OK. to be fair, on average there is a 4.5% chance of injury on any airline test of this sort. The circumstances lend themselves to injury, namely a need for speed, a lack of visibility, luggage and debris in the way, and a very narrow exit point. Not to mention the drop down a slide and the fact that the plane is a double decker. The average according to this tidbit "An FAA review of 19 full-scale evacuation demonstrations between 1972 and 1991 involving 5,797 participants found that 269, or about 4.5 percent, were injured." found here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/210321_air02.html
is 4.5%. Meaning that Airbus should have seen 40.185 injuries. They came in under average.

Having said that, the plane doesn't make sense in most cases and airports. Obviously, London (where I now reside) will be able to accomodate the plane. San Diego (where I resided until Sept 2005) will not, as it barely can accomodate the 747s. But having flown back and forth between England and the U.S. a number of times, I feel safer on the larger jets than on the smaller ones. Turbulence seems to affect the larger jets less, though this is only my impression. Again, this is my own personal observation, but larger cabins don't seem as stuffy after 8 hours in the air and the ability to walk the length of a coach cabin on a 747 is much more leg stretching than pacing on a 767, etc.