I'm sure you know the train question. If a train is going along and the conductor sees a child on the rails, but can change rails to another track, but that one has five. What do you do?
The actual answer is changing tracks has the train going slow so it doesn't derail. I have had family in the train engineering business for generations. So the actual answer is, the brakes you're going slow enough to stop easily.
I realized that yesterday while watching some old Doctor Who near a train station.
Anyway, the reason why I bring it up is I am arguing with someone that the answer is there, but not given by the original question. Also, no one thought to ask anyone in the train industry. I looked the guy up, and he's a lefty. It makes me realize that much of our society is based on the idea of false choices. There is always another answer, but the media and government act as if there is no alternatives. Then we make sure to ignore all evidence pointing to alternatives. This is society, trying to make a choice while the train stops on its own.
I might be imagining a different trolley problem, the meme'd one.
From knowyourmeme:
This one doesn't give an option of braking since you're not the conductor (and presumably can't communicate to him in time). Your argument opponent might be thinking of this problem.
For your example, it isn't clear to me how the hypothetical ability to change rails implies that the train is going slowly enough to stop and prevent running anyone over.
I've also heard a variation where there's people on the train, and you can divert the train off the tracks but it will kill everyone on board.
And there's the shoving a fat guy in front of the train that will stop it before it hits the people.
Is the fat guy J.B. Pritzker? Because if so, I wouldn't stop someone from shoving him onto the tracks.