Your probably right. Imbeciles on rented scooters getting killed by trying to overtake a right turning vehicle at an intersection would not be much of a real loss.

Were you stopped at a red light and then the light turned green and you wanted to turn, or was the light already green and you were already moving?

haha, it's Monday. Don't forget to put 40% something in coffee and you'll be fine.

Already entering the turn with one wheel in the bike lane.

If you weren't waiting at the light but already in motion and the light was already green, I can understand your frustration as you're already turning, and those electric scooter really sneak up on you. They also should have been careful, as clearly you hadn't seen them and being slightly behind a car with their turn signal on should always raise a red flag. That being said, unless the bike lane ends before the intersection and it becomes a shared lane, they did have priority on you (the bike lane has priority on cars turning), so it's still your responsibility to check your blind spot for incoming traffic.

You shouldn't have your wheel in the bike lane, it's a bike lane, not a turning lane. The law says you can only go into the bike lane if you do not impede the traffic in the bike lane. Clearly you were impeding the traffic, if they came next to you.

But the bike lane crosses the whole dam intersection.

Yeah, so do other car lanes. And pedestrian crossings. Do you get angry at pedestrians who have a signal to cross the street when you want to turn right too?

The bike lane clearly does not have priority in this instance, so it's entirely different. Apart from the fact that a scooter shouldn't have been using it in the first place, even a cyclist should not overtake moving vehicles on the inside like that, and particularly not at a junction, so Rob's perfectly right to be annoyed at a road user putting him and themselves at risk by ignoring the rules.

Of course it's always incumbent on all parties to avoid collisions, so a mirror check before turning should be standard practice, but a cyclist does not have any right to expect cars to give way to them in this scenario and would certainly not be deemed to be blame-free in the even of an accident.

I thought scooters were meant to be treated as cyclists? I for sure don't want them on the footpath/sidewalk.

The official rule is that I will shove you into the road if you are coming towards me going the wrong way. What a moron. You should not use a bicycle.

The scooter (he's talking electric scooter, not a Vespa) absolutely is supposed to ride in the bike lane.

The law is very clear that turning cars have to yield for bike lane traffic. The situation would be different if there was no bike lane (or if there is one but it merges with the car lane before the intersection), in that case the bicycle has no priority as they are just another vehicle in the same lane, and they wait their turn. But if there is a separate bike lane at the intersection, cars are not supposed to turn across it unless it's clear.

Intentionally blocking others is exactly what you do. Now that everybody's carrying a camera in their pockets expect to get photographed, reported and fined.
You must not overtake a moving vehicle (or one that's about to move) on the right (in the absence of a solid separation line). Full stop.
The presence of a bike lane changes nothing in that regard, the line is dashed, that's why it's Ok to cross it and, for instance, turn right. We're talking about a light-controlled intersection, not an ordinary piece of the road.

The incident at hand shows why.

robBob must have been moving, that's how he got to the intersection in the first place. The scooterist knew of robBob's intent (assuming blinking), still the asshole didn't care and overtook anyway.

I understand what Bokabil is saying, although if there is an actual bike lane there it doesn't apply.

In the case that there is no bike lane and you are turning right in a car/motorbike/bike, you should be far enough right that nothing can get past you, or sneak up inside you. This ensures that when turning right, no cyclist/motorbike tries to filter past as there'll be no room.
So not blocking the bike lane, but blocking all road that a cheeky cyclist might try and zip past on.

As far as crossing a bike lane when turning, you still need to give way to the cyclist going forward. You are leaving the main line of traffic, and they are not.

A lot of road marking changes who's right part of this, but as a cyclist you're best to err on the side of caution.

The rules as written in the earlier link https://www.pro-velo.ch/fr/themes/se...afic-cycliste/ could appear to be contradictory, first saying that other road users should give way to cyclists if they're using a cycle path, but then stating that cyclists to the right of stationary traffic can move forward as long as they don't get in the way of cars turning right.

I read it that only if there's a solid marked bike lane do cars have to give them the right of way, but it would depend on the exact definition of the terms used.

In any case, in the event of an accident it's very unlikely that the blame would be attributed solely to one party. The "Right of Way" is always subservient to the responsibility to avoid any sort of collision.

That is incorrect. Cycles are explicitly allowed to pass slower traffic from the right, not only when there is a bike lane but even when they are sharing the same lane as cars as long as there is enough space to do so. Absolutely no need for a solid line. There is an exception to that rule, which is when the car is turning right and has already started to turn.

Which conceivably fits the case discussed here. BUT the car is supposed to observe the cycle lane priority in the first place, meaning you shouldn't start to turn if there's a cycle next to you or coming close behind, only if you can do so while respecting the priority. That means if the incoming cycle traffic is far enough behind you to safely turn, you can, and they shouldn't pass you if they do catch up, but it's still your responsibility to check for incoming traffic and making sure you respect the priority before you start the maneuver.

So while the scooter here might be the responsible party if the driver started their turn while they had a safe distance and the scooter just decided to overtake an already-turning car (which is indeed very stupid and dangerous), it seemed from the post that the driver didn't even check if the lane was clear before starting the turn and assumed they automatically have priority, which is also wrong.

My bad, I thought this applied to standing cars only.

IMO, in practice the cars should be going very slowly and the cyclist fairly slowly for this to be safe - the cyclist doesn't have right-of-way to go down the cycle lane at 40kph and then complain that the car 50+m ahead turned right in front of them.

But that would come under dangerous cycling and being in control for the prevailing conditions I guess.