This is the "gory" version of this particular advert (the pre 9pm watershed version only omits the allegedly 'graphical' stuff that happens inside Richard's body.)
Richard didn't want to die, [Richard is driving along] but he couldn't stop himself.
The collision [two cars head-on-collide in a residential area] with the car didn't kill him, but he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, so he continued on his journey. [Airbag deploys and Richard hits it full on.]
When he hit the inside of the car [his head breaks the windscreen], that didn't kill him either.
But his internal organs carried on travelling until they hit his ribcage [graphic of Richard's ribs], and his lungs were punctured [his ribs break and enter lungs], and the main artery from his heart was torn.[shift to front view, and slowly leaking blood from his 'heart' is shown]
And that's what killed Richard.
[Think! Always wear a seatbelt]
 Perhaps Richard should have had his brakes checked last time they felt spongy then. Or perhaps he should have been paying attention to the road ahead of him. Or perhaps he shouldn't have been speeding.
 Such a perfect head on collision. To pick an easily found link at random, in 2005 in the US, only 2% of collisions were head on, (though were the cause of 10% of fatal crashes.) Most other 'head on collisions' don't involve the car going straight ahead as shown and stopping in such a short distance - which is what causes the injuries stated. If there isn't an air-bag
 Typical speed limit in a residential area in the UK? (Section 24) 30mph. Are we expected to believe that there is a substantial number of fatal, perfect, head on collisions at 30mph in built up areas where at least one of the drivers dies?
 Hang on... Air bag? Those are supposed to protect you are they not? :
WTF is his head doing hitting the windscreen with such force (at 30mph) that it breaks? That is one seriously mis-designed air-bag. Maybe it's the car company that killed him?
 The only part of Richard shown hitting the car at any speed is his head. The rest of his torso should have been less affected due to the air-bag
 Not necessarily fatal.
 Given the speed of the blood coming out of that heart, the pathologist in me suspects that Richard was long dead before the crash, and *that's* what caused the crash.
 I have no doubt that one of those adverts will make an appearance here.
Anyway - as pointed out in a previous post, the fact the advert exists is a load of bollocks. While being in a moving car without wearing a seat-belt (with certain exceptions) is against the law, punishable by a fine, the government's own statistics show that the adverts do fuck all:
This publication presents estimates of seatbelt wearing rates [...] by drivers in England. Estimates of seatbelt wearing rates for Scotland are also included. Surveys were carried out in October and November 2009.
The main results from the seatbelt survey for England are:
* The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.