[asid61]

The article argues against itself. It makes the point that having a smart car would be unfair (especially the helmet thing; what's the correct answer there?) and says at the same time that having a random car would be undesirable. Obviously minimizing human fatalities is the priority, so what is it trying to say? That cars should make decisions based on... what? Basically it offers no solution to any problem and only seeks to stir people up.
That kind of "no solution" tone pisses me off more than pretty much anything else, regardless of situation.

On another note, for once the comments (on the article) are good comments.