Trikes are, by all accounts, lots of fun to ride. They are more stable than 2-wheelers and so are good for those with balance problems or for riding in slippery/icy conditions. They're a hoot in corners. But by virtue of their (sometimes) larger frontal area, greater rolling resistance, and higher weight, they tend to be slower. Also, I personally am a 'big wheel chauvinist' who believes that a larger drive wheel helps a bike/trike go faster; but most trikes have small drive wheels due to side loading forces when cornering. How much slower are trikes? In my club, a group of 18-19 mph riders all got trikes and rode together. They generally average 11-12 mph on their trikes. I'm sure that not all of that drop in speed is due to the inability of the trikes to go faster, but that's at least part of the equation. Another disadvantage of trikes is transportability. It can be done, but it's a lot trickier. Recumbent riders in general tend to be mistaken for disabled people; but trike riders get it the most.

Two-wheeers are, by definition, unstable. If you ride a 2-wheeler, you WILL fall (even an upright 2-wheeler.) The trick is to only do it at low speeds, when you won't lose a lot of skin doing it. And there's the problem of trying to balance a 'bent at 1.5 mph, which can be an issue on a steep hill! But bikes are easier to transport, are lighter and faster, and don't have specialized parts that trikes require, such as one-sided hubs and kingpin assemblies. The rider also doesn't need to avoid obstacles with three wheel tracks: there's only one wheel track with a 2-wheeler.

Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages. The question is, which set of disadvantages are you most willing to live with in order to get the advantages that go with them?