I am leaning towards the anti-litigation argument, and it's not 
because I am belittling the very grievous pain and suffering that 
Bethany obviously underwent and is still undergoing, but precisely 
because I feel that trying to express that in dollars and cents (or 
in yootles, if you wish) demeans the spiritual essence of existence. 
Danny's point that for 10 million dollars he would allow his face to 
be bashed in but for 10 thousand he would not, only shows what HE 
thinks is a lot of money--I could well imagine millions of people for 
whom $10,000 is already immeasurable wealth and that includes my own
self 60 years ago. Yet I doubt that I would have concluded such a 
bargain and not only because the final outcome of corrective surgery 
is always uncertain (which you wisely eliminated from consideration) 
but mainly because that is not my idea of making money. There is a 
certain satisfaction in doing that in a societally constructive way 
as Danny should know best; he earns his fabulous salary from Yahoo 
by doing things that are useful, and pleasurable to himself to boot. 
A long way from going out to harvest your money tree every month, 
and the latter would not even involve taking it from a fellow human!
   A few technical points. Loss of earnings/loss of productivity is 
clearly part of compensatory damages and would be eligible for 
reimbursement in any system. To figure that is not at all difficult 
if you establish the market value of her time in dollars/hour, 
whether actually lost or not. You yourself conceded that suing for
punitive damages would be inappropriate in the circumstances, so 
the only area of contention is the "value" of pain and suffering. 
I suggest that could be quantified by the cost of analgesic tablets
to keep her completely pain free for as long as required--obviously, 
a long shot of what is usually collected under this heading in most 
cases of litigation, much of which is just padding for lawyers' fees 
and windfall enrichment. 
   A traffic accident between two vehicles is always a function of
the omissions and commissions of both parties. Even if technical 
guilt devolves on one participant only, the question remains, could 
the other party have done anything to avoid the accident? Not knowing
enough of the details, I cannot answer that question. Certainly the 
name of the event ("Helluva Ride Bike Tour") made me wince with 
discomfort--Helluva ride indeed. Why was it necessary to route it 
through traffic-rich streets? Were any sound signals given? Were the 
bikers in one cluster and Bethany just happened to be in the line of 
the cross-street when the truck barreled in? And so forth. Ex post 
facto these may be moot questions now. At any rate, the fact that 
the other party sent flowers shows that he is no irresponsible rascal.
I do hope that the liability will be settled out of court.  
   Shirley came to exactly the same conclusions independently and I 
can see from the "biking whiteboard" (which I consulted only after 
writing the above) that I am not quite alone in that opinion.
   Anyway, the best to Bethany (whom, with parents, we do hope to see 
this weekend) == Danny's Grandpa Andrew
   SHIRLEY'S POSTSCRIPT:
"Pain and Suffering" is an intangible. The Buddha taught that all life
was pain and suffering; whom do you sue for that?? The idea that you 
are entitled to recompense is a new concept and carried too far. By 
doing anything in this world, you assume some risk. Bike riders 
("Helluva" or not) assume a clearly understood distinct risk and they 
think they get compensated by the pleasure of the sport, or saving 
transportation time, or getting the exercise. Unfortunately, there 
comes payback time every now and then and you must grit your teeth 
about it.==SHIRLEY (as paraphrased by Andrew; she is too busy to sit 
down at the computer).