Note how in EEN the gender of the pedestrian hit is at the start of the article but the gender of cyclist is subtly added at the end. I see in the comments someone refers to the cyclist as a rotten creep more usually used in respect to males.
The significance of the gender of the victim being a woman and perpetrator being a man as oppose to woman, may create greater hostility to cyclists. May be it should not, but I would tend to think it would for a number of reasons. A male cyclist may be considered more reckless and aggressive, also a man knocking over a woman may be viewed somewhat differently than a woman knocking over a woman.
The pedestrian's gender is referenced 7 times in the article with gender specific words, the gender of the cyclist is mentioned once after opinion is set and in a way may not be noticed by some readers.
Either a rubbish journalist to create this bias in perception or some sort of ploy