Turning Left in a left turn lane

Of course you have to indicate left to turn left. I don't understand how this isn't an automatic reflex for people...

There aren't exceptions to this rule.

I didn't even realise the lane to the right was left only, god that junction is a mess

So, at a 'right filter', or 'right turning lane', you wouldn't indicate turning right? Hmm...not sure that seems right.

Also ROTR p. 106:

....note the MUST, and ALWAYS....

If i'm in a left or right turn for that matter only lane i don't see the need to indicate either as you're already displaying what your intention is, which is all an indicator is anyway.

There is still no right of way across the cycle lane (and agree it is a mess), so the driver should have checked their mirror and yielded to the cyclist going straight.

Whilst the car should maybe have been indicating to turn left, is an indicator not just a signal to notify others of your intent of a maneuver you intend to carry out in the future ? A flashing indicator is purely to let others know that you do intend to change lane, turn a corner, etc.

It could be argued that the driver decided to make the left turn at the last moment, thereby making any advance indication to be useless.

Just playing Devils Advocate here. The long and short of it is that the car driver should have been paying attention to their surroundings (mirrors, etc) and was driving without due care and attention.

I had a look at Google Streetview and it looks like the signage was changed on the road in or before November of this year so the left lane is most certainly a left turn only lane so a vehicle in the left turn lane is already indicating to turn left by virtue of being in the lane, in my opinion. If a vehicle went straight on and did not turn left, then there's a problem.

Driving a 'MO' reg in Galway city centre is one exception I can think of...

I started a thread a few years back on who has the right of way if a driver is turning left and a cyclist is going straight ahead. Much to my surprise, you don't have to yield to the cyclist if he is behind you (this seemed counterintuitive to me as I tend to let the cyclist pass ahead first before I turn left. But I have been in situations where the cyclist stopped and waved for me to turn left in front of him). The key thing here is to ALWAYs have your bloody indicator on no matter what so people know what you are doing.

What has indicating or not got to do with the incident?

The motorist crossed a lane without yielding to the cyclist already in the lane and is 100% at fault for this reckless manoeuvre.

Find it incredulous that anyone would argue that you don't need to indicate when going left or right

Regardless road markings how is anyone else supposed to know your intentions when they cannot see the road markings - surely the road markings are only a sign that this lane is only for this direction

Would love to see someone use that argument in court where an accident happened and they weren't indicating

Regardless of legality here, video is really interesting as cyclist only posted rear video and not the front video. Their other videos show they have camera's on the he front as well. It's rare to see someone with rear camera and not front camera, so would like to see the video from the front to see if the driver did signal at all.

Drive should have seen cyclist in the mirror before turning, regardless if your indicating or not, you always check mirrors before making a turn for safety. For those arguing its following the road and not a turn. Any maneuverer governed by traffic lights is concerned a turn.

At the same time Cyclist should not be going straight along left hand turn only lane - again, regardless of legality, it just doesn't make sense, as every single car is going to be turning left. Myself and other cyclists i know pay attention to road markings - as their just as important for cyclist as drivers, so can't be sure why this cyclist didn't.

Because of the wands and cycle lane.

I used to cycle that route and I would always move onto center of lane so no one would left hook me.

101 of cycling in traffic. But the wands prevent it. That someone would design a junction like that screams they don't know what they are doing.

The legality of signalling is moot. Since the higher obligation is not to drive into people.

Driver also must be ahead of the cyclist with enough space to turn safely.

That lane was previously shared straight ahead or left. The bike lane is still straight or left.

The muppets realigning the lanes have now put a left turning lane outside the straight ahead cycle lane. There seems to be no elevated signage warning of this, with the only indication of the new lane layout being painted on the road itself.

If the traffic is heavy, the road markings are obscured from the cyclist, so how is he to know that all traffic in that lane will be turning left?

If we had great signage where it was very clear that from a specific lane you have to go to a specific direction I could maybe buy the argument.

But when our signage consists of faded arrows on the road that can be easily obscured by vehicles drivers should be making it very clear what their intentions are.

Terrible road design; very poor road awareness from both the driver and the cyclist

I have zero legal qualifications but taking the exceprt from earlier:

In this caee, I think it comes down to interpreting what is meant by "signalled an intention" - is being in a left-turn only lane considered a signal? Or is does signalling require the use of an indicator?

Love that photo. Every single car is in the cycling lane

All the car drivers are in auto mode and have not noticed the change in the road markings......goes to show how little attention a large proportion of drivers display.