I don't see the text of this article as biased. It seems exactly factual and telling us something we all know. We are in fact in a greater danger of getting into an accident exactly because driver's "don't see us", exactly because they are not used to looking for, or judging the speed of, motorcycles. I thought it was interesting that, in the experiment, it worked similarly for buses.
And I think the solution hinted at in the last paragraph of the article is exactly right: driver's need to be taught to understand that their vision is not objective and can deceive them. It annoys me when I see people pull up to an intersection on a rolling stop, with maybe a half second look, and then pull out. It's in those situations they don't give themselves enough time to see the unexpected. I always look twice in every direction, and move my head to change my position. It was hammered into me at a young age and has stuck.
Marrk53 asks whether it is driver ignorance that causes the problem. I think that is what the article says. Driver's are ignorant of how their eyes work. It is a good thing that there are articles like this to explain it to those interested in reading them.
OK, on re-read, I'll grant you, the heading's reference to "traffic hazard" seems biased. It could have said that the "element of surprise" puts motorcycle at a greater risk of being in an accident. And it could have strengthened its last paragraph's hint that car drivers ought to learn how to scan properly.
2009 BMW F650GS
2007 Yamaha FJR1300A
2001 BMW R1150GS