I'm actually really curious about this now. It's a "wide" lane, with room for 2 sets of cars. The AV itself went into the right hand part of the lane while other cars were still in the lane. Presumably the lane is wide for making right turns, otherwise basically ever car there is making an illegal right turn (and law enforcement probably would have already noticed that by now).

So either the AV broke the law first (by doubling up in a lane), or the bus had the right of way. I'm with the other commenter, why isn't it just an actual turn lane?

Also, if the bus is at fault here, then this would be an amazing place to commit insurance fraud. Just sit in the right hand part of the lane, wait for traffic to pass by, then drive back into the left hand portion of the lane right as a BMW/Mercedes/Ferrari/etc drives by.

I wonder about this too. If you are new to CA, at first it seems crazy how aggressive people are about splitting the right hand lane to turn right... who would have the right of way if the bus was already stopped at a light, but the AV split the lane to turn right and passed the stopped bus? I like the idea of splitting the right lane to make right turns, but IMO, if you've done so, you no longer have the right of way for traffic in that lane.

<who would have the right of way if the bus was already stopped at a light, but the AV split the lane to turn right and passed the stopped bus?>

The AV can proceed "when safe" to approach the intersection and then, "when safe", make its turn, but the bus owns the lane otherwise.

But the AV wasn't moving the whole time. Once it stopped for the sandbags, it was effectively a parked car.

It sounds like this happened too close to the intersection for parking to be legal. If I see a car stopped on the right side of the road at an intersection signalling a r right turn, I don't assume it's parking, I assume that it's stopped for a pedestrian in the crosswalk.