(I vastly prefer left-side bike lanes.)

7 - While a passenger side door is less likely to open, the passenger does not have the aid of the mirrors to look to the rear before s/he opens the door into a doorzone left side bike lane.

and then of course streets are designed for motorist safety first and foremost... traffic engineers are more concerned about the safety of a careless motorist careening off the road at high speeds than the innocent pedestrian walking down a sidewalk. hence why street trees are purposefully not placed along many roads. the tree could protect the pedestrian from impact but is seen as a dangerous object in traffic engineers eyes.

and arent pedestrians actually called something like "traffic impediments" in traffic engineering literature?

While there are some advantages those advantages are more than negated by the disadvantages. The disadvantages include:

1 - They violate a basic rule of the road where slower traffic is to stay to the right and faster traffic to pass on the left. They also reinforce a riding technique that is illegal in many places without the lane (riding on the left side of a one-way is illegal in many places and where it is, it is only legal where one needs to make a left as is the case in New Jersey).

2 - They promote illegal contraflow riding. Many left side bike lanes are ridden in the wrong direction by many riders. (As an aside, left side bike lanes in other countries and in Minnesota are typically designed and intended for contraflow riding on one-way streets. Germany and other European countries come to mind. This technique would seem to violate rules already established in other places).

3 - They expose cyclists to faster and therefore more dangerous motor vehicle traffic traveling in the left lane.

4 - They are often used as a "cop-out" when designers are not allowed to put a bike lane outside of the doorzone on the right side of the street. This was the case in Hoboken where designers put the bike lane in the doorzone on the left because the left door is less likely to open. (It could be also argued that this design violated New Jersey's last bicycle facility design manual.)

5 - The driver of a parked car is less likely to be aware of an approaching cyclist as he pulls away from the curb and into the left side bike lane. Drivers have much less situational awareness on the right side and right rear of a car and the blind spots are bigger.

6 - If the street transitions to one-way to two-way operations it is very difficult to transition the bicyclist from the left to the right.

Now, there are times when a bike lane needs to be on the left side of a one-way street, like when approaching a bike path into a park or a major bridge but to place the lane on the left as a matter of practice does not in my opinion compensate for all of the problems that the practice creates.

take your lane

i guess i'm kinda clumsy though.

Instead of a primary focus on the number of crashes, we should focus much more on the number of injuries and fatalities. It's clearly important to reduce the frequency of crashes. However, if the trade off are low-speed, low severity crash types for a smaller number of higher-speed, higher-severity crash types, we've hurt safety.

If more people die or get hurt, safety has been harmed. If we have fewer fender benders, property has been saved. Usually this false victory is simply reframing "convenience" into "safety". It's sad that it's so politically convenient to accept more tragic human harm. It's even more sad that this is the political reality when there are so many models that have demonstrated sustainable success with reducing traffic injuries and fatalities.