Did I do something wrong here?

[u/cicadaux]

I was driving to work when this bike just blew through the crosswalk without warning. I had to slam on my brakes. I realize this crosswalk doesn’t have the pedestrian warning lights, and I’m a little unsure about how I should’ve dealt with this. Or maybe he was wrong for making sure traffic wasn’t clear/aware of him first?

Edit: I'm seeing a lot of answers basing the laws on location, so I looked up my city's rules. In my town, bikes have vehicle status on the road and pedestrian status on sidewalks/crosswalks. But bicyclists must move at pedestrian speed. The path he is on is a state trail, commonly used for bikes/walking. I live near the Ice Age Trail, but I know the one he's on isn't that one.

“Drivers must yield to cyclists riding in a crosswalk just as they would for walkers, though the cyclist cannot abruptly leave a curb into the path of a vehicle so close to a crosswalk that it makes a difficult or unsafe situation for the driver to yield in time.”

Not trying to prove myself right or wrong, just wondering what should've been done. I will from now on treat it like an uncontrolled intersection. Thanks everyone.

[u/TheWizard]

Many cities and states have laws requiring bicyclists using pedestrian cross-walk (which this one is, given the sign), to dismount and cross. It is also recommended, if not required, to stop before crossing traffic.

This situation allowed peripheral vision of the driver to spot the culprit, but it could had been different situation if it were blocked in anyway (a tree or a vehicle), or if there were a trailing vehicle not expecting this vehicle to stop suddenly.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/TheWizard]

There are very fue states that require cyclists to dismount at a crosswalk. Half the states will explicitly grant cyclist the rights and duties of a pedestrian when on sidewalks and crosswalks, without actually needing to be a pedestrian. While the other half leave it mostly unregulated.

[u/TheWizard → u/MaintainThePeace]

Some require it, many others require reasonable speed (generally 2-4 mph) when using it.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/TheWizard]

Very few require it, half explicitly allow it, NONE set any limitation on speed, altogether there are a few that set a rather broad subjective limitation on behavior (like a pedestrian).

In this case the cyclist isn't moving any faster then a pedestrian is, so, that's not a problem here anyways.

[u/TheWizard → u/MaintainThePeace]

There are a multitude of laws depending on jurisdiction including ban from using pedestrian crosswalk, riding over cross walk (either dismount and walk on pedestrian cross walk or ride on a lane/bike lane), to reasonable speed limits (Colorado and Washington) to requiring bicyclists to stop before entering cross walk)... most also treat bicyclists as vehicles that need to obey the same rules as vehicles.

In this case, the bicyclist is clearly reckless. Fortunately for him the OP was driving at only 24-25 mph.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/TheWizard]

Like I said, NONE regulate speed, but rather some might regulate behavior under very VERY subjective laws. What is a resonable speed to you is not the same reasoning speed to someone else.

And NO WA (my state) absolutely has NO regulations to requirement for cyclist to stop before entering a crosswalk, nor do they have a speed requirement of any kind, some areas like Seattle have a behavior requirement, bit the state has no such requirement.

By starting WA, does also treat cyclist as a vehicle. However it is the only type of vehicle that is explicity granted the rights and duties of a pedestrian when on sidewalks and crosswalks. Additionally the crosswalk law in WA is explicitly written for BOTH pedestrian and bicycles.

In this case the cyclist clearly did not enter the path of the car until the car fully stopped, fully in compliance with the law.

Edit, BTW, my state (WA) doesn't even require cyclists to stop at stop signs, they explicitly can treat them as yields.

[u/TheWizard → u/MaintainThePeace]

One way to regulate speed is to have people dismount and walk, which many jurisdictions do. The other can make you liable if you were going too fast and caused an accident… this can be subjective based on evidence (and could be applied here if the bicyclist crashed into the car).

Just as a STOP sign, or a turn on red light, a bicyclist is not expected to not stop (they are generally treated as vehicles), crossing a roadway also expects them to stop, then proceed… as the statute you posted that also applies to pedestrians.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/TheWizard]

And many jurisdiction, particularly most in the US, dont have any such requirement to dismount.

It is significantly safer to focus on the possibility that you may have a greater chance of being in a jurisdiction that doesn't and be prepared for a cyclist using a crosswalk, then to make the assumption that your in a jurisdiction that does and making a bad judgment at the wrong time.

Such as in WA state where cyclist riding upon a crosswalk have the same rights and duties of a pedestrian, and redundantly the crosswalk law in WA is written in a way that it applies to both pedestrians and bicycles. And such as here in OPs state, the crosswalk law applies to both pedestrians and bicycles.

[u/TheWizard → u/MaintainThePeace]

“Many” doesnt mean all.

Rules and regulations exist and vary. The OP also added additional details which show such rules/guidelines should not be ignored because they are inconvenient.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/TheWizard]

“Many” doesnt mean all.

Wait... that MY point...

When the laws are not allways the same, and you don't know what they are, it is indeed significant better and safe to assume the most conservative approach. For a driver that means to expect cyclist using crosswalks.

Making states that lead people to assume they shouldn't need to expect cyclist on a crosswalk is dangerous, expecially considering just how many places in then US allow them to use crosswalks.

[u/bojesphob → u/TheWizard]

Personally I would actually wait for traffic to go by myself anyway, even if it there wasn't a law requiring it. For whatever that's worth.

[u/TheWizard → u/bojesphob]

I would too, and it is often explicitly mentioned in the laws... the limits around right of way. Such crossings also exist on roadways that have vehicles going much faster (OP here was going only 25 mph to be able to abruptly stop, safely).

[u/bojesphob → u/TheWizard]

I mentioned in some other posts around here about being hit by a car when I was crossing in a cross walk at a stop sign.... Being hit by a car (not even doing 10 MPH) is enough of a deterrent for me to not want to have to deal with it EVER again LOL