I think you're right about the original point, but the wider counter argument is that human anticipation is both important in reducing the instances of "trolley problems" (usually not hitting object vs not being rear ended rather than the sillier example from philosophy) and choosing which pedestrians to slow down for and how much (because slowing for all pedestrians is more likely to cause accidents with other vehicles as well as impairing journey progress, and slowing for no pedestrians may lead to you being unable to stop in time) is closer to a trolley problem than something that can easily be generalised.

And to respond to another of Animat's original points humans aren't trained to brake/swerve in a harder, more risky manner for obstacles which are animate and not bother risking stopping at all for the unidentified object that appears to be a piece of cloth because unlike AI, this is not something we need to learn. (I agree with his original contention that pure software error and human inability to respond to it is a bigger problem than "trolley problems" with current generation tech)