Originally Posted by
JanMM
Recumbent bicycles are bicycles. Period. There are all kinds, sizes and shapes of bikes and some of those are recumbent variations.
Dangerous? You have some data showing that people on recumbent bikes are at more risk of death or injury?
I don't think so.
I've put on about 1600 miles so far this year commuting to work (suburban/urban/suburban round trips) and am at eye level with the majority of motorists I encounter. Still alive and kicking.
Didn't have major discomfort issues in the several decades of cycling prior to switching to 'bents exclusively a few years ago. I do indeed, though, have less discomfort now than before. But, my legs still get quite tired at times.
(My standard answer to What saddle? used to be WTB Rocket V Race.)
Some key quotes from my original post...
I have no problem if you want to ride recumbents
I
personally do not even consider them as bicycles
in the traditional sense,
but I don't mean that as an insult.
I'm not against recumbents, if you like them, great.
And so on to my point,
which is specific to upright, traditional, bicycles
Again to clarify, I mean no disrespect to the recumbent riders. I can look at them and imagine they are quite comfy. I'd like to try one, on a MUP. But my own paranoia if you want something to blame it on, prevents me from riding one on the road in traffic. THAT I base on nothing other than my own observations. I cannot site any data to suggest they are more dangerous or more difficult to see. But I would guess that likely there is only one, or less, out there on the road per 100 or more traditional bikes so statistically, they are insignificant and thus it is unlikely data exists on them. Anyway, that is a subject for another thread. The point is, the comfort level of recumbents is irrelevant to me as I don't ride one.
Again, my own personal views are just that, and not intended in any way to insult.