Fast, comfortable and fun, recumbents have many advantages over the upright bicycle. They are far more comfortable to ride, since they involve no stress or strain on your body, and your entire torso is supported by an anatomically shaped seat.

They are extremely safe - the brakes are more effective as there is no danger of being thrown over the handlebars. And as for being seen, don't worry, when you are ride a recumbent you are transformed into the most conspicuous vehicle on the road!

And of course there is the reduced resistance to the wind, which makes it easier to get to high speeds and easier to maintain them over long distances. At 18 mph, 80% of the force acting to slow the vehicle is from air resistance, and as the speed increases, so this percentage gets dramatically higher. There are only two ways to increase speed, to increase power output or to reduce wind resistance, and since the human engine has a fairly small capacity, the former only offers limited potential. Decreasing wind resistance offers incredible speed potential, with the fastest fully faired bicycles now achieving speeds of over 80mph.

You may not think this is of much relevance to you as a leasure cyclist or tourist, but the converse is that if you don't want to go hard, you can ride more easily, knowing that you are still doing less work to push through the air. And if you have ever spent a long day struggling into a head wind, you will surely appreciate any advantage you can get.

There are some practical advantages too. They are easier to get on and off, especially for people with short legs, for whom conventional bikes are mostly quite impractical as the pedals are always the same height from the ground, so they have to jump off the saddle when they stop. On a recumbent this is not a problem. You have a very good view of the world around you with your neck at a more relaxed angle. And riding a recumbent will definately get you noticed, although that is not always an advantage!

So why doesn't everyone ride one?

Most people have a number of apparently good reasons why this is so. They give you the usual justifications: they are hard to ride, you can't be seen in traffic, your view ahead is reduced.

The thing is, it would also be possible for a recumbent bike riders to come up with just as many reasons why you shouldn't ride a conventional bike, if they could be bothered. The main reason people don't ride them is that they are afraid to be different.

As to the actual issues of safety involved, these are in practice completely false. Every recumbent rider knows that you are much more visible on a recumbent, as people always notice something unusual, it is the mundane and familiar which is ignored.

And recumbents are not inherently more difficult to ride. In fact they vary, just like conventional bikes, and it is this variation which persuades many novices that the bike they have just tried, which might be an extreme racing machine, is representative of recumbents as a whole. This situation is changing as far better commuting and touring designs become available. If you are not in control of your vehicle then it naturally feels less safe in traffic, and the time needed to adjust to a new riding position is obviously a barrier to a rapid take-up of recumbent riding.

As for your view ahead being reduced, well you are still usually sitting higher than you would be in a car, and your head naturally faces the direction you are going instead of the ground in front of you.

Against these issues there are the obvious 'dangers' of conventional bicycles. You are very high off the ground when you fall. If you hit something or pull too hard on the brakes you are likely to go flying over the handlebars. When you stop most riders cannot put their feet on the ground. Not to mention the various physical ill effects caused by an unnatural posture and pressure on the hands and perineum.

So having answered all the arguments, will people then start to ride them?

The answer is usually no. People have a great number of other issues rather than rationality that motivate their behaviour. One dominant one is fear - of danger, perceived or actual; of other people's opinions; of being different or of standing out in a crowd. Also most people don't do things for sensible reasons. They do things because they are fun. This is the only reason why I ride a recumbent but it can be hard to persuade a novice wobbling off for the first time that this is really a nicer way to travel. Logical, yes, but fun?

Mainly, there is the question of image. The conventional bicycle has managed to cultivate an image of glamour by association with great sporting personalities or national events. Even mountain biking, which just a few years ago was still an off-beat and whacky occupation, is now promoted as part of the consumer lifestyle along with sunglasses and soft drinks. By the time an activity has reached this level, the battle for people's minds is obviously won and rationality no longer plays a part. Recumbents are still weird and nerdy, which is really just another way of saying that you don't see influential people riding them.

So why should we care? For my part it is because I am trying to sell them, because I think they're a great product and they could benefit many people who might otherwise give up on an active lifesyle. It is also a huge challenge to be in on something so small that has the potential to be so major. And the more mainstream recumbent riding becomes, the better the bikes become - better designs, more accessories, less negative reaction, more people to share it with. It's become my business and my passion. The rest of you are probably just happy to ride your bikes!

If you want to know why Lance Armstrong doesn't ride one, here is the answer from the horses mouth...

Older Gentleman: Um, who makes...your bike?
Lance Armstrong: Who makes it? Trek.
OG: Trek makes the bike, and then you have the Shimano derailleurs and parts...
LA: All that, right.
OG: Yeah, all that. You've heard of, I assume, a ‘recumbent bike' - a sit down bike?
LA: I've heard of it, but I've never tried it.
OG: Never tried it. Well, they claim to have the world record on the flats.
LA: Right...
OG: I tried one...
LA: [interrupting] Well, one of them sits three feet off the ground and the other sits about six feet off the ground, so aerodynamically, it's far superior.
OG: Yeah. Would that type of bike be legal in the Tour de France?
LA: No, totally illegal, [fighting back a laugh] one hundred percent. If it were legal, we would have tried it by now.
OG: Well, it's got two wheels...
LA: Yeah, but you have to have a traditional geometry. They call it double triangle. We'll get you a rulebook. [At this point Armstrong allows himself a laugh] And when they pass it, believe me, we'll be on it.
OG: The thing is, I noticed when I tried it, going up hills, it was much more difficult. I slowed down, and of course the owner then told me that you have to develop the muscles, you know, if you're going to go uphill...
LA: He told you that you have to train. That's right, that's what he should have told you. [Laughter and applause from a disbelieving audience]
OG: Yeah, but I don't go very fast.
LA: Well, you gotta train!
OG: Really? Well in comparisons with the slow, average rider, they can get on the ‘regular geometry' type of bike and go up hills a certain speed, they would probably get on these recumbents and go uphill a little bit slower, where as on the flats they might go about a third faster. Anybody in here, uh, ever taken one out one of these...?
LA: Nope. But our only opinion is that when we can figure out how to use it, we'll try. We'd better talk to Trek. They may not make those. If they don't make them, then we're not riding them. [More laughter fills the room]