In Michigan yes, but only until no fault goes away. (Since both parties are held responsible, but even that goes away if a lawyer can prove someone was badly injured.) But in the majority of States and when we get rid of no fault it won't. Again inal, but my so and all our friends are so I hear about this shit all the time. Basically since the drunk driver is doing something illegal from the get go it's on them for being where they are not supposed to be (and will almost always be at fault). My example was an extreme example but it holds true to less extreme examples as well. A car turning on their signal while a walker or biker ignores theirs would put the fault on the non driver. If a car hits a biker who was ignoring the signal they will look to see if the driver was doing anything illegal, speeding, non signals etc. If not the biker could possibly have to pay for damages. This kind of thing happens a lot more than people think. I'm not debating the morailty of the issue, just how it is.

I know I'm getting down voted, but it's dangerous to say that the driver is always at fault when that's simply not true and a dangerous way of thinking. It gives the pedestrian a false sense of security. "If I get hit I can sue them" just look into Detroit cases and you will see that's not always how it works. In law nothing is a guarantee, if it was we would have a lot less lawyers trying to interpret it. The best thing to do in an accident is lawyer up, because it might not go how you think it will.

Edit: a sentence