On that basis the same arguments should have been made against the restrictions of ownership of firearms in the UK following the actions of a single person: Thomas Hamilton.

You seem to be conflating humans rights (the right to follow and practice one's faith, right to safety and asylum) which are universal, and liberties which are based on what is acceptable as part of the right to be part of a society. Many liberties have been withdrawn e.g. owning slaves, foxhunting with dogs, smoking in public places, other liberties have been removed due to rights taking precedence: eg, employment discrimination.

Cycling is not a right, it is a liberty and cannot be conflated with removing ones right to ones faith and as such society reserves the right to deny liberties if it is for the grater good of society. The only argument is whether removing a liberty is fair or unfair, and that is down to (a) our elected parliaments to decide and (b) whether the electorate would vote for a parliament that is committed to making that decision.