Attempted murder implies intent to kill.

I think it would be difficult to convince any reasonable jury that evading arrest comes with an intention to kill.

Law enforcement, being far more aware of the dangers involved. Being a professional organisation whose remit includes the safety of the populace. Is well funded. Has access to years worth of internal and external studies, and the advice of public and private institutions well versed in sociology, criminology, and road traffic statistics, should, in a fair world, be held liable for any manslaughter charges that occur in such a chase, rather than the chased.

But that doesn't fit with the narrative of "grr, dickhead criminal on motorbike made me feel angry" I guess.

Do you think chasing them will stop the next one from doing the same? The funny thing about people is we reproduce! There's new ones of us springing up out of the woodwork all of the time. A constant stream of new potential criminals.

Crime is fixed by societal, political, and economic change. By thinking big picture. Not by throwing adrenaline junkie cops after adrenaline junkie thieves. Not by risking the public's safety, and incurring great expense in fuel, training, wages, insurance, and vehicular wear at the same.

People generally commit crime because of their material conditions. You don't fix a bad guy with a gun bike by using a good guy with a gun bike. You do it by preventing the need for the crime to be committed in the first place. Preventative measures instead of reactive measures. More social workers, less cops.

LOL.

Maybe you need to stop imagining patterns that confirm your hypothesis.

As you said, the public is unhappy when police are perceived to do nothing, and when police are perceived to cause an accident. Both are potential outcomes of any incident without the existence of any cycle.

Its absurd to suppose the police have a meeting and someone says "people are getting really grumpy that we're letting all the crooks get away so we better start chasing them again".