatively and precisely on our rationally begotten conclusion, we certainly have more than enough time to slam on the brakes and bring the car to a halt. So what does this mean?
Given that it only takes a few seconds or less for a car to come to a complete stop at normal driving speeds, the result is that any hypothetical that eliminates braking as a viable option will almost certainly eliminate the possibility of a decision based on a rational calculation of values.