As others have pointed out, this is really pretty irrelevant when it comes to any individual car being out-of-date safety-wise on a ~decade time scale. Completely ignoring differences in vehicle size, my old, small sedan had no side-air bags, no ABS, no rearview camera, etc., and these days every small sedan must have those features. Things are only more dangerous to pedestrians if I decide to replace my small sedan with something like a Hummer, but that's an orthogonal decision.

As you point out, you cannot buy a new car today (in the US) without a wide array of safety features for occupants.

Why isn't the same true for pedestrians and bicyclists?

FWIW, one of your linked articles has a very good analysis of where pedestrian fatalities are increasing, and gives suggestions for both road design and vehicle improvements:

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-highlights-rising-ped...

This looks like a solvable problem, why aren't bumpers/hoods/doors optimized to protect pedestrians and bikers?

Pedestrian impact is an explicit design feature in modern cars. That's why bumpers and hoods have the same general shape on nearly every modern car. However, trucks and SUV have become extremely popular. There's only so much you can compensate for when the mass of the car is increased.

IIHS is changing tests now to incorporate pedestrian safety tests. NHTSA is also considering the change.

There is zero technical reason for trucks and SUVs to have the large hood they do that strikes adult pedestrians center mass (and kids at head level). It's extra comical on the upcoming electronic versions where instead of safe design, you get a "frunk".

It's design nonsense and the only reason it ever got this bad is the regulators are fully captured.

Because the justice system consistently lets drivers who cause injuries to, or kill, pedestrians with their cars slide.

Consequences for injuring or killing pedestrians only seem to enter the equation when serious negligence is involved, like when drivers are intoxicated, or when there is a hit-and-run.

Even then killing with a car is treated far less seriously than otherwise. If you want to murder someone, have a few drinks and drive into them. They’ll be dead and you’ll get kit in a couple of years. Avoid the drinks and you might even get away with it completely.

I went to school with someone who killed another person while driving drunk. They were found guilty and the judge didn't sentence them to serve any time incarcerated.

New hoods often are, actually — Euro NCAP tests pedestrian collision safety. Notably the VW ID.4 at least has a hood designed to collapse inward in that case; I assume other cars have this feature as well

How long until airbag hoods?

Yeah ideally the whole car upon impact would instantly turn into a big sploosh of medicated gel, safely ensconcing passengers and nearby pedestrians or cyclists and bringing everything to a sudden but harmless stop, and also it would make your skin look great.

I’m not the only one who’s seen Demolition Man, right? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RnyhkBU1yaw

Haha nice. Still caused quite a bit of damage to the surrounding area though. My inspiration was more Neal Stephenson I think.

Sudden stop is never harmless for a person even if we could eliminate the external mechanical injuries entirely - the brain continues forward and meets the facial bone structure inside the skull, internal organs rupture as they keep moving forward while the skeletal structure stops... Enter the airbag.

The airbags inside the car are meant to cushion the hard surfaces of course and the curtain bags are meant to keep people and their limbs in the protective passenger area when the car spins, but also they are acting as a counterforce and slow the speed of the person a little more gently, versus an instant stop to a solid object such as the dashboard, causing internal injuries as well as the external trauma.

Also airbags are a very good reason to wear a seatbelt - if you pop the airbags while colliding at relatively slow speeds, you'll probably lean forward a bit from the deceleration only to be punched in the face by the bag (and probably get some vertebrae renovated).

So while installing external airbags to cushion the pedestrian impact sounds like a good idea it probably isn't, as the bag suddenly expanding from the direction of the vehicle would simply add to the energy and "punch" the pedestrian away from the car at the 200mph at which an airbag expands.

Lastly, I'm all in for the gel from Demolition Man, why aren't we funding it?? Would it come in different scents and colors? :-D Really the car could one day - when detecting an unavoidable collision - spray out a foam or expanding gel that would cushion the surfaces and also decelerate the fall of the pedestrian - I'm thinking Final Fantasy Spirits Within -soldiers drop gel"?

Hey I said sudden but harmless. It’s up to engineers of the future to figure that out. The skin care is just a nice to have.

This is written in such a way that I kind of think you're being sarcastic, but all that sounds like a great idea, really.

For the record I was not attempting sarcasm.

Thanks for clarifying :-) I think the skin care was what really made it ambiguous for me.

Volvo was putting out a press release (https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...) in 2012 about pedestrian airbag, so it's a thing.

Interesting. That technology deploys on impact; one could imagine a more optimal version that detects pedestrians with proximity sensors and inflates an airbag before the vehicle even reaches the pedestrian. (Obviously the car could also do automatic braking, but the airbag could help in situations where stopping wasn't possible.)

It seems like such an airbag could be used to lessen the impact of vehicle-to-vehicle collisions as well. Perhaps have multiple inflators so the car can select air pressure based on the projected force of impact.

Airbag suits are available now for motorcycle riders, external car airbags would kind of be just a larger (potentially more complex) variant of the same idea.

Bonus points if it can detect deer and launch them over the vehicle cabin. Deer intrusion is a big safety hazard in some places.

That's not an argument for not replacing your car, it's an argument for not buying a big car when you do. At least outside the USA it's not hard to buy a new small car.

I disagree. There's no technical reason SUV and pickup truck front bumper design is so dangerous. People just prefer that design because it looks more appealing.

"When a car strikes a cyclist, the initial impact causes severe lower-body trauma, but it’s also likely to sweep that person’s legs out from underneath them. This is significant, because as the rider slides up the hood, they’re scrubbing speed and, with it, some impact force. An SUV or truck, by contrast, is taller, so the initial impact is likely to target the pelvis or even the chest. “That momentum is carried through your body,” says Hu. In addition, the front-end shape of a vehicle is vital. More than 85 percent of fatalities among pedestrians and cyclists hit by cars and light trucks involve impacts from the front of the vehicle, according to 2017 data from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Modern truck and full-size SUVs favor blocky, muscular styling at the front end, rather than the more gently sloping transition from grille to hood that cars and some compact SUVs have. Instead of sliding onto the hood when hit by a truck, the rider’s pelvis and torso rotate with a twisting, tearing motion. With a squared-off front end, Hu says, “it’s basically the person wrapping around the vehicle.”"

https://www.outsideonline.com/2411345/suvs-trucks-deadly-cyc...

While the American market is now 2/3 SUVs and trucks you can still buy a sedan.