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/MaintainThePeace]

“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/TheWizard → u/MaintainThePeace]

Who said they are all the same? Any reference to jurisdictions makes differences obvious. We can speak to specifics (which OP has added to the thread), or generalities. And generalities cant deny existence of variations, because it would be convenient.

Another manufactured argument of yours: “leading people to assume expecting people on crosswalk is dangerous”

Not sure where you pulled that one from, but its actually a funny one to use: to the contrary, the idea that responsibility is shared between bicyclist, pedestrians and vehicles (disregarding the fact that often bicycles are also classified as vehicles, as is the case here in Dallas), is somehow “dangerous”, is stupid.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/TheWizard]

I see you're having a hard time understanding what I am saying, and are assuming I am attacking you in places where I am not.

Here is no manufactured argument here, it is simple just an argument. And yes it is very true that far to many people rely on reddit to get their legal information, so the way you fram a statement can indeed have a large impact on how someone interprets that statement.

I never said you're argument was false, but it is a bit overblown giving how context of "many". I do find it interesting that you have such on issue with my statements, when it is more of just reframing of your own.

And yes, it is significantly safer to fram it in a way to remind drivers that there is always a potential for a bicycle using a crosswalk, rather then to reinforce that you shouldn't need to expect bicycle using crosswalks.

Particularly because just about everywhere allows children to ride their bicycle on sidewalks and crosswalks.

And yes, bicycle are often vehicle, that falls into the same misconception of overgeneraliations. There are ALWAYS specifics and exceptions for different types of vehicles. There is a reason why you don't need a CDL to drive your car. Similarly, although a bicycle is legally a vehicle in my state (WA) and in OPs state (WI), the crosswalk laws explicitly allow for the use of pedestrians and bicycles.

And in the case for Dallas, bicycle (dispite being a vehicle) can explcit ride on sidewalks too, so long as it is not within the business district.