Conventional mortality would dictate that the car minimize global loss of life, followed by permanent brain damage, permanent body damage. I think in the future that other algorithms will be illegal but existent.
However. The lives each car would have the most effect on would be those inside of it. So in most situations all actions would be directed towards said persons.
The issue is that it could create bad incentives. E.g. motorcyclists not wearing helmets and even acting inappropriately around self-driving cars, knowing it will avoid them, even if it causes it to crash. Or people stop buying safer cars because they are always chosen as "targets" by self-driving cars to crash into, making them statistically less safe.
I don't think the concerns are large enough to worry about, but hypothetically it's an interesting dilemma.
1Lumifer
I don't know about that. "Conventional morality" is not a well-formed or a coherent system and there are a lot of situations where other factors would override minimizing loss of life.
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/