Much of the commentary here focuses on the recklessness of the highway test and doesn't weigh in too heavily on who the bad guys are.
I think people mostly find the idea of remotely exploitable and controllable cars so terrible that there isn't anything to discuss about that aspect of it, it's nearly universally considered unacceptable (hence the epic thread about the side issue).
Maybe try reading the comments without imputing a side that the writer is taking.
It wouldn't have been difficult to do this right. Cops love drama and publicity. It wouldn't have taken much convincing to get them on board, and the video would gained a lot of credibility.
However, this doesn't change the fact that vulnerabilities were demonstrated, nor does it change the implication that auto manufacturers are excessively sluggish about security patches on things that can and do kill people on a regular basis. Even an imperfectly-conducted demonstration like this particular case is preferable to such a demonstration not occurring at all.
Researchers perform controlled experiments. Controlled experiments are ignored. Researchers opt for more damning (though less controlled) experiments to further prove their point, and now they're suddenly the bad guys here.