The other thing that u/l aviation always has working against it with respect to the bad actions of a few is the public's general fascination with anything involving aviation.

I learned this first had back in 1986 when I had a fouled plug in a 2-place QuicksilverM, landed in a rough field and bent my landing gear. I got 2 column inches in the Milwaukee Journal when 4 people killed in a boat collision the same day got 1/4th the press. I and my passenger got some alfalfa stains on our tennis shoes but that was more newsworthy than 4 people being killed in the boat collision because planes are more interesting than boats for most people. People get killed everyday in cars and motorcycles and they get little press. But if a Cessna 172 runs lands long, takes out some runway lights and no one is hurt, that is still BIG news. That is just the nature of the public's interest in aviation.
Yeah, I understand completely as someone who acts as a "reference" for a lot of reporters (trying to keep things factual and the speculation to a minimum) as a result of my line of work.

What is interesting about u/l is that only GA sees them as "not real airplanes".
That was not my experience as one of the primary "members" of our UL flying "club".

Those with intimidate knowledge of the history of the u/l industry know it's not a "safety" problem they have/had, but too much "self-training" and people operating outside their own limitations and experience.
I'll agree that it's predominately the "human factors" issue but given that no one really conclusively investigates the UL crashes in any organized manner, there's no good data out there on the rate of mechanical failures or structural failures with which to judge things. We may just be "wishful thinking" that it's almost entirely the jerks who fly like the laws of gravity and aerodynamics don't apply to them.