Stephen, in a comment on "Daily Violation," wondered if was truly a violation of the law in Texas to move into a traffic lane to pass through an intersection instead of going straight in a right turn lane. In fact, you actually have a choice of violating the arrow traffic direction or violating the state "Far to the Right Law." Lest you take comfort that you do not live in Texas, your situation may be just as bad and possibly even worse. You see, Texas traffic law, as is the traffic law most places, based on the "Uniform Vehicle Code." In truth, the UVC is not the law of the land anywhere, but it forms a model that States usually follow, often adding their own variations. It's a big reason why you can go to another state and pretty much get along with the local traffic.
In his book. John Forester gives his version of how the current "Far to Right" laws came about, along with the exceptions. To hear him tell it, he got irritated and failed to tell the committee that a cyclist should NOT be required to stay in that right lane when an intersection was coming up. The story, as he tells it, takes up most of a page in his book on page 290 of the latest edition. Anyway, if you look in the exceptions to the "must stay as far to the right as..." law, in most places it will NOT include an exception for cyclists continuing straight that are approaching a right turn only lane. There is a guide to the laws in every state here, though I can't say if it is up to date. If I believe it, the ONLY places in the US where it is legal to ride in lane 2 when going straight through the intersection are California, Virginia, and nine states that have abandoned the "Far to the Right Law" entirely. Those nine are: AR, IN, IO, KY, MA, MS, NC, NH, PA.
If we eliminate those eleven states, things COULD BE MUCH WORSE than in Texas. If you happen to live in 13 states, in theory if you wanted to make a left turn, you'd have to make it from lane 3 rather than lane 1. Oklahoma (say it ain't true, Ed!), Louisiana, and New Mexico being amongst them; in one sense, Texas is surrounded. Lest you think this is some bizarre Southern thing, Alaska is amonst those 13. Stephen mentioned New Jersey. According to Bicycle Driving, New Jersey is amongst the states that does not have a FTR exception for cyclists preparing to make a left turn. It also lacks an exception for cyclists that approach an intersection with a RT Only lane that are intending to go straight. On the other hand, if you're coming up on an intersection in NJ and you want to turn right, they've got you covered!
As far as I know, mostly, even people that are hostile towards cycling have enough common sense to not prosecute cyclists that are not following laws that are really crazy from a safety standpoint. Motorists all get trained EVERY DAY to do what the signs tell them to do. It would never even occur to them that those signs conflict with something else they want a cyclist to do. In newspaper comments when people complain about cyclists running red lights and stop signs, they NEVER complain about them NOT turning left from the right lane as the law requires some places (not Texas!) It's why I would NEVER use lane 3 if I were proceeding straight through an intersection. If some benighted ticket campaign began to ticket cyclists so doing, I would avoid such intersections whenever possible. When I was unable to do so, I'd get OFF the bike and walk it across. Pretty soon, ticketed cyclists would win acquittals since disobeying a traffic signal is a worse sin than not "getting off to the right." I think Keri would concur that my logic is entirely consistent with her precedence comment in "Daily Violation." Still, one wonders why cycling advocacy groups don't try to get this kind of stuff cleaned up before fighting for three foot passing laws. It really OUGHT to be legal to ride a bike safely, without having to worry about whether this law or that one is more important.