Sorry, I thought I had and maybe this won't either.

My friend and I like the idea that the Idaho stop law allows (for all intents and purposes) for an easier flow of cycling because cyclists may not need (to legally) come to a full stop at every intersection. We are not alone in liking the idea of cycling continuously from home to work (and back again) which is why many bike commuters like MUPs: we don't have any MUPs on our routes so, for all intents and purposes, we have to stop-and-go at the many intersections we encounter. If the Idaho stop law was enacted in our city/province, this could improve our commutes and cycling in general. Furthermore, should the law be changed, to "announce" the option for cyclists of yielding at stop signs so that cyclists may know that the option is there and that car drivers can understand why the cyclist ahead of them didn't come to a full stop, this sign could explain why it happened (and that it is allowed in law).

My friend and I also recognize that some stop-sign intersections are in place to set rights of way but, in some residential communities, in addition to speed bumps, some 3-way intersections have 3-way stop signs to slow traffic speed and thereby reduce noise (locally, we call them traffic-calmed neighbourhoods), neither which could apply to bicycles. Giving cyclists the right to treat stop-signs, whose purpose is to "enforce" traffic calming, as yield signs enables the community to maintain its need for traffic calming and at the same time, allowing already calmed traffic (bikes) the right to pass through unhindered.