Originally Posted by Leisesturm

I think it is safe to say that if you do not see the problem then it doesn't really matter. Don't worry your pretty little head about it. For those who have some inkling of the physics involved in constantly coming to a full stop and accellerating back to a cruising speed and the effect that this has on elapsed time and the relevance this might have to a cyclist that calls themselves a commuter cyclist, I will try to explain the situation in brief, to wit: a stop sign establishes the priority of a particular route. Many roads have frequent intersections but are nonetheless "higher priority". Intersections will have stop signs preventing cross traffic from impeding progress down the main road. Cyclists usually avoid these main roads and travel on the lower priority streets that may actually have a stop sign at every other corner. Maybe even every corner. So you have to either HTFU and ride in 45mph traffic OR come to a full, both feet down stop ever 200 feet. Some choice.

I am well aware of the culture of perversity and martyrdom that pervades cycling. Some will love the added time out there communing with what is left of Mother Nature in the urban blighted towns and hamlets that commuter cyclists frequently inhabit. Standard yield signs do not appear to cause any confusion. Why should and automatic "yield" condition not be understood to prevail at every stop sign when the vehicle approaching it is a bicycle??

I'll let you in on a little secret. Idaho stops are how a large minority of cyclists already treat stop signs even if they live and ride in Davis, CA.

H