Arch said:
So even if balance problems are so rare (and I bet they're more common than you think - inner ear problems, strokes, congenital physical disabilities, injuries etc), those people don't matter?
No, they're just different types - not numbers of people. (Well, I'm not exactly sure they're all 'different', in the sense of being distinct, but still...)
They're not more common than I think. I think they're rare, and they ARE rare.
Arch said:
And that's just the 'special needs' case. As I pointed out before, some people actually like to try different things.
Yes, but only
for the sake of trying different things. Have you ever heard of the expression 'novelty value'?
Novelty value alone isn't a good enough reason for something to exist. So basically it's a rehabilitation aid for people with balance problems. Which is ok in itself, but don't pretend it's anything else! Just don't pretend it's... well,
sensible, or normal....
To be fairly honest, a recumbent actually seems pretty logical and attractive compared to that shitter. In fact you've actually won me over on the recumbent front - and what a good way of doing it, just show me something 10 times worse.
Arch said:
Riding any trike is a different feeling to riding a bike. Just like eating curry is different to eating a traditional roast dinner. Neither is 'better', they are just different and add variety.
No, it's a completely wrong analogy. A curry and a roast are both popular, a large proportion of the population like, and consume regularly, both of them. Not the case with trikes. I honestly cannot see the point in trikes, other than to get up hills really really slowly.
Arch said:
There's a saying you know, variety is the spice of life...
yes but it should be variety in
where you ride, not
what you ride...