As a long term recumbent rider, I can assure you that visibility (conspicuity) is NEVER a challenge. That's a common mistake made by outsiders.

However, with this model, rider vision does look challenged. The body is so prone that the neck angle looks bad like a racer on the drops, leading to neck strain and 90% of the rider's view being road surface instead of traffic and obstacles.

Finally, safety may be a bit better than a racer as stated in the article, but if the rider actually hits something, I would much rather fly into it feet first on a recumbent than head first on a racer or prone bike.

My main interest is in how and where the seat supports the rider. Looks interesting, and potentially comfortable. Or not (!)

The UCI would lay an egg if they saw this.

Okay, this is just plain silly. The geometry on this guarantees you won't be able to generate as much power as on a regular bicycle. The hip angle is just way too open to involve the powerful gluteals. John Aldridge should stick to architecture. Bringing Russ Denny's name into this doesn't help. He's well-known as a very mercenary torch. Give him money and Russ will build anything for you, regardless of how inefficient the design is.
Aldridge's website/blog is just painful to read. Ridiculous claims aside, grammatical and spelling errors abound. Among other things, he claims this "allows you to keep your head up and see the road in front." Nonsense. You'd have to hyperextend your neck just like on a road bike and still look forward and downward. "What is more comfortable than lying down?" Supine on a recumbent seat that distributes the pressure over a large seat, backrest and maybe even headrest. People have actually slept in their recumbent trikes at rest stops. Try that with a "comfortable" Bird of Prey.
I feel sorry for anyone suckered into paying $8500 for one of these.

This is far the worst design for a bike for one its like as soon as you crash you gonna go head first and then smear your whole face into the ground. Why do we even need to reinvent the bicycle.

Bloody ridiculous and that was before I read the asking price!

Not convinced by this design of bicycle at all and the rider has to pull their head back uncomfortably just to see where they are going. This just smacks of desperation to do something differently.

this is ridiculous. laying on your front side is TERRIBLE for your spine. you are just asking for back problems if you were to ride this way regularly. just stupid how "inventors" are continually trying to better things that work so well already. at least recumbent bikes have a physiological reasoning behind them. this is the opposite and just stupid.

This might work well if it was faired and taken to Battle Mountain. Oh....wait.

That's a bicycle built by a committee.

The design is interesting, but I foresee problems climbing hills. I don't think you can generate sufficient power while going up steep hills. I think it would work OK, not great, on the flats, but not for use in hilly terrains.