The difference between you and the pedestrian is mostly speed. Motorists expect people in crosswalks to be moving at walking speed. Now, given that you were starting from a stop, you probably weren't going much faster than a pedestrian at the point the car pulled in front of you. So, I would agree with you in this case that the driver's behavior probably was not any different than if you were walking, and that you merely contributed to the incident by riding.
However, the law would not be with you. Here's why. A crosswalk is defined as the prolongation of the limits of the sidewalk across an intersection, whether marked or not, and includes marked crosswalks at midblock locations. As such, the crosswalk is considered an extension of the sidewalk, so if bikes are allowed on sidewalks, then they are allowed in crosswalks (this is a liberal interpretation, with which not all traffic engineers or magistrates will agree). Conversely, where bicyclists are not allowed on sidewalks, then they are not allowed in crosswalks. State law does not dictate whether bicyclists can ride on sidewalks, but specifically allows local agencies to do so. In Folsom, a local ordinance makes it is illegal to ride on sidewalks (even thought many bike paths dead end into sidewalks in Folsom). Therefore, it is illegal to ride in crosswalks, and that's how the police have interpreted it when cyclists have been hit in crosswalks.
There is one other part of the law that influences how this issue is dealt with, and that is the requirement that motorists yield to pedestrians in crosswalks (and requires peds not to "jump out" in front of cars). Because this section of the VC uses "pedestrians" and not "persons" or something like that, this is used as backup to the argument that bicyclists in crosswalks do not get the same protection as pedestrians there.
But, if that's not confusing enough, there was a new addition to the VC about 2 years ago that defines "bike path crossings", which, by definition allows bicyclists to ride in these. Obviously, this doesn't apply to the incident under discussion here, but it is very relevant to the Folsom Rail Trail along Folsom Blvd., the Willow Creek Trail Crossing of Oak Avenue Parkway, and a number of other places where bike paths cross roads with marked "bike crossings". So, at these locations, state law has your back. That said, I'm not sure it's been tested here in Folsom, or whether your average police officer even knows about the change.
So, there is one other fine point to be made about the E. Natoma-Blue Ravine incident. And that is, since you were traveling with the direction of traffic, if you had pushed the button and then ridden in just outside of the left edge of the crosswalk, you would have been in a legal position as a bicyclist (although arguably not a good one) and, provided you were there firs, you would have had the right of way to proceed straight (as you would have been meeting the as near as practicable to the right edge of roadway requirement.
As for the Parkshore example, you are certainly correct that most cyclists use the crosswalk and 50% of them are going the wrong way. Here's my inelegant solution (which is what I generally do here): use the ladder crosswalk across Parkshore to get to the bike lane on Parkshore (this is legal because it is a "bike path crossing") and simply wait for the light to turn green for Parkshore. There is a loop detector in the bike lane, and the timing on that signal is actually adequate for bicyclists. Yes, it's a little awkward, and the whole issue would go away if the city would merely turn the ped signal on across the other leg of Folsom Blvd. and stripe the other crosswalk (yes, it's there). Then bicyclists would have the option of pressing the ped signal and riding in the street as I previously described. The other problem with the red arrow route is highlighted by the way you drew the red arrow, extending along the wrong side of Parkshore after crossing Folsom Blvd. Unfortunately, this is how many bicyclists do this. Or, worse, they make a sweeping turn from the crosswalk across Parkshore to get to the right side, in conflict with the light and often with other traffic. Yes, few cyclists will walk their bikes across intersections, but sometimes, it's the only reasonably safe thing to do. Yes, there are engineering solutions that would make this much less problematic and encourage cyclists to behave more predictably (and legally), but transitions between bike paths and roads will always be awkward and require special attention by users. This location is one of those.
Andy, Just for the sake of argument, would you accuse a pedestrian, in the exact same situation, of "contributed significantly to the event" if they were crossing that intersection in the exact same crosswalk? Whats the difference to the driver? Me thinks "contributed somewhat to the event" might be more appropriate.
OK, so if, as a bicyclist, I should NEVER EVER use a crosswalk, how would you suggest one cross Folsom Blvd at Parkshore when approaching the intersection northbound on the trail? Virtually every bicyclist I have every seen (and I have seen a bunch) cross here in the crosswalk. What else are they supposed to do... meander out into the traffic and somehow fit themselves into a lane of travel? I guess the only other answer would be to walk your bike across but lets get real... no one is going to do that.
One other thing... where is it stated that riding a bicycle in a crosswalk is illegal? I have seen references to several CA city ordinances that state, under various circumstances, it is, in fact, legal.
I don't think biking in the crosswalk is specifically illegal but rather you do not have the right of way (peds do) and bicycles are considered vehicles when being operated. As such, you wouldn't drive a car across a crosswalk.
You said that a lot more succinctly than I (although I did add a little more information)!