I would generally agree with this statement, but I don't think that non-recourse loans would have had much of an impact on the risks banks took during the bubble, especially given the "consensus" that house prices only go up.
The biggest factor that led to higher risks being taken by banks is that the people that gave them the money in the first place did not fear loss of investment. That goes for small depositors and large scale bond investors. Prior to the crisis there was an explicit guarantee for deposits up to €20k, but there was also the implicit guarantee from the precedence of past international bailouts and the existence of the lender of last resort. These implicit and explicit guarantees meant that depositors and bond holders were not worried about what the banks were doing with the money, as there was a back stop to the downside risk. Were there no guarantees then those providing the funds to banks would have paid more interest to what was being done with their money and would have asked for higher interest rates the higher the risk was.
Bottom line I think that you are right about risk being shared decreasing risk being taken by banks, but the banks will take as much risk as their money suppliers will allow them get away with.