I think that is fairly uncontroversial. My question was: given the specifics of Victoria St (no endless rows of uninterrupted parking, no schools), is a roadside unseparated adjacent cycle lane (which allows close passes, particularly when cyclists have to swerve around opening doors) naturally the better option than a semi-separated kerbside cycle lane if both of them have the same width? I would still think that in this case, a kerbside, semi-separated cycle lane is an option that is a) more attractive to cyclists, b) safer, without c) having any discernible disadvantage for cars (another question might be if it might not be good to disincentivize car traffic, but that is a different question). Maybe it would be a nice idea to try out a kerbside semi-separated cycle lane of whatever width is allocated to the cycle lane currently, and use planter pots, maybe around 20 cm wide, and spaced with around 3m gaps, for the semi-separation instead of poles (also very attractive for the urban streetscape!). If it works, great. If not, moving the cycle lane roadside is simply a question of removing the planter pots and repainting the cycle lane and parking markings.

I guess the moral of the story is that, regardless of which side of a parked car one is cycling along, we should endeavour to provide adequate space to mitigate the risk of car doors being opened. That is what is generally being done with all new cycleways in Christchurch.
(BTW, that average car occupancy of ~1.1 typically applies to commuter traffic; the figure is generally higher for other trips like shopping and recreation – and certainly for ferrying kids to school)

I apologise for my insistence to spell the word “right” as “ride”. Apparently, soft and hard consonants at the end of words confuse me more than I thought.

This example illustrates the fact that switching a cycleway from one side of parking to the other is not a simple “straight swap”. With a traffic-side cycle lane, the driver-side door zone is part of the (wider) cycle lane, while the passenger-side door zone is on the footpath; faster cyclists also have the ability overtake slower ones using the adjacent traffic lane. With a kerb-side cycle lane, both door zones now need to be in the roadway corridor; you also need to make the cycle lane wide enough for riders overtaking riders. Chch separated cycleways are typically 2.0-2.2m plus door zone; good traffic-side cycle lanes are typically 1.8-2.0m including door zone.

Correct, the door opening rule in NZ applies to anyone in a motor vehicle. As for risk, while it is certainly more common for a solo driver to be present than multiple parties, you could argue that many drivers are reasonably well trained to check for bikes before opening their door but the same thought doesn’t necessarily occur to people when opening the kerbside door.

I am still curious about the legal issue. It appears to me that regardless of whether opening a door is a breach of a duty of care at common law, Rule 7.2(1) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, combined with s 167 Land Transport Act 1998 and schedule 1 of the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 makes it an offence to open the door, regardless of whether one is a passenger or a driver. Unlike other rules, Rule 7.2(1) is not restricted to drivers. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303620.html?search=sw_096be8ed817e45df_door_25_se&p=1&sr=2

Ironically (in the Alanis Morissette usage of the term) St Asaph St probably is one of the streets that you are more likely to frequent now, isn’t it? I for one like St Asaph very much as a ChCh newcomer who missed the drama and now just read the reward. I have spent a lot more money on St Asaph than on Victoria St.

Some interesting points. Thanks. My thoughts: first, every car has a driver, but not every car has passengers. This would suggest to me that the likelihood of a passenger interaction is probably lower. Second, I would think that opening a car door without checking is a breach of my duty of care whether I am the driver or not. If not, there is something wrong with NZ tort law, but then again, the common law is not generally known for its rationality. Third, separator poles would probably also be a good visual reminder for passengers. Fourth, having a choice between colliding with a car door or a pedestrian, the pedestrian collision is less likely to be fatal. Fifth, in this specific design, there is no intersection-adjacent parking, so even a cycle path next to the sidewalk would become visible again at intersections.