Replies

I've gone on record in previous editions of this thread stating it's safer to make stopping at intersections optional for cyclists because then the cyclist can use his judgement, experience and momentum to prevent motorists' (usually horrific) judgement having any impact whatsoever on his safety.

I actually came across mention of these studies elsewhere but neglected to note the source, but went looking for them again when I decided to write this post I found this at (of all places) Wikipedia:

Safety
A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fact sheet published in March 2023 states that Stop as Yield and Red as Stop laws "showed added safety benefits for bicyclists in States where they were evaluated, and may positively affect the environment, traffic, and transportation". Acting Administrator Ann Carlson stated at a conference in October 2022 that "it increases [bicyclist] visibility to drivers and reduces their exposure. It also promotes safety in numbers by encouraging more people to bike which reduces cyclists overall risks.”
A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law). A Delaware state-run study of the "Delaware Yield" law (allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.
A study of rolling stops in Seattle determined that "results support the theoretical assertion that bicyclists are capable of making safe decisions regarding rolling stop", while a 2013 survey of stop as yield in Colorado localities where it is legal reported no increase in crashes. Another study done in Chicago showed that compliance with stop signs and stop lights by cyclists was low when cross-traffic was not present, but that most were still performing an Idaho Stop; and therefore "enforcing existing rules at these intersections would seem arbitrary and [capricious]".

(emphasis added)

Any momentum you can conserve from your "cruising speed" and use to cross an intersection more swiftly reduces your exposure and limits your risk of being squashed by an "I didn't see him" cager. Plus not coming to a complete stop and putting a foot down reduces the drama to those of us using clipless pedals.

And it would take several traffic tickets to add up to the cost of a single trip by ambulance to the ER (or the cost of a funeral). So when I approach an intersection I ask myself two questions:
1. If I shoot out there now, presuming all who approach are "reasonable" motorists, would I be leaving motorists so little room to react that they would feel compelled react to me? So much as lifting of the gas, even just a little. If no, then on to ...
2. Are any of the approaching vehicles close enough to the intersection that they could hit me, even if they floored the accelerator and tried to?

Two "No" answers mean I blow though the intersection with best possible speed.

Which, after all, is not only in my best interest, but the cager's as well, because they'd sooner not interact with a bicyclist if they didn't have to.

Food for thought:

"Why Bicyclists Hate Stop Signs" by UC Berkeley physics professor Joel Fajans and magazine writer and editor Melanie Curry (PDF, free to download)