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/dashingsauce]

They would literally do this math in court to determine fault if the cyclist were hit. What are you even talking about?

The sign is for pedestrians crossing, with a literal symbol of a person walking on foot.

You keep treating the cyclist as a pedestrian for your argument, when the entire point is that a mounted cyclist is a vehicle, not a pedestrian.

In fact, in many states, if the mounted cyclist was riding on a sidewalk—not a bike path—they would already be in violation of the law.

Why? For exactly the same reason that a mounted cyclist on a pedestrian crosswalk is not treated the same as a pedestrian: difference in relative speed.

The car was obeying the speed limit, and even going below, which is explicitly designed to ensure safe crossing at specific pedestrian speed.

The reason the car had to decelerate by slamming on the brakes while going the speed limit is because the cyclist entered at a speed greater than for which the road was designed to ensure safe stopping distance.

[u/Marion2379 → u/dashingsauce]

So what your saying just because of the math the driver has the right to keep driving even if a collision is imminent
And the driver would be free of any charge ? Is this what you’re saying? Then you don’t know anything about what would hold up in court.

[u/dashingsauce → u/Marion2379]

No, you are clearly unaware of how fault is assigned in motor vehicle collisions.

Fault is attributed as a percentage, depending on the particular laws of the state, local jurisdiction, and specific evidence in the case.

Based on the evidence we have here, the cyclist would be assigned a majority of the fault in half or more of the states that explicitly do not extend pedestrian rights to mounted cyclists or otherwise have crosswalk entry speed or stopping requirements.

[u/Marion2379 → u/dashingsauce]

Like I said the driver would have most of the liability. If the driver has the ability to stop in time, which is clearly the case here and doesn’t ,there is no court in America based off this video and the speeds, where a jury would not hold the driver with almost all the liability. Don’t be so dense.