Was This Crash Survivable?

Of course we're all glad that Carl is here to tell about the story that led to the photo. When you're talking about safety, the question is always "How safe is safe enough?" There are a million answers to that question, which is why the debate is endless. Let's recall that the catalyst for mandated airbags, was the never-ending quest for "passive safety," i.e. somewhat to protect the knucklehead drivers who refused to fasten their seatbelts. When people started walking away from head-ons, in cars equipped with airbags; and those people also reported that they had been wearing their seatbelts, the idea started getting around that the belt-and-bag combination offered some serious protection, and people were impressed. Now seatbelt use is much higher, but no one argues that airbags are unnecessary, as everyone understand that the combination is what really offers the benefit. Regarding older cars, one of the key concepts in body design for crash survivability that has become widespread in the last 25 years, is the concept of the car body "sacrificing itself" to protect the passenger. The 1980s-vintage Mercedes were well built, by the standards of the day; but their crash test performance wasn't that good because the body transferred more of the energy of the impact to the relatively fragile passenger inside. Same with the old Volvos (240-series). Once those engineers internalized the idea that the car body was supposed to sacrifice itself to absorb the energy of the crash (while preserving the integrity of the passenger compartment), then the cars became "safer." After all, it's cheaper and easier to replace or repair the car than the fragile human inside. I remember riding in the bed of a pickup truck going 70 mph down the highway (because there wasn't room for me in the cab) when I worked on a ranch in the early 1960s. But, just because I lived to tell about it, doesn't mean that its safe or I would recommend that anyone do that today. Same thing with the relative safety of cars. Finally, let's be honest, the most important safety component in any car is the driver. People who don't drive impaired, who don't "test the limits" of their vehicle and who are reasonably competent drivers, are very unlikely to have accidents. My father is 85 years old. He's always driven and has never been in an accident. He doesn't drive like a ninny (i.e. under the speed limit or hyper-cautious), but he drives sanely, always pays attention to his driving and never drives impaired. I think he's had about two traffic citations in his life, as well. And, he's probably driven as many miles as the average person of his longevity. We lived in the suburbs, took car vacations, etc.

The front end damage looks pretty minor compared to the head-on at almost 60 mph that I experienced in an '87 Grand Am. I'm surprised the roof buckled in that Audi. Mine buckled much worse, but I think the impact was much greater. They had to use hydraulic equipment to extract me. I was hit by a Chrysler dynasty. http://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx187/rpn453/Front.jpg http://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx187/rpn453/PassengerSide.jpg http://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx187/rpn453/DriverSide.jpg