I love Freddie and I think taking inflated money for a risky job is 100% fine, and I've done it myself many a time, but when the risk occurs I don't think it's right to try and claim the full damages as a replacement. It's sort of like an ex-marine going to work in close protection for some dodgy bloke in the gulf. Sure 150k a year is nice for a grunt, but it's risky, and there's a chance you'll get hurt and never live another day.
The role at top gear was probably one of the most lucrative roles he could ever do, claiming a loss of earnings for that role is a bit much, when you could only get it in that role (with assumed increased risk). The increased risk is sort of necessary for the cameras/ job role, and they wouldn't get the viewers if every single thing they did was with helmets on.
If he asked for a helmet then sure, they should maybe have given him one (or come up with another safe way), and sure they may have to pay out for not giving it, but not the full amount. He's a big enough boy and with enough of a stature to say he's not doing it without a helmet, if he thought there was enough of a risk there. On some occasions staff can ask for PPE when risk dictates it's not necessary though (this may or may not have been the case here), and one event where a small risk materialises won't prove that either way.
Then there's also what caused the incident, it was seemingly a 22mph crash in a sort of kit car, and it's not common to wear a helmet in one of those (albeit on road), and that is legal by UK law, on motorways etc. Sure, on a track you may opt for one but most still don't as they're not really more risk than say driving down a country lane, sure speeds are quicker, but there's far less around which can kill you.
22mph is not fast, not at all for a car with a roll cage, the risk there of the damage he suffered was probably a 1 in a 10,000 hour event, and Risk Assessments won't cater for that, and nor should they for that risk assessment for that role. I do double that speed on my road bike (cycle), which is perfectly legal and that's around cars and buses etc, and about 20mph is average speed, with very little protection.
Heck, you can even get ran over at 20mph and it be fairly safe (apparently). We apparently deem that as the safe speed limit near schools etc.
If you're willing to take on good money for risky jobs, you shouldn't kick off too much if that risk materialises, as that's why you're getting the money. If the risk wasn't there, the viewers wouldn't be and the money wouldn't be either.
The settlement is coming from the taxpayer, one way or another whether that's from funding BBC, or through paying high insurance premiums via BBC. This plus the £5m or whatever it cost to axe/ pause the rest of the series.
All these rugged individualistic types who manage their own risk perfectly and never give a thought to the tragedies and work underpinning our H&S every day. Best one on here has got to be the statement that he shouldn't be driving if he's gonna crash at low speed. Commonest accident is to crash into a parked car within a mile of home, so I suppose none of should be driving in that case. I had an argument with our gatepost once, never again, it won 
