I didn't take that article as particularly "anti-biker" but "anti-youth-biker culture" - which is characterized by semi-fast riding, passengers and no protective gear. Her point is that you should watch out so you don't hit these folks.
All that being said, her points are somewhat inconsistent. I've driven through Chicago, and I don't remember any 70MPH speed limits; there's a whole lot of 35, and some 55 on the freeways - but not 70. So this women cruising by in her SUV at 70 is likely exceeding the speed limit by a minimum of 15 MPH and perhaps by much more - in a 6,000 pound mass that can cause real damage not to the drive but to everyone else. In other words, she has the potential to cause a lot more "inconvenience" for a lot more people than some jerk in sunglasses with a loud pipe.
Beyond that, modern sportbikes stop from 60 in about 120 feet (some less); SUV's are 150 - 170, a Honda Civic is 150 - 170, and Euro sports sedans are 110 - 120. I imagine that there are some high-end sports cars that are in the 100 - 110. So the argument that bike take longer to stop than cars is specious.
Basically, what you have here is a member of the safety-crat brigade who sees something dangerous and dislikes it purely because of its danger; if that biker was going 65 on a Goldwing, she'd still find a way to hate it.
My response to people like that is to declare that I think that airbags and ABS are worse traffic menaces than even the jumbo SUV, and because I'm inherently in mortal danger at all times on my bike, I'm definitionally incentivized to behave in ways that won't kill me.
So many issues are evident in that rant that it's impossible to address all of them in a brief (or not so brief!) forum note. Rant is a good description, though.
cdg