If you are including me in that, I've not been silent. I told you what thought: there wasn't enough information in the article for me to say to what degree the bike rider was at fault, which is precisely the question you asked at the start of the thread:
Instead, I said that:
So as you can see, I indeed accounted for the possibility that the defendants got it right. They know the evidence in the case far better than I do. I have no idea whether the defendant's lawyers or the insurance company reps were the best, or "highest" as you put it. My guess is that you really don't know that either. But I'll assume until I know otherwise that they are at least reasonably competent.