That sounds terrible, but has that situation ever come to pass? Knowing how heartless some lawyers can be I'm sure it has.

Despite being a big supporter of increased facilities (WOLs, Bike Lanes, & MUPs) I would never support any laws limiting the use of any road by cyclists. Hell, I even think interstates out of Urban areas should be open to cyclists, and I believe that some are, though I could be wrong. Living in California I know the law says that a cyclist should use a bike lane when supplied, but there are so many loopholes that it really hardly matters. On roads like Venice the shoulder and bike lane area are so wide that even the most aggressive VC cyclist would find themselves in the bike lane 95% of the time. And at intersections the lane goes to the left of right-turning traffic with signage alerting motorists to watch for merging cyclists, again not perfect, but at least not the normal suicidal path. Then on roads like Santa Monica the bike lane runs right in the door zone, and since the law specifically states that a cyclist can use their judgement to avoid hazards I avoid the whole hazardous bike lane. Finally I think the LAPD is so busy dealing with real crime it would have to be a very slow day for a cop to waste even a second on where I'm riding. Every cop I've ever encountered down here either smiles and waves or looks so busy that they don't even see me.
While I can understand the worry of a lawyer using even the smallest bike lane requirements against a cyclist in a bike/auto accident. I believe laws like the CA one are written to include common sense and allow a cyclist to use their best judgement. But I did vote for the final option, because the idea of a cyclist being prosecuted, even just one, for not using a bike lane turns my stomach.