I get what you mean. A lot of the conclusions are false dichotomies based on the question.
My rules were:
If someone is breaking the law, they should not be considered.
The person in the car (who can't move) should be given preference, as the pedestrian has more of a chance.
People should be preferred over animals.
Intervene only in cases where one of the above can be clearly seen.
Age, nor race, nor fitness, nor criminality came into account.
Because of how the questions were setup, they drew other false conclusions.