I'd say that in the example given in the article, the best decision would be to slam into the side of the tunnel instead of hitting the child. It makes no diffe

I'd say that in the example given in the article, the best decision would be to slam into the side of the tunnel instead of hitting the child. It makes no difference the age of the child, since if they are laying in the road, there's a high likelihood that they will be killed and moderate likelihood that you' be deflected enough to be seriously injured or killed as well by choosing the 'through the living being route' since that particular case is fraught with uncertainty, the most logical choice is a controlled crash. Since cars these days have airbags and crumple zones and such things, it's hard to hit an inanimate object and get killed in such a vehicle. And with car insurance, and unlawful death lawsuits in practice, it seems the financially responsible choice is to have a controlled crash. So to all those saying there is no 'right' answer, you are generalizing the problem too much. The question as stated in the article, not generalized to all situations, but to the situation as it was stated, seems clear.