It’s worth remembering that the improvements have largely been in crash survivability(with some advances for cases like braking on ice/other difficult surfaces); the advances in collision avoidance have been markedly smaller. Basically zero in areas that depend on the driver’s reflexes and response times; modest at best in terms of vehicle inertia and response times.
It is nice that you have a better chance of surviving a crash, often even without ghastly neurological damage; but if you are in one, your odds of having your car totaled aren’t much better than they were in the 50s(possibly worse, given the deliberately sacrificial nature of crumple zones) and you are still going to play hell with traffic, seriously disrupt your day, quite possibly end up in the hospital for at least a function-test.
Until we have made appropriate advances in making collisions avoidable, the fact that they are more survivable than they used to be is of only modest assistance.
(edit: in case my post didn’t make it clear, I think that @snek is incorrect, for the ‘survivability vs. avoidance’ reasons given above; but I also think that we could be a lot more civil about pointing that out. I’m not against snide dismissal of assertions too mind-blowingly idiotic to dignify a reply; but this seemed like a flavor of wrong interesting enough to be worth discussing.)