Since I am being told to be realistic, that bikes aren't cars, yes: traffic control devices are less necessary and easier to exempt bikes from in a rural area with little traffic. Then again, you could replace half those signs with yield signs anyways. Ya happy, you caught me with some misplaced words. I'm not pushing for it, but I'll concede the point. Blow through those stop signs in farm land that you can see a mile in every direction, heck you can see a mile in every direction, you should be able to spot any cop that would give you a ticket anyhow.

And as evident on this thread, people disregard the laws they don't like. If I'm in many built up downtown area, there is little way for me to check to see if traffic is clear for me to disregard the stop sign without slowing way down, poking my head around the building corner and parked cars, and then going. I guess we can argue whether a complete stop v a very slow rolling stop is appropriate all we want, but then again we can do that with cars, too. My guess is if a car did it in front of a bike, though, you'd be up in arms against the motorist for not coming to a complete stop.

Do you honestly expect me to believe people that blow stop signs where it is illegal are drawing that careful distinction between traffic present and not when adhering to yielding v stopping in the Idaho law? The OP has already mentioned in at least one of his instances, he was not paying attention.