> Older people losing their cars is often the start of a decline unto death because there’s so little you can do [without] driving in many neighborhoods.

The solution is to replace their car with a vehicle that's less dangerous for others like an electrically assisted tricycle. That can serve their local transportation needs and won't cause nearly as much damage if they hit someone or something.

What you're looking for is a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle

Some retirement communities are specifically designed to handle those, and they work fine in many urban and suburban areas.

Also to invest in things like public transit, sidewalks & protected bike paths for ebikes & trikes, mobility services which will pick you up, etc. Unfortunately we’ve lost our way nationally about funding infrastructure and in many areas the sprawl density is low enough that these are more expensive than, say, much of Europe.

> Also to invest in things like [...] protected bike paths for ebikes & trikes

These lead to significant problems at intersections. It's best to keep vehicles of all types on roads where they obey the same set of rules.

Those lead to problems at poorly-designed intersections. I would prefer the answer be to design them correctly, making sure that some users aren't neglected.

The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision. This isn't as much of an issue for pedestrians because they're moving slower 3 to 6 mph (4 to 8 feet per second). Also, pedestrians are able to stop much faster than a cyclist.

Second, these intersections place a much higher burden on cyclists. That is, they have to check for traffic coming from behind to see if they're going to make a right turn and avoid getting hit. They have to watch for traffic coming from the side to make sure they don't get hit. And they have to watch for left turning traffic far to the left to make sure they don't get hit.

If they're riding in the standard road position (center of the lane) instead, then it's much easier to see traffic and it's easier for traffic to see them as they approach an intersection.

> The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision

This is why I specified correctly designed: what you're saying is an artifact of a poorly-designed intersection which does not have good visibility or clear traffic flows.

> This is why I specified correctly designed

Even the NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) design guide states:

>> Driveways and minor street crossings are a unique challenge to cycle track design. A review of crossing facilities and design practice has shown that the following guidance may improve safety at crossings of driveways and minor intersections:

>>

>> * If the cycle track is parking protected, parking should be prohibited near the intersection to improve visibility. The desirable no parking area is 30 feet from each side of the crossing. >>

>> * For motor vehicles attempting to cross the cycle track from the side street or driveway, street and sidewalk furnishings and/or other features should accommodate a sight triangle of 20 feet to the cycle track from the minor street crossings and 10 feet from driveway crossing.

The distances quoted should make it evident that, at least in the US, even the guidelines aren't going to lead to "correctly designed" intersections.

They are very apt to be hit and killed by other bad drivers in that slow vehicle.

Replace everyone's cars with electric tricycles then.

And replace all American suburbs and infrastructure, because that is what you are asking.

> Older people losing their cars is often the start of a decline unto death

I'm not sure this is just because of the way neighborhoods are set up. It's also a lack of social structures to catch this. The richest country one earth, has Uber, yet can't keep healthcare costs low enough to keep the elderly alive longer.

It’s definitely not just that but losing the ability to travel is a big multiplier since it affects your ability to see other people, eat well, exercise, etc. along with getting medical or legal assistance.

I mean, ability to do those things isn't really endemic to "the ability to travel" is it? More like a function of how your area is setup whether or not you need to travel far to do these things or just leisurely amble over.

> More like a function of how your area is setup

That's the point of the article: currently, large parts of the United States are setup assuming that everyone has their own car and drives to perform each of those functions. For many people, there's a huge hit in convenience and budget if they switch transportation modes — e.g. where I live in DC, many of the suburbs were intentionally designed after Brown v. Board not to support pedestrians or transit users (presumed to be poor and brown), so there are no sidewalks and significant distances to get to anything other than houses even if you do take your chances on foot / bike. Someone who can't drive might find they have a 40+ minute walk to get to a library, pool, shopping center, etc. when you add up all of the street crossings and circuitous routes.

Elderly have medicare. My dad just spent $300 out of pocket for a week in the hospital. Not that big a deal.

That's one reason I hope autonomous vehicles are functional and available soon.