Obviously not. The pedestrian is responsible of his movements and can avoid the car. On the other hand the passenger is prevented of having any action. There

Obviously not. The pedestrian is responsible of his movements and can avoid the car. On the other hand the passenger is prevented of having any action. Therefore he should be protected at all cost by the car. Now if the driverless car is empty, then of course, it should gladly destroy itself to avoid hurting human pedestrians, and even any animal or robot. If the driverless car transports a human or animal passenger, then it should avoid hurting them, even if that means hurting external humans, animals or robots. But if the driverless car transports a robot, then it should avoid hurting it, even it that means hurting an external robot. But it may hurt its passenger robot to avoid hurting an external human or animal. Now, assuming some mean of communication between the driverless car and the external robot, and the passenger robot, the driverless car could, if it was absolutely impossible to find any combined action of the external robot and the driverless car avoiding to hurt both of them, then a solution that would hurt one or the other might be found, depending on the criterial of "importance" of each robots. For example, if one or both of them contain information or transports materials critical to save the life of humans or animals in an immediate situation (the reason why one, the other or both robots are moving), then the choice should be to keep moving the one with the best impact. For example, the robotcar drives a robot transporting the antitoxin that will neutralize a biobomb that could kill 100,000 humans in ten minutes, while the external robot transports the bronchodilator that will save an asthmatic child, and there's no way the robocar and the external robots can avoid themselves without hurting the passenger robot, then the passenger robot should take priority and the robocar should optimize its safety.