I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't claim memory unsafe languages aren't used, they obviously are. C is in fact not an easy language to verify. There have gone trillions of dollars into that and it's still not solved. You can't verify C. You might be able to verify a subset of C. But if you are in any position to choose any other language you should run, run, run quickly and far away from C.

My point is that your metaphor about "not [being] allowed to use memory unsafe languages" to build a car is completely backwards -- safety-critical embedded systems use C to avoid the abstractions introduced by higher-level languages.

It's not backwards. C is used out of necessity not because it's such a great language. Safety-critical embedded systems use C because they have to. Not because it's nice. Claiming they do because C is such a great language to write safety-critical software in is a special kind of Stockholm syndrome.

There is no such language as C/C++. Your statement is meaningless, as stated.