This seems designed to start a bicycle argument.
I'll go ahead and present the cyclist's view, and try not to get flamed:
A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could. This means it's easier to assess safety and make a snap decision to keep going. Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety.
Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves. Cars kill people every day, so it is reasonable that they be held to a higher standard. If you started out with a bicycle-only intersection with a yield sign, and then started allowing cars through, wouldn't you want to increase the safety of that intersection by requiring a stop?
As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs. The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too) and in general roads are safer when you require drivers to think and make decisions. I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.
I'll go ahead and present the cyclist's view, and try not to get flamed:
A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could. This means it's easier to assess safety and make a snap decision to keep going. Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety.
Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves. Cars kill people every day, so it is reasonable that they be held to a higher standard. If you started out with a bicycle-only intersection with a yield sign, and then started allowing cars through, wouldn't you want to increase the safety of that intersection by requiring a stop?
As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs. The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too) and in general roads are safer when you require drivers to think and make decisions. I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.