[Chupacabra]

I totally understand this sentiment. And I don't have too much hope in convincing others about it. This is actually what I wrote about 500 words on before heading downstairs to shooting the Grizz game. The best way I can explain it to those not on a bike is that slowing down to a cautious roll on a bike is effectively a stop. There are a few factors that make this the case. I hope I'm not getting too into it but this is one soapbox I'm glad to jump on.

• Because a bike is lighter than a motor vehicle by magnitudes, it is far more nimble than a car. (This is the most important reason). What does this mean? If you are at a controllable speed you are able to come to a complete stop very quickly. This doesn't mean blast through the stop signs, it means ease up so that you are able to stop completely if you have to. (Though it's not applicable here, it is the same for turning.) A bike just operates differently and is capable of different things than a car.
  
• If you're on a bike you aren't enclosed in metal and glass like you are in a vehicle. You're completely exposed to the environment. You can and should be significantly more aware of the nuances in the environment (traffic, pedestrians, texture of concrete, dampness, paint on the road, everything) than a driver. You can use this as a tool to be more efficient.
  

In addition to these facts about bike riding, I doubt the majority of the people here would come to a full stop at every stop sign if driving along, say 32nd Avenue in SF. If someone is crossing the street? Of course. At Taraval or Noriega? Absolutely. But who is going to come to an absolute and complete stop at 32nd and Pacheco with no other traffic of any kind? Some people, certainly. But not many.

I haven't even included the inertia argument (Newton's 1st law!) here because the reason to do something isn't the reason it should be legal/acceptable.

There's an interesting article about this here if you're interested. Basically arguing that the "Idaho Stop" should be legal. The article cites that in Boise, where it's the law for bikes to treat stop signs as yield signs, they have fewer bike-related accidents than in similar California cities.

By the letter of the law (except in Idaho, Aspen, and Boulder) you are correct and I don't argue that. I think it's a perfectly reasonable belief to hold. But also consider that maybe they shouldn't be? A car is a 2 ton machine powered by a motor that can drive 100+mph. A bike is a 20lb machine powered by human legs and goes about 20mph. They're way, way, way different.

I am huuuuuge on bike safety (as I think I've established pretty clearly) and I'm very confident that this a perfectly safe and acceptable way to ride.

I'm not even trying to change any minds on that specifically (though that'd be great!), I'm just trying to explain it so that drivers understand why it's reasonable and maybe they could become a little more empathetic to riders.  I am actually not really trying to change that perspective. What I do hope to evangelize (ha) is that it's a reasonable perspective. So maybe a driver might read this and have a little more empathy to riders. We sure get an undue amount of scorn.

It's way later than I ever intended to be up writing any post here, much less bike safety. But after Teevens's accident we see its importance. So this is one of my soap boxes. Don't get me started on the value a great DT who can collapse the pocket from the inside, I may never get any sleep.

***EDIT***
I missed the part where you mention the message it sends, which is the real heart of what you're saying. So I totally apologize for missing the point (though not for typing the manifesto, I think that's important). I totally get what you're saying and agree it's a problem. I just wish more drivers were aware of this and thus more empathetic. It's silly to think of something like "bike awareness" as a priority considering all the issues we have in the world. So...I don't know??? I'll just continue to try to be the most vigilant and polite efficient rider I can be.

Here I have a bit of a problem. Obviously there are lots of cases where it doesn't matter if you stop at the stop sign. That is also true if you are driving a car. Many times you can see the 4 way stop is clear except for your vehicle. The problem I have is that bikes are supposed to be treated the same as motor vehicles. If so, they should behave the same as a motor vehicle would. When that isn't the case, drivers tend to say "See, they don't follow the rules. They aren't like cars and we can't/shouldn't treat them as such". Yes, you may be perfectly safe, but it sends the message "I don't necessarily follow the rules, and I alone decide whether I will or won't.", and IMO that is problematic. If you wouldn't run the sign in your car, IMO you shouldn't on your bike either. I know it is a pain, but I think that is part of the drill.

[Chupacabra]

I totally understand this sentiment. And I don't have too much hope in convincing others about it. This is actually what I wrote about 500 words on before heading downstairs to shooting the Grizz game. The best way I can explain it to those not on a bike is that slowing down to a cautious roll on a bike is effectively a stop. There are a few factors that make this the case. I hope I'm not getting too into it but this is one soapbox I'm glad to jump on.

• Because a bike is lighter than a motor vehicle by magnitudes, it is far more nimble than a car. (This is the most important reason). What does this mean? If you are at a controllable speed you are able to come to a complete stop very quickly. This doesn't mean blast through the stop signs, it means ease up so that you are able to stop completely if you have to. (Though it's not applicable here, it is the same for turning.) A bike just operates differently and is capable of different things than a car.
  
• If you're on a bike you aren't enclosed in metal and glass like you are in a vehicle. You're completely exposed to the environment. You can and should be significantly more aware of the nuances in the environment (traffic, pedestrians, texture of concrete, dampness, paint on the road, everything) than a driver. You can use this as a tool to be more efficient.
  

In addition to these facts about bike riding, I doubt the majority of the people here would come to a full stop at every stop sign if driving along, say 32nd Avenue in SF. If someone is crossing the street? Of course. At Taraval or Noriega? Absolutely. But who is going to come to an absolute and complete stop at 32nd and Pacheco with no other traffic of any kind? Some people, certainly. But not many.

I haven't even included the inertia argument (Newton's 1st law!) here because the reason to do something isn't the reason it should be legal/acceptable.

There's an interesting article about this here if you're interested. Basically arguing that the "Idaho Stop" should be legal. The article cites that in Boise, where it's the law for bikes to treat stop signs as yield signs, they have fewer bike-related accidents than in similar California cities.

By the letter of the law (except in Idaho, Aspen, and Boulder) you are correct and I don't argue that. I think it's a perfectly reasonable belief to hold. But also consider that maybe they shouldn't be? A car is a 2 ton machine powered by a motor that can drive 100+mph. A bike is a 20lb machine powered by human legs and goes about 20mph. They're way, way, way different.

I am huuuuuge on bike safety (as I think I've established pretty clearly) and I'm very confident that this a perfectly safe and acceptable way to ride.

I'm not even trying to change any minds on that specifically (though that'd be great!), I'm just trying to explain it so that drivers understand why it's reasonable and maybe they could become a little more empathetic to riders.  I am actually not really trying to change that perspective. What I do hope to evangelize (ha) is that it's a reasonable perspective. So maybe a driver might read this and have a little more empathy to riders. We sure get an undue amount of scorn.

It's way later than I ever intended to be up writing any post here, much less bike safety. But after Teevens's accident we see its importance. So this is one of my soap boxes. Don't get me started on the value a great DT who can collapse the pocket from the inside, I may never get any sleep.

***EDIT***
I missed the part where you mention the message it sends, which is the real heart of what you're saying. So I totally apologize for missing the point (though not for typing the manifesto, I think that's important). I totally get what you're saying and agree it's a problem. I just wish more drivers were aware of this and thus more empathetic. It's silly to think of something like "bike awareness" as a priority considering all the issues we have in the world. So...I don't know??? I'll just continue to try to be the most vigilant and polite efficient rider I can be.

Here I have a bit of a problem. Obviously there are lots of cases where it doesn't matter if you stop at the stop sign. That is also true if you are driving a car. Many times you can see the 4 way stop is clear except for your vehicle. The problem I have is that bikes are supposed to be treated the same as motor vehicles. If so, they should behave the same as a motor vehicle would. When that isn't the case, drivers tend to say "See, they don't follow the rules. They aren't like cars and we can't/shouldn't treat them as such". Yes, you may be perfectly safe, but it sends the message "I don't necessarily follow the rules, and I alone decide whether I will or won't.", and IMO that is problematic. If you wouldn't run the sign in your car, IMO you shouldn't on your bike either. I know it is a pain, but I think that is part of the drill.