It makes sense and brings up another point I'd forgotten about. I've read elsewhere and it seems right, that the majority of the stop signs are placed as traffic calming measures. Particularly in the residential areas. Perhaps one of the traffic engineers will chime in about that.

Anyway, pure traffic calming has the objective of reducing motor vehicle speeds, essentially making it more difficult for the motorist to get up to his preferred full speed between stops. This objective has little to do with bicycles that seldom attain those speeds and pose less danger at any speed. Except in isolated examples such as some have brought up here. So it seems to me that's a strong justification for using the Idaho stop at stop signs.

it's also an argument against the adoption of Idaho Stops in traffic statutes, used by bicycle advocates. They don't want any law that distinguishes bicycle traffic from other traffic, fearing to set a precedent for treating cyclists as second-class traffic.