That was my reasoning as well. Whenever there was the option to kill the passengers, that's what I chose. The car's occupants are the ones introducing the risk of death to the scenario to begin with. There is no dilemma without the car.
Interestingly, the summary at the end did not even allow for this conclusion. The evaluation anticipated that people might value the lives of animals over humans, but not those of pedestrians over passengers.
It seems likely that this was designed by promoters of self-driving cars. No one would want to be a passenger in a car that was programed to prioritize the lives of pedestrians, so that was not even considered as a moral option.
Interestingly, the summary at the end did not even allow for this conclusion. The evaluation anticipated that people might value the lives of animals over humans, but not those of pedestrians over passengers.
It seems likely that this was designed by promoters of self-driving cars. No one would want to be a passenger in a car that was programed to prioritize the lives of pedestrians, so that was not even considered as a moral option.