[jpfed]

The article talks about solutions at three different levels, though perhaps more indirectly than you were looking for.

The end of the fourth paragraph and beginning of the fifth paragraph talk imply a solution: use crash test dummies that accurately simulate women's anatomy. (This is made a little more explicit in the ninth paragraph, as it mentions "requiring updated and more equitable dummy implementation tested in every seat".)

The seventh paragraph mentions that insufficient regulation of the auto industry has allowed them to build very large cars. It is thus implied that regulating the auto industry to produce smaller cars would help.

The eight paragraph talks about how the exclusion of women from automotive design decisions has lead them to ignore women as consumers (and crash victims). The implied solution is for auto companies to hire more women.

[blacksmith_tb]

Sure, those are clear first steps, I guess I was wondering more about the kinds of changes representative testing would lead to after it was implemented.

[jpfed]

Maybe the article could have included that if an automotive engineer had written it. But I think the article is perfectly fine for having included the steps that it did address.

Think about it this way. If you wrote an article about preventing the Toyota bug that resulted in uncontrolled acceleration, unless you were a former Toyota employee there's simply no way you can say "Toyota needs to change these specific lines of code" and you wouldn't even try. You might say "Toyota needs to adopt such-and-such code review practices" or "NHTSA needs to regulate the computer-controlled components of cars like this". Those are early, indirect steps that should force (or incentivize) the actual detailed improvements that you'd like to see happen.