https://goo.gl/maps/63YCi5hzz6M2 There is a X-crossing right of this, but cyclists vastly outnumber cars here, and it's being removed.
In virtually all examples it is physically impossible for right-turning cars and cyclists to conflict, unless the driver is grossly negligent. There is no conflict due to phasing: one phase for straight-through cars and cyclists, one for right-turning traffic.
All of those intersections look great. Treating bicycles and cars as totally different streams of traffic certainly works in those locations. It would be a major change in other locations in other nations.
If "not grossly negligent" is the standard to which we're holding drivers, I don't really see the problem with the "X-crossing" displayed in skookumchuck's sibling comment. It's very clear that right-turning cars have to cross the bike lane to get to the turn lane, and any bicycles in the bike lane would be quite evident. Realistically, we can expect some automobile operators to do the wrong thing at that intersection, but that would be negligence.
The problem with an X-crossing like that is the angle at which the crossing happens. A driver needs to look all the way over his shoulder to see a cyclist he's about to hit. For the improved crossings you see in e.g. the netherlands the cars and cyclists cross at a 90 degree angle, meaning the driver has a much easier time spotting cyclists.
Practically, if bike lanes are adjacent to the street as they are in many places, cyclists can only really expect motorists not to hit them from behind. Motorists simply are not aware of what's going on around them. If the cyclist is next to an auto, she must always be ready to react to it. In fact, "next to an auto" is a somewhat tenuous location, because you can't always jump up on the curb. Passing (usually on the left) is fine, being passed is fine, between autos is fine, because all of those allow either the driver to observe the cyclist or the cyclist to react safely to sudden changes in direction by the auto.
If I'm approaching an intersection like that pictured and I'm even with an auto, I brake and take the lane behind it. If the auto moves to the right to turn, I pass it on the left in the main lane of traffic. No matter what the auto does, I re-enter the bike lane after I clear the intersection. No one needs to pass me while in the intersection, and I want to be both visible and able to react to right-turning autos from the street I'm crossing. Faster traffic makes this impossible, but faster traffic can see you from behind and will generally discourage turns from the cross street.
There are morons who try to race around you to hook in front of you, and this type of intersection offers no protection from that, but most drivers are not that thoughtless, even if they lack general awareness. You just have to deal with that asshole. Once he gets that front bumper even with me, I'm already ducking right and braking. In some instances, I'll also be grabbing my U-lock and preparing to damage his car with it.
Like I said, completely separating the traffic seems like a great solution, but it simply will not be universal any time soon. Until then, ride defensively.
