There aren’t. Most accidents involve no option, or at least no option between different things to hit. It’s simple factual reality. I’ve had dogs run out in front of, slammed on the brake. Been in accidents, ones I saw coming and ones I didn’t. I never had, and neither have you, the option between killing to different people and no ability to avoid it entirely. There’s a reason why the setup to the Trolley Problem involves so many odd ball circumstances, first it’s a trolley on tracks so you have limited mobility, no brakes, people are tied down, etc etc etc. Because in reality you have many many more option. Which is why I point out that on the off chance you wind up in a real world Trolley-ish problem the answer is ALWAYS the same: aim for the one furthest away, giving you more time to slow down, giving them more time to get out of the way, giving you less inertia to do less damage.
Buy time. It is the answer in reality.
>>Most accidents involve no option
Many or most, sure.
>>”’Ive had dogs run out in front of, slammed on the brake..
What if that meant getting rear-ended? What if braking wouldn’t work and the choice was property damage? How much would be acceptable?
>>”Buy time. It is the answer in reality.”
You always choose the bad result furtherest away. It is quite possible that reduced inertia makes little difference in outcome to the target. Both targets could be quite close. You’ve merely made a value judgement -in effect - that the distance from you makes it of less value. It’s easy to imagine many cases where that would not be true.
I do understand the obvious point of maximizing options, giving oneself more time, decreasing velocity... all of these are excellent tactical approaches. It’s just not enough to cover every situation, will not always succeed in doing no harm. If they did, there would be no problem.