Suspected Nash-equilibrium ethics for the proprietary collision avoidance algorithm:
Utilitarian: minimize negative publicity for the car maker.
Resulting Asimov-like deontology:
1) Avoid collisions with the same make cars
2) Maximize survival of the vehicle's occupants, disregarding safety of the other vehicle involved, subject to 1)
3) Minimize damage to the vehicle, subject to 1) and 2)
Utilitarian: minimize negative publicity for the car maker.
The US is a litigious society. I suspect that minimizing damage from wrongful-death lawsuits will be more important than minimizing negative publicity.
In fact, I don't think self-driving cars can become widespread until the "in any accident, sue the deep-pocketed manufacturer" problem gets resolved, likely by an act of Congress limiting the liability.
When a collision is unavoidable, should a self-driving car try to maximize the survival chances of its occupants, or of all people involved?
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be-programmed-to-hit-you/