Who Gives Way on Sandford St?

TheBusDriver said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Great to see that I am one of many confused over this. I was in a van with minimal to nil vision to my left behind the passenger window. Also, it was evening and hard to see the bike, he didn’t have hi viz or lights. If the cyclist stops short of the cycle lane stop marking, can’t be seen by the car, well heaven knows what would happen in a collision. I guess the driver is always at fault….

Wildturkey, your lack of knowledge of road rules, lack of common sense and unwillingness to take responsibility for you actions astounds me. First, please, get some roadworthy mirrors for your van so you don’t use poor visibility as an excuse again. If you can’t see what is beside you, you’re an accident waiting to happen. Next, take responsibility, if you have poor vision, who’s fault is that? YOURS! Not the cyclists. Thirdly, get some common sense.
I drive great big 2.4 metre wide 9-10 metre long buses every week. They have no rear view cameras. Just side mirrors. Yet I make it a part of my job to be constantly checking those mirrors and knowing what is around me. I always check them when stopped at intersections. Also, you see those big “do not pass turning vehicle” signs on the back? We despite having them, when I do the occasional left turn from the right lane (perfectly legal in a large vehicle with those signs, and often needed in turns into narrow roads), I always check my mirrors and if some dipshit had ignored my indicators and come up my side (happens when when I am straddling both lanes) I don’t sit there and think well I have right of way so I can drive over them. I let them go and then do the turn. I have copped a lot of horn blasts from erring on the side of caution but I’d rather be cautious than injure or kill someone.
Your attitude as a road user sucks. How about you give me your rego so that the next time I encounter you on a double landed round about I can use my legal right of way to use both lanes and shove your car sideways off of the roundabout? There’s road rules and there’s common sense, something you seem to be lacking.
As I have said and others have said, you should stop driving until you have this one figured out. You and your van are a clear danger to other road users.

Jeez, if you’re as angry as this when you drive, we all have a problem.

wildturkeycanoe said :

WRONG. The sign says “left lane must turn left”, so the car is not crossing any other vehicle’s path, including the cyclist. The cyclist can’t ignore the road sign and go straight or right from the left lane either, so HE is at fault, not the car. Can anyone find a ruling that says cyclists can disobey a road sign and get away with it?

That’s the problem for a cyclist. In SA its turn left only except for bicycles or buses, here its just buses. So you expect a cyclist going straight to be in the next lane? which conflicts with that stupid bike lane on the left.

Less confident cyclists hate being between lanes of traffic. I hate being expected to turn across traffic, or having traffic turning on top of me. My favorite green lane is southbound on Adelaide Ave by the playing fields. Its so long that if its iffy to cross ahead of me, its a no brainer to pass behind.
I understand some cyclists fear it because its so long.

TheBusDriver said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Great to see that I am one of many confused over this. I was in a van with minimal to nil vision to my left behind the passenger window. Also, it was evening and hard to see the bike, he didn’t have hi viz or lights. If the cyclist stops short of the cycle lane stop marking, can’t be seen by the car, well heaven knows what would happen in a collision. I guess the driver is always at fault….

Wildturkey, your lack of knowledge of road rules, lack of common sense and unwillingness to take responsibility for you actions astounds me. First, please, get some roadworthy mirrors for your van so you don’t use poor visibility as an excuse again. If you can’t see what is beside you, you’re an accident waiting to happen. Next, take responsibility, if you have poor vision, who’s fault is that? YOURS! Not the cyclists. Thirdly, get some common sense.
I drive great big 2.4 metre wide 9-10 metre long buses every week. They have no rear view cameras. Just side mirrors. Yet I make it a part of my job to be constantly checking those mirrors and knowing what is around me. I always check them when stopped at intersections. Also, you see those big “do not pass turning vehicle” signs on the back? We despite having them, when I do the occasional left turn from the right lane (perfectly legal in a large vehicle with those signs, and often needed in turns into narrow roads), I always check my mirrors and if some dipshit had ignored my indicators and come up my side (happens when when I am straddling both lanes) I don’t sit there and think well I have right of way so I can drive over them. I let them go and then do the turn. I have copped a lot of horn blasts from erring on the side of caution but I’d rather be cautious than injure or kill someone.
Your attitude as a road user sucks. How about you give me your rego so that the next time I encounter you on a double landed round about I can use my legal right of way to use both lanes and shove your car sideways off of the roundabout? There’s road rules and there’s common sense, something you seem to be lacking.
As I have said and others have said, you should stop driving until you have this one figured out. You and your van are a clear danger to other road users.

Gee, take a chill pill!! Blind spots are called so for a reason and the mirrors on the van are roadworthy, else the car wouldn’t be registered, DUH. Please explain what you mean by roadworthy. Even with the panoramic wide view mirrors a cyclist in the dark with or without lights will look like anything else in the background such as a street light. The van is a company vehicle, not mine. Should I tell my employer I won’t drive the van until he gets a sliding door with window installed or attach some fancy big parabolic mirrors which will block my vision at the “A” pillar, creating yet another blind spot when approaching intersections?
As for my attitude as a road user – I’ll raise you on your attitude as a judgmental moron. How did you come up with your opinion from up there on your high horse? My attitude on the roads is drive to survive – I’m also a motorcyclist and understand fully the dangers of not being aware of your surrounds. Common sense is something nobody should use, that is the first thing taught in workplace safety training. Your common sense and my common sense are not the same. I might not be so common. If we have a rule for everyone to follow, that makes a lot more sense.

Now here is some common sense – the legal aspect of the car having to give way because they are crossing over the lane of traffic of the bicycle – WRONG. The sign says “left lane must turn left”, so the car is not crossing any other vehicle’s path, including the cyclist. The cyclist can’t ignore the road sign and go straight or right from the left lane either, so HE is at fault, not the car. Can anyone find a ruling that says cyclists can disobey a road sign and get away with it?

vulpior said :

For a right-turning cyclist, it would be good to see an arrangement where they could get ahead of the traffic in the straight ahead/right turn lane.

You mean, like a hook turn effectively lets them do?

Deckard said :

There is a 3rd option which they use in some of the European cities I’ve ridden in. It’s kind of like a Melbourne hook turn

“Melbourne hook turn”? How many times does some one have to say “hook turn” in this thread before you realise that cyclists are allowed to perform a hook turn at any intersection in this country?

Anyone here not know what a hook turn is? It’s detailed in the NRR..

wildturkeycanoe said :

Great to see that I am one of many confused over this. I was in a van with minimal to nil vision to my left behind the passenger window. Also, it was evening and hard to see the bike, he didn’t have hi viz or lights. If the cyclist stops short of the cycle lane stop marking, can’t be seen by the car, well heaven knows what would happen in a collision. I guess the driver is always at fault….

Wildturkey, your lack of knowledge of road rules, lack of common sense and unwillingness to take responsibility for you actions astounds me. First, please, get some roadworthy mirrors for your van so you don’t use poor visibility as an excuse again. If you can’t see what is beside you, you’re an accident waiting to happen. Next, take responsibility, if you have poor vision, who’s fault is that? YOURS! Not the cyclists. Thirdly, get some common sense.
I drive great big 2.4 metre wide 9-10 metre long buses every week. They have no rear view cameras. Just side mirrors. Yet I make it a part of my job to be constantly checking those mirrors and knowing what is around me. I always check them when stopped at intersections. Also, you see those big “do not pass turning vehicle” signs on the back? We despite having them, when I do the occasional left turn from the right lane (perfectly legal in a large vehicle with those signs, and often needed in turns into narrow roads), I always check my mirrors and if some dipshit had ignored my indicators and come up my side (happens when when I am straddling both lanes) I don’t sit there and think well I have right of way so I can drive over them. I let them go and then do the turn. I have copped a lot of horn blasts from erring on the side of caution but I’d rather be cautious than injure or kill someone.
Your attitude as a road user sucks. How about you give me your rego so that the next time I encounter you on a double landed round about I can use my legal right of way to use both lanes and shove your car sideways off of the roundabout? There’s road rules and there’s common sense, something you seem to be lacking.
As I have said and others have said, you should stop driving until you have this one figured out. You and your van are a clear danger to other road users.

Sandman said :

A moving glob of Lycra clad self righteousnes

Predjudiced much? The OP mentioned not wearing a helmet, so almost certainly no lycra was involved.

To “wildturkeycanoe”:

Which one of these is you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcG_R0cZn3Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPVlgRrDN-k

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m2q2u2WA3s

bainbridge said :

Wow, anybody who doesn’t know what to do here, please stop driving until you figure it out.
Yes, in this case it is poor road design, the cycle lane should be on the right of the left-turn-only lane. But that doesn’t change the rule.

What s/he said.

‘Poor road design’ reaches its peak at the new intersection at the ANU/Turner/Barry Drive, specifically the left turn from Barry Drive onto McCaughey St. That intersection now features a left-turn lane that is only half a lane wide (difficult to explain…), next to a green painted bike lane, which is next to a bus lane. Drivers don’t know whether they are supposed to sit in the half-lane and the bike lane, or just in the bus lane, when waiting to turn left. It’s a mess.

bainbridge said :

Wow, anybody who doesn’t know what to do here, please stop driving until you figure it out.

It doesn’t matter if the lane is pained green or not, you must give way to the traffic in the lane that you are crossing to make your turn. Why do so many drivers have trouble with this? Just imagine the bike lane was another proper lane with CARS in it. What would you do? Just drive straight over? No, you’d give way to traffic continuing straight.

I rather think the confusion comes from giving way to a vehicle that you don’t know is there. Far enough if the cyclist was ahead of the van and both vehicles were stopped, the cyclist certainly has right of way. But if the van is stopped, and the cyclist moves from a blind position (which would be behind or alongside the van as stated by wildturkeycanoe) I would have to vote the van has right of way.

In exactly the same way, I would give way to an articulated truck making a left turn from the middle lane and I were in left lane.

Wow, anybody who doesn’t know what to do here, please stop driving until you figure it out.

It doesn’t matter if the lane is pained green or not, you must give way to the traffic in the lane that you are crossing to make your turn. Why do so many drivers have trouble with this? Just imagine the bike lane was another proper lane with CARS in it. What would you do? Just drive straight over? No, you’d give way to traffic continuing straight.

Yes, in this case it is poor road design, the cycle lane should be on the right of the left-turn-only lane. But that doesn’t change the rule.

Why would you even think the cyclist was trying to turn right? If you want to turn right on a bike you do it from the right hand lane with the rest of the traffic OR (safer option) you continue straight across the intersection then wait on the left of the traffic waiting to cross in the other direction.

Great to see that I am one of many confused over this. I was in a van with minimal to nil vision to my left behind the passenger window. Also, it was evening and hard to see the bike, he didn’t have hi viz or lights. If the cyclist stops short of the cycle lane stop marking, can’t be seen by the car, well heaven knows what would happen in a collision. I guess the driver is always at fault….

The cyclist should give way. He has the most to loose.

Like the OP, I think these lanes are an absolute crock. It’s not that I hate cyclists ( ok, I sort of do, but that’s got nothing to do with my reasoning.) Having to give way to something with a small cross section that creeps up silently on your off side, often at a time when the sun can be low in the sky just doesn’t make sense. A lot of the trucks and vans on the road rely solely on their mirrors to see what’s in that area, and even the best adjusted mirror is rendered useless with a bit of glare. Most obstacles aren’t an issue, you go past them so you know where they are and can safely go around. A moving glob of Lycra clad self righteousnes isn’t as easy to see.

bundah said :

If one is riding a bike along sandford and wants to turn right into flemington they’ve got two options.

Option 1 would be to assertively manoeuvre themselves into the right turning lane which in heavy traffic is not going to be easy or;

Option 2 would be to get off their bike and use the pedestrian crossing.

Personally if I was a bike rider I would favour the first option coz the second would be a pain in the arse.

There is a 3rd option which they use in some of the European cities I’ve ridden in. It’s kind of like a Melbourne hook turn where the cyclist would ride across to a painted spot to the side of the traffic travelling across the intersection, then ride across with the traffic as that light turns green. Here’s a link to an intersection in Berlin http://goo.gl/maps/7EJe4

It can take a bit longer but is much much safer than having to get across to the turn right lane and I’m surprised the idea hasn’t been used here.

I use this junction most days, but to turn right out of Sandford onto Flemington. My gut feeling on reading the OP was that the car would have right of way, but reading the posts and looking at the pictures I can see that there’s no reason that should be the case. I noted the advanced stop line on the bike lane, and there’s no give way signage for the cyclist.

It does seem an odd arrangement, compared with the non-conflicting green lane on Flemington.

For a right-turning cyclist, it would be good to see an arrangement where they could get ahead of the traffic in the straight ahead/right turn lane. It wouldn’t take much for a cyclist to be over the road and heading for the left-hand cycle lane on Flemington, while being out of the way of both the traffic heading straight ahead and that turning right (which has to merge into a single lane shortly after the turn anyway).

PS Speaking of which yesterday afternoon I was driving along Commonwealth Ave towards the city and was making a left exit towards London circuit and came across a bike continuing on. As I am meant to do I rather than overtake and cut across (as many often do) I slowed behind the bike, only for some imbecile behind me to go to the centre lane, overtake me then come back across and and exit narrowly missing the bike by cm’s as he cut across back. Total f’whit.

Felix the Cat said :

If the bike lane is painted green then the motorist is supposed to give way, not sure if different rule applies when the bike lane isn’t painted green.

Not quite. As someone else mentioned if you need to cross the bike lane, or any lane for that matter you need to give way.

All the green paint is doing is highlighting areas where you need to pay extra attention in a vane attempt at making drivers realise they need to give way.

Aeek said :

Rule 141(2) only applies when the cyclist is in the SAME lane. A bike lane is a different lane. I would still use discretion.

Sorry, I got this wrong, the 141(1)(a) doesn’t apply to cyclists since none of 141(1) does. That’s how I ride anyway.

Drivers should still give way if the combined overtaking and turning maneuver will impede the cyclist. That’s not giving enough space. Worst case, the cyclist won’t have time to react and dies.

Rule 141(2) only applies when the cyclist is in the SAME lane. A bike lane is a different lane. I would still use discretion.

Note, this also applies on the Parkway. It is legal to overtake slowpoke hogging the right lane by using the left lane.

When no bike lane, so Rule 141(2) applies its “turning left AND is giving a left change of direction signal”.
If they are turning left, but failing to signal, well duh, I’m not going to overtake.
If they are signalling, but not turning then I shall use my discretion. AND is not OR.

Thanks to Grrr for the link to the 2012 version of the road rules. Snuck past me.
Thanks to wildturkeycanoe for raising this. Its an all too common confusion.

Lastly, it never matters if the other guy is in the wrong. It is always our responsibility to avoid a collision.

Grrrr said :

No. The OP and the cyclist were apparently both stopped at the lights, so the bike was not overtaking the car on the left. Read TheBusDriver’s post at #2.

Note also that in the photo above, the cycling lane ends closer to the middle of the intersection than the car lanes to position the cyclist ahead of the driver – specifically to remind the drivers that the bike has right of way.

Ah, yes well, you see.The thing is. I didn’t read the “started pedaling” and assumed the cyclist was coming up, not stationary. Re-reading a post is probably in the guidelines, isn’t it?

MrBigEars said :

Rule 141(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal.

Looks like you were in the clear, OP.

No. The OP and the cyclist were apparently both stopped at the lights, so the bike was not overtaking the car on the left. Read TheBusDriver’s post at #2.

Note also that in the photo above, the cycling lane ends closer to the middle of the intersection than the car lanes to position the cyclist ahead of the driver – specifically to remind the drivers that the bike has right of way.

Rule 141(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal.

Looks like you were in the clear, OP.

troll-sniffer said :

There are no circumstances that I can think of where the cyclist should or could turn right from that bicycle lane. If turning right, the cyclist should either take a position in the middle lane (left-most lane turning right) and occupy that lane until safely around the turn, or if not confident to mix it with the traffic, dismount and become a pedestrian to complete the turn into Flemington Road.

The best option is neither of those: Bikes can do a hook turn at any intersection (except where a “no hook turn by bicycles” sign is shown.) This means no cutting across lanes, and depending on the light cycle is probably quicker, too.

O.P and a few others here need to have a good hard read of our National Road Rules and apply some thought to them (though do read the ACT Rules on the TAMS site, there are a few local differences) – http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARRFeb12.pdf

troll-sniffer said :

The key to this post is the first bit. The car was stopped to turn left, presumably with indicator flashing. A competent cyclist would have approached the situation with due caution.

I missed that bit in the post. Personally, I would have pulled out into the lane behind a suitable left turning car if the lights were green or I wasn’t confident of getting to the front on the red. Makes it clear that I am not expecting the cars ahead of me to give way. Otherwise some will try to, which holds everyone up.

Also, no need to dismount when you can make a hook turn.

The key to this post is the first bit. The car was stopped to turn left, presumably with indicator flashing. A competent cyclist would have approached the situation with due caution. If the lights were still red, the cyclist should have moved with caution to just in front of the car to be visible to the driver and then moved off on the green light. The motorist turning left would be held up for a second or two at most. If the lights turned green while the cyclist was stil approaching the lights, the cyclist should have allowed all vehicles in front of him or her to turn left and with caution proceeded straight ahead once satisfied that no cars were likely to present a further danger. Whether the bike has the technical right of way over the left turning car is of academic interest only, as the cyclist should be aware of the potential for the car not see him or her and being in the right when you’re hit by a car isn’t much use.

There are no circumstances that I can think of where the cyclist should or could turn right from that bicycle lane. If turning right, the cyclist should either take a position in the middle lane (left-most lane turning right) and occupy that lane until safely around the turn, or if not confident to mix it with the traffic, dismount and become a pedestrian to complete the turn into Flemington Road.

Aeek said :

It doesn’t matter if the cycle lane is painted green or not, the overtaking vehicle is supposed to give way to the cyclist. Also, if you manage to get in front and force the cyclist to give way, that’s wrong too; you have failed to overtake safely leaving sufficient room.
If it wasn’t a left turn only lane, it wouldn’t matter (legally) if there was no marked cycle lane.

If the car turning left was stationary waiting for a green light (or crossing pedestrian) and the cyclist was coming up the inside, would the cyclist be classified as the overtaking vehicle in that scenario? Although I imagine a cyclist would give way in a fit of self preservation, but I don’t think drivers check their blindspot when turning left at an intersection 100% of the time. At least, I don’t. But I probably will from now on.

Leon said :

Rule 62 requires a turning driver to give way to “any pedestrian at or near the intersection who is on the road the driver is entering.” It does NOT require a driver to give way to a cyclist who is crossing between footpaths or shared paths.

I have been trying for years to interest the bicycle lobby in addressing this anomaly, which particularly affects the one in four Canberra cyclists who is too young to ride on the road.[/quote>

The ACT road rules have been updated this year and while the Give way rule doesn’t mention cyclists in absolute terms it does say ” If in doubt, be prepared to give way to all other vehicles.”
If there is a bicycle light with a walk light then the driver must give way to cyclists. This cyclist does get priority from a vehicle entering a road from a road related area or adjacent land. This is when a shared path crosses a driveway or access road.
Yes I agree that the rule needs to be clearer but then people on bicycles shouldn’t be forced to dismount to get priority.

It doesn’t matter if the cycle lane is painted green or not, the overtaking vehicle is supposed to give way to the cyclist. Also, if you manage to get in front and force the cyclist to give way, that’s wrong too; you have failed to overtake safely leaving sufficient room.
If it wasn’t a left turn only lane, it wouldn’t matter (legally) if there was no marked cycle lane.

These left turn only lanes are a rule glitch for cyclists. South Aust has amended theirs to make it clear that its Except for buses AND CYCLISTS, but we have no such amendment. Its unclear as to where a cyclist riding straight through is supposed to be where there is no cycle lane. A cyclist is supposed to ride as far left as is safe, but if they ride in the left lane are they also supposed to turn left? Which law has priority?

Barry Drive used to be an extreme example. Was a cyclist riding west from North Road straight through past Clunies Ross supposed to ride on the left of the middle lane ? as almost the entire length of the left lane was left turn only (still that way in street view http://local.google.com/maps?q=Barry+Drive,+Canberra,+Australian+Capital+Territory,+Australia&hl=en&ll=-35.273266,149.121267&spn=0.000403,0.000525&sll=-35.310082,149.130135&sspn=0.144564,0.268822&oq=barry+drive+canberra&hnear=Barry+Dr,+Australian+Capital+Territory,+Australia&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=-35.273266,149.121267&panoid=bYuCsI_DDbwsqi3faBkxCw&cbp=12,276.56,,0,0 )

BicycleCanberra said :

You must give way to the cyclist in the cycle lane if the cyclist is going straight ahead along Sanford St. And also to pedestrians and cyclists on the Shared path crossing the intersection on a green walk signal.

Just to be clear, cyclists need to dismount on a walk signal. It’s only a shared crossing if there is a bicycle-crossing light.

Long time lurker, first time poster, but I note that the bike lane pictured that travels northbound on Flemington is on the right hand side of the turning lane, probably for this exact reason.

BicycleCanberra said :

You must give way to the cyclist in the cycle lane if the cyclist is going straight ahead along Sanford St. And also to pedestrians and cyclists on the Shared path crossing the intersection on a green walk signal.

If the cyclist is travelling straight ahead on the road, turning motorists must give way for the same reasons that they may not turn across the path of any other vehicle that is travelling straight ahead on the road.

Rule 62 requires a turning driver to give way to “any pedestrian at or near the intersection who is on the road the driver is entering.” It does NOT require a driver to give way to a cyclist who is crossing between footpaths or shared paths.

I have been trying for years to interest the bicycle lobby in addressing this anomaly, which particularly affects the one in four Canberra cyclists who is too young to ride on the road.

Lederhosen said :

This is not great design and is typical of the type of environment which confronts people choosing to ride in Canberra (and the confusion for drivers which can lead to conflict). As you can see in the Flemington road approach the cyclist has a green lane to the right of the left turning traffic, this is a better alternative.

This best design is to keep cyclists on the left but advanced and protected with a small island not between two lanes of motor vehicles. We are so far behind in intersection design . In Copenhagen you would see painted lines through the intersection, which are blue. Also you would have bicycle lights that give the cyclists an advance go green light before other traffic lights.
The Dutch design is more advanced keeping all modes seperate and safer http://youtu.be/FlApbxLz6pA

I think the cyclist should definetly be using the turning lane. If they are turning right they are not only at risk of being hit by a driver turning left but also drivers continuing straight through onto old wells station road. Is the cyclist then at fault for crossing the path of a driver going straight?

This is not great design and is typical of the type of environment which confronts people choosing to ride in Canberra (and the confusion for drivers which can lead to conflict). As you can see in the Flemington road approach the cyclist has a green lane to the right of the left turning traffic, this is a better alternative.
The painted lines on Sandford Street indicate a moderately advanced stop line for cyclists, this is designed to improve the visibility of the cyclist and give them a change to get moving ahead of left turning traffic.
If I was going straight ahead I would probably take the centre lane, but that also aggravates motorists and certainly feels vulnerable.
If I was turning right then you could either execute a ‘hook’ turn or just take the lane. I’m not sure how allowing a bike to go through the intersection before re-joining the bike lane would lead to chaos though.

So the sign “left lane must turn left”, does it apply to all lanes or just car specific lanes? Cause in this case, the bike lane is the left most lane, and presumably the lane which the sign refers to?

If a car is going to turn left and hit a cyclist, then by definition, the car has to be in front of the cyclist (or as good as), otherwise it couldn’t “cut off” the bike.

I understand that is not the road rule, but to me common sense, in this context, says it would equally make sense for the cyclist to give way to the car, even if just for self preservation reasons.

A bit unusual that the bike lane is positioned to the left of the left-turn-only lane rather than between it and the first straight-ahead lane, as at Northbourne/Mouat for example…

Anyhow; yes, you must give way to cyclists when crossing the bike lane.

If not confident to move into the right-hand lane before the intersection, right-turning cyclists can perform a hook turn from the bike lane.

On second look, the bike lane doesn’t end so it is a strange one, although I do still think it would be smarter for the bikes to move into the middle lane.

TheBusDriver said :

Oh ffs. The OP should know this one. Yes, you give way to the cyclist. For two common sense reasons. First, if you don’t you will cut them off and run them over. Second, if you are in multiple lanes of traffic, and have to turn to cross over one lane, then yes you always give way to whatever is in the lane of traffic you need to cross. In this case, the bycical lane is a lane of traffic.
Honestly, if you don’t know that, you should not be driving.

The bike lane clearly ends at the intersection so he is not turning across the lane.

The signs say left lane must turn left.

If the cyclist is going straight or right then surely he should be in the middle lane?

Generally at a normal intersection say controlled by Give Way signs the vehicle (which includes bicycles) going straight ahead has the right of way and the turning vehicle has to give way so I imagine the same rule would apply in the situation you’ve just described.

You must give way to the cyclist in the cycle lane if the cyclist is going straight ahead along Sanford St. And also to pedestrians and cyclists on the Shared path crossing the intersection on a green walk signal.
If as you say he way planning to do a right turn from the cycle lane in front of you, that wouldn’t be a smart move. The cyclist needs to do a hook turn in this situation which means that the cyclist stays left and waits in front of the opposite traffic stopped at the intersection on Flemington road. Then can proceed once there is a green light. You still need to give way to the cyclist that is proceeding forward from the cycle lane.
Always look in your side/rear mirror for cyclists and give way. They are more vulnerable that someone in a car.
If the cyclist was riding ‘vehicular style’ then the cyclist would already be in the right lane turning right and not from the cycle lane. This is known as ‘taking the lane’ which is legal to do.

If the bike lane is painted green then the motorist is supposed to give way, not sure if different rule applies when the bike lane isn’t painted green.

If one is riding a bike along sandford and wants to turn right into flemington they’ve got two options.

Option 1 would be to assertively manoeuvre themselves into the right turning lane which in heavy traffic is not going to be easy or;

Option 2 would be to get off their bike and use the pedestrian crossing.

Personally if I was a bike rider I would favour the first option coz the second would be a pain in the arse.

Oh ffs. The OP should know this one. Yes, you give way to the cyclist. For two common sense reasons. First, if you don’t you will cut them off and run them over. Second, if you are in multiple lanes of traffic, and have to turn to cross over one lane, then yes you always give way to whatever is in the lane of traffic you need to cross. In this case, the bycical lane is a lane of traffic.
Honestly, if you don’t know that, you should not be driving.

“Who Gives Way on Sandford St?”

Nobody.