Of course, this article is wrong. But, it's actually shockingly wrong.
Of course, the trolly problem can and does force us to second guess our moral reasoning.
The authors of this article seem to take umbrage at the idea of creating a hypothetical in which there are no good answers. Of course, that's important though, too. We live in a world which often presents us with situations where all we can do is determine what's "less bad."
What's more, the authors seem obsessed with fighting the hypothetical. They do so by insisting that we instead ask the question about why the situation was unfolding to begin with? They seem to ignore, or actively fight the reality that we live in an imperfect would with imperfect people and that sometimes we are faced with making ethical decisions due to bad luck.
How can anybody insist upon being taken seriously in philosophy while complaining about how gross it is to discuss decision-making about which lives to save and which not to when we know we live in a world in which those decisions must be made?