Sorry, I have no sympathy for the family. Absolutely none.

They got $44,106.47 USD for the death of their son even though
the son probably contributed way more to the accident than excessive speeding by the car driver.

If the driver can't see the bicyclist than the bicyclist shares some of the blame, perhaps the majority of the blame. I wonder if he had a light on his bike? I wonder if the fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet contributed to his death (i doubt that)

So when the family wants $44k but they are
So getting money for them is okay, getting money for the driver's expenses isn't okay?

If it was a clear case where the driver was at fault (and if it was he'd probably be facing criminal charges) than yes he wouldn't deserve restitution. This is different.

The driver's insurance company paid the family, not because they truly felt that he was solely at fault, but because giving them $44k is cheaper than being brought to court and possibly face a much larger award from a jury who would vote on the emotion of a 17-year old dying and not the facts of who is at fault and how much percentage the fault is.

So in the end, the driver should get around $38,000 and the family gets $6000. Assuming that there is no insurance the the bicyclist had that would pay the award.

Yes but in this article it states that the driver was going almost double the posted speed limit.

I really hope that changes your view on this.

That does change things. If true, I wonder why is isn't facing criminal charges of some sort.