Perhaps you can also provide a reference to how risk-taking is inherently an undesirable genetic component that should be weeded out.

I'd prefer to give a reference to how risk-taking while involving others is an undesirable trait. When I mortally hit a motorcyclist, even without a fault of my own, I might feel guilty the rest of my life. So indirectly, the irrational risk-taking of others is involving those who are trying to act responsibly.

So, I suggest to take the risk-taking elsewhere: go climb a mountain, do base-jumping or take the motorcycle to a racing track (bonus: real competition!). But leave other motorists out of your game.

Before wishing death or removal from the gene pool on anyone, maybe you should look at why the accident rate is high, especially in the US.

Severely deficient mandatory motorcycle training, riders who refuse to wear helmets or any safety gear at all, a tendency to just go for the biggest most powerful engine right away, and of course shitty drivers, who either deliberately antagonize riders, or simply don't give a shit.

Squids and outlaw bikers heavily skew the numbers.

Perhaps. The number 35 is a US factor, but similar orders of magnitude can be seen on the Dutch roads (factor of 22 if I recall). On Dutch roads, we have mandatory motorcycle training, obligatory helmet wearing and relatively save drivers.

All I am saying is: it's fun to enjoy a sport, I get it. As a top-roping climber, I also empathise with the thrill of adrenalin. But I just did the numbers: an average motor-cyclist will have a 6% chance to be involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in his lifetime, causing extreme trauma. 50% of those accidents involve other drivers. Think of them. They did not choose for cyclists driving 200 kph while overtaking through the middle. Did that cyclist take that other driver into account when he lays there on the tarmac? Did he take into account the years of psychological trauma he caused by his reckless behaviour?

Ah, so the biggest factor is behavior? People also drive recklessly in cars, but they more often end up getting other people instead. So we should encourage them to ride bikes.

The main factor is mode, not behaviour. The point is: the probability of paychological trauma involuntarily caused to others is much higher on a bike than on a car, regardless of behaviour. Seatbelts and other minimum driver safety are obligatory for the same reason.

"driving 200 kph while overtaking through the middle" is reckless behavior, irrespective of the mode of transport.

You don't have a bike license, do you? Your line of reasoning is very consistent with car drivers who are a bit afraid of traffic, and very afraid of "murdercycles".

Too often I see motorcycles being missed, because of their limited visibility and unpredictability. Due to that, and their higher vulnerability, they ask more attention of other road users. If I hit a car, well, it’s likely we both survive. If I hit a motorcycle I might well have a death on my consciousness.

That is because of inattentive and unskilled drivers. Most reasonable riders try to be as visible as humanly possible (and ride as if they're invisible). A motorcycle isn't unpredictable, it goes forwards or turns somewhat, just like a car.

Nobody deserves eugenics.

I never proposed for others to consciously select for certain genes. Those who drive a motorcycle can inform themselves of the risk they take and as such, choose for the higher probability of their genes not making it to offspring. Especially considering that it is predominantly 16-24 yo who die in motorcycle accidents.