Really confused as to what exactly you want here. You don't even have to read the article, just the subheading, to see that they are saying the city should build more bike infrastructure.

City has failed to build infrastructure that could reduce threat

Ideally, any number of deaths is too many and they are looking to reduce that number by suggesting things to increase safety for people who ride them. That's a double win. Less biker deaths is good on its own, but also makes bikes safer so more people are inclined to use them. If there's something the city can do to prevent these deaths, isn't it appropriate to be upset and demand action? They're demanding the city build charging stations or battery swaps. That's basically a subsidy for these bikes.

Requiring fireproof charging/storage lockers for ebike batteries—except for those stuck with the bill (mostly landlords), most people think this is a good idea, or are indifferent.

Retooling the entire transportation infrastructure to make not-driving more practical—not terribly popular. The set of people willing to give up their cars is small.

That's why the acceptable-mortality-rate thresholds are different.

I think you are missing the point that the bike fires caused property damage.