[bluejekyll]

> I think what you're looking for is a more rural existence.

Speaking for myself, absolutely not. The amount of things available in cities compared to rural areas is immense. I’ve lived in both.

Theater, music venues, libraries, restaurants, beer gardens, good food markets, schools. I have all of this writhing walking and biking distance. You don’t get that in rural areas without needing a car.

[AtlasBarfed]

Rural areas are actually bike-averse. No shoulders, high speed limits, drunk drivers, asshole angry white guy pickup truck drivers, conservative contempt for "liberal" bicyclists.

They SHOULD be better but... no.

Then again my urban experience is Minneapolis St Paul, possibly the most bike-able city outside of winter I've seen.

[em-bee]

i just saw the same in a documentary about biking in germany. major roads in rural areas have absolutely no space for bikes. cars go at the speed limit, and riding a bike from one village to the next is more dangerous than any city.

[thirdsun]

It depends. Many major roads have separate bike paths and if they don't there's always the option to use smaller, less travelled side roads but you have to plan your route in that case.

It's certainly not as bleak as you describe.

[em-bee]

well that situation was what was shown in the documentary. i can't say how common that is, but given the cost and notorious lack of funds i think it is more common than we like. i could be wrong though. we could use google streetview to check.

as for alternative roads, that really depends. generally from my experience between two neighboring villages there tends to be only one road, unless you want to make a big detour. sometimes alternate roads exist when and old main road is replaced with a new one on a different route.