Originally Posted by N_C
I just re-read the part of Effective Cycling, (I decided to do this prior to burning it), about recumbents. He states he test rode some, liked the long wheel base better then the short, but still does not recommend a recumbent for urban road riding.
I use a recumbent for urban road riding, round trip to work and back, about 30 miles. I don't have any problems with it. In fact, I slipped on a wet curve a while back (my error, wet and oily curve,) and I got a little rash. But on my upright bike a few years ago, I went over the handlebars after a pedestrian intentionally knocked me off my bike. The "rash" was on my face, not pretty, and I spent the afternoon/evening in the emergency room. Today, I still have to wear a mustache to cover an ugly scar above my lip.
Based on my experience, my recumbent can be safer than my upright for that reason. But I can't say I've done any other kind of testing to prove my belief. It just seems safer because I am not likely to land on my face by going over the bars.
However, when I started riding my bent, I had significant handling issues to overcome (my bent is a short wheelbase, tends to have a longer learning curve.) But I've read about some of the more stable long wheelbased bents having some quirks in the steering, too.
I can easily imagine anyone riding a bent and deciding it was not good for commuting. On the other hand, I love mine so much, I was willing to ride it long enough to master the differences. Now, I'm fine. (Keep in mind that bents have many designs and vary in their handling characteristics.)
Hey, I remember when I was little, I had just as much trouble learning to ride a regular bike, probably even more so.
That said, this thread seems to be less about recumbents than about attacking John Forester.
War makes strange bedfellows, does it not?