As I posted in another thread, my 2 cents as an Idaho cyclist:
The Idaho cycling stop law allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, as long as the cyclist does not violate another vehicle’s right-of-way; and a red light as a stop sign, again as long as the cyclist does not violate another vehicle’s right of way. One weakness of this statute is that the vast majority of motorists are unaware of it. When they see a cyclist roll through a stop sign, or stop and proceed through a red light, their opinion of cyclists as renegade outlaws is reinforced. And the few who are aware of it seem to resent cyclists for being granted "special privileges".
My biggest contribution to cycling advocacy is to be out on my bike day in and day out, trying to earn some respect by showing motorists that there are cyclists who follow the vehicular rules of the road. Riding like a grown-up, in other words. So I tend to follow this law with a bit of discretion, taking advantage of it in the wee hours of my morning commute, when traffic is sparce, but not on the way home, when traffic is much more dense.
I don't see what the big deal is about stopping momentarily at a stop sign and then proceeding if it is clear. And Idaho's "defective traffic control device" law (which most other states have on the books as well) already allows me to proceed through traffic signals that do not sense my presence.
Please be careful about what you wish for. Perhaps the Oregon legislature's efforts will achieve a bigger payback for all road users by focusing on vehicular homicide.