When I started this, my thought was that if the biker was off to the right, or if the accident took place on a straightaway, where visibility is not an issue, then the driver is 100 percent at fault.

But if the cyclist was in the middle of the lane, going around a curve, I think you can't realistically put all of the blame on the driver. If she was going ten, while cars are going forty, then she was basically standing still in the middle of the lane.

If instead of a cyclist, it was a pedestrian standing still in the middle of the road, and a car came around a curve and hit him or her, would the accident still be entirely the driver's fault?

I think it's too simplistic to say that if a driver runs into someone from behind, it's the driver's fault. For example, if you are going down the road, legally going 45, and a car turns into the road from a sidestreet and you run into them, you are not at fault, even though you ran into them from behind. Why would it be that much different if instead of a car, it was a bike that turned into the road?

FWIW, I don't think the driver could claim to have her view impaired by the sun. I think the accident took place at 4:00 p.m., and the car and driver would have been going southeast.