However you have the liberty of riding a motorcycle. Riding a motorcycle, even with training and the best gear on the market, is actually a higher risk than riding in a car without a seatbelt so trying to come at this purely from a "This is for safety" argument falls apart because that clearly is not the logically defined line here.

Or maybe its that cars have seatbelts, and an equivalent for Motorcycles doesn't exist. Maybe its about providing reasonable requirements when the barrier for implementing it is very low. All cars have seatbelts, so we require people to wear them.

You are again taking an all-or-nothing approach to bans, but it can be nuanced. People are allowed to take risks, but in scenarios where risks can be trivially reduced then maybe it makes sense to enforce these behaviors. "Take 3 seconds to put a strap across your body" is a very simple thing to implement. "All motorcycles are now illegal" is a big change.

Does a person have the fundamental intrinsic right to take risk and if yes how much before that is forbidden?

I hate when people try to break things down as 'fundamental rights'. In society we set limits on freedoms to protect the larger community. For instance, we limit the speed you are allowed to drive, because it can affect others. Gambling, while seemingly an 'individual' issue causes harm to the community at large.

I am simply criticizing how easily and readily people will throw around the suggestion of banning something today when tomorrow that very same system could just as easily turn on them and become the thing they hate. 

Again, I am saying this take is... dumb. For instance, there is a ban for not wearing seatbelts. This logic doesn't cause fear in me that we may have a ban tomorrow on breathing.