THere's some technical issue I don't understand. The cyclist should have "mad a claim", He didn't thereby incurring huge legal fees. What claim should he have made and why does this make a difference? If they were both equally to blame, why is only one party made to pay the costs. Justice can appear very unjust at times.
I don't think the argument's for less responsibility here - in any case I can't also work out why cyclist hitting a woman crossing the road speaking into her phone while the traffic light is green can be considered equally culpable as the woman. It recalls the other case a year or two ago when a chap was sent to prison for knocking down and killing a pedestrian who also stepped out in to the road in front of him. In this case, he was riding a fixed-wheeler with only one brake, that was the technicality that dealt to him.
I don't think judges like cyclists. Actually I think the majority of the driving population hate cyclists.
But you're right, in the litigious environment we live in, some form of insurance might be necessary, yet another burden and another expense. But then, what if, as a pedestrian, you're the one that is found at fault? On the same principle you could equally well suggest that people should insure themselves before they take a walk.