This is why you take the lane at intersections. Sensible jurisdictions permit this in their vehicle code.

Always prevent careless drivers from killing you and always have an escape path.

As a former bicyclist, I try to be extra mindful of bicyclists when driving. One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds.

I hate to use the common refrain, but it really seems to me that a higher percentage of bicyclists drive like maniacs. What purpose, exactly, does driving without a light at night serve? Especially when combined with barreling through a red light into a multi-lane traffic circle? And, of course, sidewalks are meant to be driven on — wouldn't want to lose your bicyclist card for ever pushing your bike. Leading to the ever popular driving across a crosswalk (I'm not so sure who's at fault if I were to hit a bicyclist on a crosswalk, and I'd rather not find out).

Granted, due to the lower weight of bicycles, accidents are considerably less deadly, but there is still a considerable injury risk to me as a pedestrian, and as an automobilist, I'd rather not have an accident on my conscience, whether I'd be legally at fault or not.

> Leading to the ever popular driving across a crosswalk (I'm not so sure who's at fault if I were to hit a bicyclist on a crosswalk, and I'd rather not find out).

It's you. If someone had left a dumpster in the cross walk it's also you. If you hit a cyclist without any lights in the dark, it's you.

You're in charge of a vehicle, unless someone jumps out at you, it's on you not to drive it into things.

> One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds.

So you expect to get unlawful right of way because your vehicle is big and dangerous. Allow me to not share your view about who's a maniac.

I don’t know what the law is in your country, but in Switzerland, it is unlawful to pass a moving car with its turn signals set on the right.

On a separate lane, no matter how early the signal is set? That would seem like an invitation to power abuse considering how much time queuing cars spend in that not-quite-standing state.

The situation I meant was for a bicycle passing in the gap between the right hand lane and the curb, not on a separate bicycle lane.

> That would seem like an invitation to power abuse

As in, cars could set their turn signals all the time? Pretty sure that would be against the law, and it would probably be easier to achieve that effect by hogging the right side of the lane (which is also against the law, except when combined with setting the signals and preceding a right turn).

Here in Germany filtering through the gap isn't allowed at all when the car is moving, turn indicators or not. Doesn't keep drivers from getting upset when it happens while they are standing (then it's permitted). And it's certainly allowed on a separate lane, just like pedestrians on the sidewalk aren't required to walk slower than the traffic-stricken cars to their left.

(when the lane is just painted and the right turn is unobstructed otherwise, I do like to change lanes to behind a right-indicating car: so much better flow than stopping them, while almost stopping myself to be prepared for a forced turn - one of the many reasons I prefer painted lanes)

> I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds.

Had you just overtaken these cyclists?

No. Due to the slope, cyclists have a fair amount of speed, and in anticipation of my right hand turn, I would not pass them anyway.