Because they are, arguably, badly written.
For example, Google's mobile friendly guidelines explain how to create a single website that adapts itself to display well on phones, tablets and on desktops. Google have a page for testing websites
Responsive Web Design
An old-fashioned way of providing different content to phones and to desktops is to use browser-sniffing (e.g. in Javascript) to redirect visitors or to select content.
The sites you list seem to be using old versions of HTML (not HTML5) and so are probably trying to sniff browsers to determine how the site should look.
This is a bad thing to try to do. As evidence, I can view those sites using the SuperBird web browser (based on Chromium as used by Google's Chrome web-browser) on a desktop PC and see what looks like a layout optimized for smartphones. Perhaps the website's code has an inadequate small fixed list of browsers it knows what to do with.
Having sites that don't conform to Google's guidelines means those sites will be penalised in search rankings when Google search results are presented to mobile phone users. Both those sites score well in Google's mobile-friendly test, but are not "Responsive".