I have personally written algorithms to select paths for 800kg autonomous vehicles operating around humans and livestock, and that minimise some cost function. My cost functions always treated crashes as (effectively) infinite cost. In the limit case where all possible paths had such an infinite cost, the failure mode was to revoke any electrical system that could increase the kinetic energy of the vehicle, apply maximum braking power (and/or any other subsystem that would serve reduce the kinetic energy of the vehicle), disconnect any chemical stores of energy from any activation system (i.e. stall the engine), and then finally - and as a direct consequence of these actions - maintain heading/steering angle.

Since we elected to revoke all power systems, we lose the ability to steer. We're attempting to reduce the kinetic energy of the system to zero as rapidly as possible (since we've computed that there are no viable controlled manoeuvres available), and we concluded that the best (and in fact only) option was to maintain trajectory whilst trying to slow down.

As a result, I don't think this argument has merit. There is no concept of "who should we crash into" because both are unacceptable, and we'd let physics take over instead.