A few points arise from this case:-
1. The reports that the cyclist will have to pay £100k costs is utter tosh. Given the compensation was around £4k, either fixed recoverable costs will apply or if the pedestrian's lawyers have incurred that level of costs it will be assessed massively downwards so that it is more in proportion with the damages.
2. As someone else had alluded to, I think the accident happened at a junction where pedestrians and road traffic were interacting and where road traffic (cars or cycles) should expect pedestrians to be crossing even perhaps when the lights are not in their favour. The fact that the cyclist proceeded through the junction with pedestrians still crossing would be why he was found to be primarily liable.
3. The pedestrian brought the case because she had been injured. The cyclist was judged to be primarily liable on the facts, but the pedestrian was found to be 40% or 50% (can't remember which) contributory negligent i.e. equally (or almost equally) culpable, so would have her damages reduced accordingly.
4. If the cyclist had been injured he should have brought his own action or defended and counterclaimed the cyclist's claim. That might have had the effect of both parties dropping hands and walking away, or at least reducing his liability.
5. Insurance plays a huge part in this. Very few cyclists and even fewer pedestrians, if any, carry third party liability insurance - at least that they know about. Sometimes home insurance will cover such liability. Years ago I acted for someone knocked over on a pavement by a child cyclist and the child was covered under his parent's home insurance, so my client was compensated. If there is no insurance then even if you win your case you face the task of trying to recover your compensation from an individual and equally the solicitor has to try to recover the costs likewise. For that reason most solicitors will not act if there is no insurance, especially on a no win no fee basis. I don't know what the circumstances are in this case, but maybe the pedestrian had legal expenses insurance or union backing.
6. Third party liability insurance for cyclists is a good idea for those who commute regularly by bike or for committed leisure cyclists and as people have pointed out it is often available as an add on for cycling membership organisations. I had it for a while when i was a member of the London Cycling Campaign. However there is no way you would persuade people to pay it if they are summer cyclists only or if the cycle only comes out of the garage a few times a year. It's not practical or feasible and would only put people off cycling if it were compulsory. Also, if you have home insurance, you might find that you are covered anyway.
