I disagree. The fact that the airbags didn't deploy speaks to the severity of the loads applied to the vehicle during impact. (Assuming everything is working correctly) However, the apparent damage to the car may have been less severe if the impact had been over a wider portion of the car.

 

Negative. If he were to hit a solid wall oriented perpendicular to the motion of his car then the car would have deccelerated at a much higher rate because the energy would be dispersed over a larger area. Because the object he hit was rather thin relative to the size of the car, the force was exerted on a smaller area of the car, this allowed the car to travel longer after the initial impact since the divider he hit penetrated rather far into the front of the vehicle.

Please do not misunderstand what I'm saying though. In general it is not safer to aim for narrower objects rather than larger ones. This instance is a toss up...

If he had hit a solid wall the airbags might have deployed and his wife probably wouldn't have suffered as direct a trauma to her throat. However the force of the greater decceleration poses risk for more serious injuries.

Of course we all can only speculate.

 

yeah lets go nascar style. Get the big Bell safety belts and wear a helmet. Plus have the HANS device and a fire suit! Then we should be safe! Then lets talk restricting!