person riding a bicycle = cyclist
You don't need to try to patronise me, Nick; I understand the term. What I don't understand is the point of the article and the emphasis on the minor fact that the person who committed the attack was using a bicycle as his mode of transport. Other than it being the attacker's mode of trasport, the bicycle bears no relation to the incident. It wasn't used as a weapon and there is no indication that it is believed to be in any way related to the motive or cause. The bicycle is, it would appear, irrelevant to the incident; and yet the whole article revolves around it.
Concise and elegant are two of the least appropriate words that one could use to describe that article.