It is interesting about the photographer. I would think the state has a highway law about causing an unreasonable distraction. Most do have that law it is just rarely enforced.
The guy on the bike would have no cause of action though. In almost all states they have a not greater than doctrine for liability. That means if the injured party is more than 50% responsible for his injury he is barred from recovery from the other liable person. So even if the photographer contributed to his dumb move he didn't even get close to being the proximate cause of the crash.
Had he killed or seriously hurt a passenger that would be different. The passenger could collect from both negligent parties to their proportionate share of the liability.
Now back to the good part, yep the guy that owns that Vette should be major pissed.
