I just don't ever understand how in the world these arguments come up in threads like this.
The bike was HIT BY A CAR! I'm sorry, but steel, aluminum, and titanium don't have good car vs. bike track records either. And honestly, while people tout that "you can fix steel", "fixing" it after a catastrophic car vs. bike incident is going to cost nearly as much as a new frame if not more assuming a builder will even touch it. And I've heard people that did it anyway for a "favorite" bike say that it never rode anywhere near the same again so what's the point (and yes, the original builder fixed it)?
I wouldn't trust steel that showed signs of damage after a car vs. bike incident any more than I'd trust carbon, and I doubt I'd truly trust it after it was "fixed" either ("was another weld stressed?" "did we miss a micro-fracture?" etc.), so that puts me in the same boat no matter the material in this instance.
We can argue carbon vs. steel vs. aluminum vs. titanium till the cows come home and they ALL have their strengths and weaknesses. Really though, it doesn't matter the material, if you're hit by a car your bike is toast in almost all cases. It's ridiculous to use car vs. bike carnage as evidence against carbon. (and to be perfectly honest, when a professional does so it discredits them, in my eyes at least)