My grandfather had nine toes, as a result of a lawnmower accident. Though that was due to a yard on a steep hill.
After that, he tied a long rope to the mower, stood at the top of the hill, and pulled it up and down.
The driver likely is committing an assault, but that only justifies you doing things that would stop the assault. Damaging the car won’t stop the assault, so it’s not justified.
But if that’s where most pedestrians cross the street, then of course that’s where most injuries and deaths will occur. Did you know most car crashes happen on roads?
So firstly i’m not sure you are in a position to know for sure the driver has seen you. I’d say it’s perfectly reasonable, legally speaking, to assume they haven’t. And banging on their hood is a good way of letting a (presumably impaired or medically unsound) driver know you are are there. IANAL but I think legally speaking this wouldn’t be self defense but it would be “necessity” (it is the legal reason the fire department can knock down a door in an emergency that would otherwise be criminal damage)
Secondly even if the act is deliberate on the part of the driver, its likely he’s not actually attempting to kill you just to scare you (I’m sure if arrested this is what the driver will say). In that case hitting his hood might a perfectly reasonable form of self defense, as it would definitely discourage him from getting closer to you and potentially running you over by accident (reasonable in the legal sense, as repeatedly discussed above it’s a really bad idea)
In the moment I would certainly believe otherwise. I would in the moment believe that someone doing that would slam on their brakes and check for damage to their car but might otherwise keep moving forward. I’d want to shock them into awareness. Not sure that I’d conclude otherwise after later calm reasoned analysis, don’t think so, but upon being assaulted by the deadly weapon that is a car I will not be restrained trying to offer a gentle response to deter fully running me down.
I think if the evidence supports your claim that you were in danger of being hit by an unobservant driver then you’d be fine for hitting the car with your cane or anything else. Someone who needs a cane to walk can’t be expected to move away from the car quickly. It’s not self defense, it’s a reasonable way of warning a person.
So stand your ground only removes the necessity of removing yourself from the situation if possible. I’m not sure that would make a difference, as it this was justifiable self defense (big if) you could argue that removing yourself from the situation was not possible, as a car will move much faster than a person. Similarly (I think) if someone is threatening you with a gun you do not need to remove yourself from the situation, as they can just shoot you before you are safely away.
FWIW with the cycling scenario?
My in the moment thought when I have been vehicularly assaulted (and I have been) is to hit the car out of reflex anger and to deter them doing it to the next cyclist.
Car is long out reach before I could though.
ETA that in the next moment I take a breath and realize it would have been a stupid road rage choice.
In what state do they define self-defense as the minimum amount of force necessary to make yourself safe? They don’t use that definition in Arkanas or Texas even before stand your ground laws became popular.
I think the difference here you’ll be hitting the car as it speeds away from you. So that’s retaliation which is not legally justified (I’ve also been very tempted on numerous occasions though)
I am in this case, since that’s what the OP specified.
I don’t feel like digging through self-defense statutes right now, so I’ll concede that most states probably use “reasonable force” rather than “minimum force” when defining it.
Assault can (depending on where you are) be a threat of violence, which I think is what the OP is describing.
If I was the defense lawyer I’d say that (even if they had said this to the cops before i got there, seriously people don’t talk to the cops 
) there is no way for them to know this. Or course it would be an interesting legal situation if the DRIVER claimed to have not seen them.
So they could let the driver off with a ticket as they believe him that he hadn’t seen him, and prosecute the pedestrian as he didn’t believe he hadn’t seen him.
‘Comparable force’ and ‘equal force’ are sometimes used. Lesser force is certainly permitted as would be the case in a cane vs. a car.
Agreed neither legally justified or wise. Still in the moment what I reflexively would have done if I could before having the breath in and out. Never been possible as those vehicles are out of reach, traveling much faster than I am. It is both their mass and that velocity that makes what they do assault with a deadly weapon.
Yes. Which is why I described a swing at me rather than hitting me. That is assault not battery.
Oaky, but we are talking cars and pedestrians. What good does hitting the metal car do?
But they are still way safer than crossing in the middle.
Are Pedestrian Crosswalks Safe? - Kane & Silverman P.C..
As already stated, my expectation is that it startles the driver and that the reaction to having their car hit would be to stop and check the possible damage. And express their anger but then not behind the wheel of a deadly weapon. I would not expect them to accelerate in response. Is there a chance they have another weapon? Yes. But when being attacked with a deadly weapon is the given that small chance is a better choice in my book.
Metal?
Cars are made of metal, are they not?
A small ting, yes, but if you get out of their car to check for damage, you are in very real risk.
The frame? Sure.
My car is made of sheet metal over a frame. Now sure, my wife has an old Saturn.