Mentioning that the driver and police spokesperson were related is actually good reporting, it discloses a possible conflict of interest that the police force has in not only their announcements but also their investigation of the case. The public has a right to know when the subject of an investigation has ties to the cops, and it would be remiss of the paper not to mention this.
Mentioning the felon status of the victim is a grey area; many papers will have a style guide that says that if the subject of a news article has been newsworthy for some other reason, it's sensible to mention it; plus, victims should have backstories: their careers, their family, their noteworthy accomplishments. In this case it has the unfortunate side effect of reassuring many readers that cyclists are all scum whose loss needn't worry them much. But if the victim's identifying feature was positive, would we think it odd if the paper mentioned it? Likewise the safety record of the bus driver; not only do we want to know if he's crashed in the past, but if the paper doesn't have a policy of mentioning it when it's positive, they may have trouble mentioning it when it's negative.
My eyebrows are raised at "veered left to avoid a curb". In what kind of place do curbs jump out at you? Also "easing" the bus into the stop. Those to me are the most prejudicial elements of the story.
-S